Zzyzx wrote:
.
“We are members of an exclusive club that provides after-death benefits -- but we cannot agree what is required to become a member. So make up whatever you wish and call yourself a member.“
Well that branches out way beyond the boarders of Christendom. The way I approach data which exists within different theist and non-theist interpretations of their subjective experiences, is to accept what they all offer and from that see if the pieces can fit together to form a more comprehensive picture than they do by themselves, as group beliefs.
William wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
William wrote:
How is that a matter of debate unless there should be a correct answer,
Many questions without 'correct answers' are debated.
Sure. So my answers might be the correct ones. How could anyone be able to tell though? Will debate on this predictably give a definitive answer that all can agree with? I say 'no' and give reasons for why that is the case.
Debate on the topic calls attention to there being no set requirements for joining the Christian Club – thus, claiming membership is largely meaningless.
To the outsider, sure. But what of that? It is already known so what point is there in offering it up as something to 'debate'? Indeed, such types of questions simply circulate - so it is debate going nowhere and has been since ancient times.
When debate simply becomes a form of entertaining distraction, it loses credibility as any particular education device for advancing knowledge and truth.
William wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
It seems as though those who identify as Christian SHOULD be able to say what is required to become a Christian.
Why? What reason would there be for this having to be the case? The best anyone could hope for is for those who call themselves Christians to say why THEY - as individuals decide what is required of them to become a Christian.
Exactly. Membership in the Christian Club has no generally accepted requirements so every individual can make up their own.
This is indeed what happens. Nothing to debate in that.
William wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
That the various sects and individuals cannot agree on the requirements indicates that there are NO set requirements.
Well one springs to mind. Jesus said “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.� so if anyone wants to know what a follower of Jesus is, that would be a good place to start looking.
If that is / was a requirement set by Jesus himself, it seems to eliminate many or most who self-identify as followers of (or disciples of) Jesus.
What we are looking for is Love. Does love exist in Christendom?
We could say 'yes, there it is' displayed in the actions of those within their particular 'clubs' but are we to see that this love is about Jesus or is it more about group agreement? Do they love one another because of Jesus or because of the particular doctrine/dogma they agree with?
How can we tell?
We could look, for example, at the common denominator - the claim "we follow Jesus" and then find the same claim in another and another group, and then from there - we see that they do indeed love one another within the group but do not recognize members of other groups claiming to follow Jesus also, so therefore they do not love those other members of other groups because they judge the other groups as NOT following Jesus.
What is the other common denominator?
Doctrine/dogma.
So we can observe the groups developing Doctrine/dogma and then trying to dovetail Jesus into these things in order to give those things Authority.
The other way around would mean that doctrine/dogma becomes unnecessary.
All that Jesus requires of his followers is that they love one another.
This also applies to doctrine/dogma - all that is required is that you love the doctrine/dogma and this shows that you follow after the doctrine/dogma.
William wrote:
Christianity came along later and all those various 'requirements' which Christians seem to be in disagreement with, seem besides the point.
If the supposed founder of a club set one requirement and later club officials largely ignore (or pay lip service to) that requirement but invent their own variable requirements, it seems as though the club is no longer true to the supposed founder.
That would be a logical conclusion, therefore a truthful observation.
William wrote:
Or in other words..."What does it take to become a Christian?" is subject to 'what type of Christian' is subject to 'what type of Christianity', and thus how is that debatable when the information is freely available on the internet?
Therein one can see for themselves that there are many different types thus it is obvious that there have to be as many different requirements
Yes. The club seems to have been hijacked in many different, competing directions.
Can we even go so far as to drop the 'seems to' bit of that statement?
It was never itended to be a club but a way of life, largely different from the way life had been lived up to that point.
William wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
If one asks 'What does it take to become an airline pilot?' the requirements are clearly specified.
Is there only one type of airline pilot then?
Yes – the term 'airline pilot' includes only those who are qualified to fly airliners. There are specific requirements for joining the club 'airline pilot'.
Individuals are not authorized to claim membership in that club without meeting specific requirements OR to make up their own 'requirements'.
Training is required. One has to learn to Love. One has to learn what it means to actually 'follow Jesus' rather than follow after the made up requirements.
William wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
William wrote:
which is why I asked you for your answer.
Is this to say that my answer is the correct answer?
I would say, as a simple statement, yes - it is correct (if I am understanding you correctly.)
Should I, a Non-Theist, be in a position to say what is required to become a Christian?
No. But your question is non-theist presumption that there should be a common answer. Why the presumption, when a simple net search can show you that is not the case?
Careful reading of the OP question does not include a 'Non-Theist presumption'.
I did not say the OP was making the presumption.
Is it difficult to distinguish between a question and a declaration?
Not when one knows how to tell the difference.
The OP question: “Does anyone think that they can identify what it takes to become a Christian?� clearly does NOT make a presumption.
No. It is making the presumption that there is one answer which can satisfy all.
'What it takes to become a Christian' is not the same as "what it takes to become a follower of Jesus." to think otherwise is to presume that this is the case.
The idea accompanying the OP suggests that no one can say for sure - what a 'Christian' is , and therefore that no one is entitled to dispute the statement "I am a 'Christian'".
All that can be asked from that person is to say which type of 'Christian' they identify as being'.
