User groups mean are no indication of a person's beliefs

[William]

Moderator Comment

"User groups mean nothing and are no indication of a person's beliefs."


I beg to differ.

It really depends on the label of the group and the group description.

For example.

The Group;
Disciple of Jesus Has in its title an indication of belief.

Furthermore, in its group description it has this to say;

Jesus said: “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples.� John 8:31. Everyone in this group accepts that, and tries to live according to it.

What is it that 'everyone in the group 'accepts'? The words are there to read for oneself.

What is it that indicates those in the group have a particular belief?

Again, the words in the group description indicate this.

Indeed, of the 30 individuals who joined this group, 28 are Christians. This is further indication of belief in relation to the group they joined.

Now lets look at another group.
Musician

An now lets examine the group description;

For those who are in a band or play a musical instrument.

Does being in this group indicate a persons beliefs? No it does not.

Thus, there ARE groups which do indeed have in their descriptions. indication of a person's beliefs.

To claim otherwise is to ignore that fact.

To stress the point further - user groups appear under the members avatar and are often pointed to as indication of the individuals position BY the individual members themselves, especially when others have wrongly identified the member as being in a position of believing something other than what is indicated on their user group list, under their avatar.
Essentially that is WHY the list is there in the first place. To indicate to others, ones position in general. The specifics can be discovered in the groups description and inform the reader as to what the person who JOINED the group, believes.

Thoughts?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by William]

While usergroups can be helpful to understand another user's position in general, they offer no real use in actual debate. What the user actually produces in the debate thread should be the 'target' for any further debate/discussion.

Are 'incorrectly' (subjective opinion of course) assigned usergroups confusing? Sure they are, but what does it matter? Are you more interested in properly labeling your debate opponents or debating the actual topics?

Let's be real, we all form opinions about the people who post in these debates. We can all pretty quickly see what they believe and what they don't. We all probably have our own 'private labels' for many users. However, it is not conducive to civility or constructive in a debate to start pulling out these private labels and forcibly asking the users to accept those rather than the ones they've chosen for themselves.

If someone's group membership appears confusing, I think it's fine to politely query about it, but once you get an answer, there's no point debating about it.

[William]

[Replying to post 2 by benchwarmer]

Well there is a point to debating about it in context with the topic and what the individual claims.

There is no point in debating about it once it is realized that the individual is using the process as a means of creating confusion and is unwilling to disengage from the practice.

If it is 'impolite' to call it out for what it is, then we shall all eventually see where that type of practice leads us as a species.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 3 by William]

Well the real problem lies in who gets to determine what some labels really mean. Clearly the generic label "Christian" means many things to many people. Thus, many people will choose this label and may have very few beliefs in line with someone else with the same label.

I still don't see what usergroup labels have to do with actual debate topics. Are you debating based on the topic of the thread or trying to get personal by debating whether someone has labelled themselves properly?

If they make a valid point (or not), it has nothing to do with what usergroups they have decided to join.

Now, I suppose if someone started a debate topic specifically to argue whether they can label themselves a "something", then I suppose it would be fair game to do so only in that thread. However, I have not seen this happen. What I have seen happen is someone doesn't like how a debate is going and decides it's a good idea to change the target of debate to the other debater(s). Usually the first sign of a lost debate.

[Divine Insight]

Jesus said: “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples.� John 8:31. Everyone in this group accepts that, and tries to live according to it.

Thoughts?

Where does it say anything about believing that Jesus was the virgin born Son of Yahweh, or that he miraculously rose from the dead?

Christians don't own the copyright on Jesus.

Also, isn't there already a potential problem with the very definition offered by the user group?

It's quote writings from a man name John, not a man named Jesus. In fact, insofar as I am aware, the man named Jesus never wrote anything down.

Christians themselves argue with each other over what they consider Jesus to have said, or even meant. Just look at the forum debates. Non-Christians often point out that things attributed to Jesus cannot possibly be taken literally. And the Christians agree! The Christians themselves demand that we must twist them into something that makes sense to us personally anyway because they clearly can't be taken literally in many cases.

So what does it mean to "remain in Jesus' word?" Everyone apparently sees words attributed to Jesus in a totally different way.

Besides, as a former Christian as I see it, I am far more in harmony with words attributed to Jesus than many Christians are. Especially given that allowing for our own personal metaphorical twisting of those words is not only permitted, but basically mandatory if the rumors of Jesus are to make any sense at all.

