' Defining Christianity ' How?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

' Houston, we have a problem! '

On the surface of things, Christianity is easy to define. It comes from Christ and Christ comes from the 1st century personage of Jesus.

With the proliferation of interpretation and disagreement around the circumstances of the Jesus happening...the whole thing becomes like a competitive game of stick- stacking. Invariably ,all ends down in a heap.

Define - late Middle English: from Latin definitio(n- ), from the verb definire ‘set bounds to’ (see define).

How do you set bounds to this metropolis of a religious sprawl?

I would start here and probably end very close by.

Matthew 5:16
' Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.'

Start at the table of hard graft.

Question:How would you begin to define Christianity?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #24]

Infantile. Look, this is the stuff of Sci -fi fandom. Affictionadoes treat the world of Startrek (not Star wars which is simply fantasy) as though it was real.How does a transporter work? How does a replicator work? Can you bunk in with a crewmate off duty or is against regulations.

That is all fine so long as the adherents do not take it seriously.

Of course at one time, people seriously discussed the details of Jesus' life as based on Bible comments which are as likely to be metaphorical as not, while they try to excuse wrong things as 'we can't understand what they meant' they take as serious clues to the minutiae of Jesus' daily doings as though it mattered, never mind whether it's true.

I suggest you confine your posts to proper apologetics and hot Biblical fanfic speculations.

Hello
Would anyone care to evaluate this Post(or mine). I personally have lost the will to live.
Thanks

Have you read Screwtape Letters, by chance? There’s a chapter where the Uncle undergoes a change. There’s a reason why and there’s an outcome that is connected to the reason. This might be of help to you. Your posts have been helpful to me, if that’s any comfort.

[Mae von H]

A Christian is someone who identifies as a Christian.

If they're misled, that's on the misleader. If they're faking that's between them and God. If it's all fakery then it doesn't really matter, except that people can still be twisting essentially good teachings toward their own benefit. And they can still be called out.

More difficult than you imagine. But you don’t avoid them. You just know that what they say or teach or preach might very well be off. Depends upon the topic.

If you're a Christian and you really, really think they're faking, and you know you're not faking, you're probably right and you don't have to associate with them.

No one knows for sure who has it right, so if we make that part of the definition, we have a meaningless term.

Not how we work as I said.

Even a physicist doesn't have to have only correct theorems to be a physicist. Likewise, if we baked into the definition of physicist, the idea that he is absolutely correct about all of physics, we would have a completely useless term.

A physicist doesn’t have a relationship with the particles. That’s the problem. They claim a relationship they don’t have.

[Mae von H]

Yes. This is the whole Epistemology argument, and the basis for one of the pillars (if not THE pillar) of Biblical apologetics: questioning the validity of human knowledge. We have see it so many tomes No matter how strong the evidence is, 'I don't beleive you' and that supposedlyleaves the faithclaim in place as the default argument.

Human knowledge isn't absolute, so it's a solid basis. In areas other than faith we have ways to get closer to the truth, but in distant history or religion, we don't. We don't know who's a good person or a bad one, for example. So if somebody simply opts to reject another's claims I see that as valid. The overarching truth though, is that either of them (or neither) might be right.

the belief that God is downloading true information into their heads,

How much charity can we give this, though? If a fair god existed, I doubt he'd implant people with incorrect morality. God actually might be implanting us with false morality so we fail and he gets to punish us, and this might delight him. But a fair god wouldn't do that. So the idea that their intuitive brains have morality right, derives from the idea that there's a fair god.

It’s interesting what you and Transponder are saying. It’s Epistomology as T said, and you both explore knowing the truth. Your positions reflect the promise of Jesus that if we DO what He taught, we will come to know that we know the truth. This confidence is not understood by those who don’t do his teachings. This includes believers.

What’s interesting also is that one comes to know right from wrong in oneself and others. We know who is good and who is bad when it’s important. It’s quite useful when deciding who to trust.

[Purple Knight]

A Christian is someone who identifies as a Christian.

If they're misled, that's on the misleader. If they're faking that's between them and God. If it's all fakery then it doesn't really matter, except that people can still be twisting essentially good teachings toward their own benefit. And they can still be called out.

More difficult than you imagine. But you don’t avoid them. You just know that what they say or teach or preach might very well be off. Depends upon the topic.

If you're a Christian and you really, really think they're faking, and you know you're not faking, you're probably right and you don't have to associate with them.

No one knows for sure who has it right, so if we make that part of the definition, we have a meaningless term.

Not how we work as I said.

Even a physicist doesn't have to have only correct theorems to be a physicist. Likewise, if we baked into the definition of physicist, the idea that he is absolutely correct about all of physics, we would have a completely useless term.

A physicist doesn’t have a relationship with the particles. That’s the problem. They claim a relationship they don’t have.

My point is