Also, consider the following: Paul never once claimed to be quoting Jesus. So we can toss out everything written by Paul as being totally irrelevant to this discussion. Paul doesn't claim to quote Jesus. Paul's opinions on Jesus have no more merit than our opinions.

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John often contain contradictions attributed to the words of Jesus. So we can't even take everything they have to say as being reliable.

Finally, just like every other "Christian" in the world, I have my own personal opinions and conclusions concerning things that Jesus might have potentially meant or actually said based on the unreliable contradictory Gospel Rumors.

For example, I have repeatedly shown verses in the Gospels where Jesus is quoted as proclaiming that there is no need to believe in him or in his words. I have shown repeatedly that Jesus has proclaimed in several places in the Gospels that the vast majority of people obtain eternal life via their own righteousness. In fact, in one place he even gives the numbers, and proclaims that 99 out of 100 people who go to heaven do so via their own righteousness, not because of repentance. This is dramatically different from what most Christian Churches teach, even though these same verses appear in their copy of the Gospel rumors too.

Maybe it's the Christian churches that have Jesus all wrong. Have you ever thought of that?

Also, just because a teacher happens to be teaching values, morals, and ideas that you personally agree with doesn't mean you can't still recognize them as a teacher, right?

As far as I can see, the Gospels even have Jesus instructing his "disciples" to NOT argue with people over the things he taught them, and instead to simply leave if people indicate that they aren't interested.

In fact, the Christian Church I was raised in actually embraced that view. They frowned upon belligerent or aggressive evangelism. They saw Jesus saying that if someone is interested, then by all means spend time with them and teach them what you know. But if people aren't interested, then kick the dust from your sandals and move on.

That is certainly not what many aggressive Christian evangelists do. To the contrary they will not only argue with other people over the teachings of Jesus for months or years on end, but they will often even make derogatory accusations toward those they are trying to push their evangelism onto. There is certainly nowhere in the Gospel rumors where Jesus told anyone to do that. Paul might have eluded to that type of tactic, but remember, Paul doesn't claim to be quoting Jesus. Instead Paul is preaching his own personal ideas of what he imagined Jesus to be. So the writings of Paul doesn't even come into consideration when speaking of being a "disciple of Jesus".

Being a disciple of Paul, is nowhere near the same as being a disciple of Jesus. That's a whole different thing entirely.

~~~~~

In the end, I actually agree that it's impossible for anyone living today to claim to be a 'Disciple of Jesus'. At best, all they can really say is that they have heard the hearsay rumors about Jesus and either agree with them or not. And even that is murky since it's impossible to know what they even think they are agreeing with. Considering that the Gospels rumors themselves are riddled with grave self-contradictions concerning the teachings and behavior of Jesus.

As we all know, Christians disagree with each other on what Jesus supposedly taught and stood for even if they are willing to agree on the rumors that Jesus was born of a virgin, was the Son of God, and rose from the dead. In fact, that's really the core of what it means to be a "Christian", IMHO.

This is why I refuse to call myself a "Christian". But I can still be a "Disciple of Jesus", if I want to. Just like I can also be a "Disciple of Buddha". Just because we consider someone to be a teacher, doesn't mean that we need to agree with everything they were ever rumored to have said.

I also consider myself to be a "Disciple of Isaac Newton", and a "Disciple of Albert Einstein", but this doesn't mean that I need to agree with every single opinion that either of these men ever held.

Keep in mind, that for me, Jesus was 'just a man' like the rest of us. He too was prone to making mistakes and using bad analogies like claiming that God feeds the birds, etc.

Just because we acknowledge someone as a "teacher" doesn't mean that we need to bow down and worship them as being "perfect". Teachers have flaws too.

Notice also that the user Group uses the name "Jesus", and not "Christ". Had it used the term "Christ" I would have never joined it, because that term already implies mythological assumptions.

But the name "Jesus" can be taken to mean an actual historical person. No need to believe that Jesus was the Son of any God.

Being a "Disciple of Jesus" I feel I can lay claim to, especially when every Christian has invented their own personal Jesus anyway. I can have a "Personal Walk with Jesus" too, just like I can have a "Personal Walk with Isaac Newton".

What decent Christian would ever deny someone's "Personal Walk with Jesus"?

I want no parts of claiming to be a "Disciple of Christ" however, because that already implies mythological conclusions that I disagree with.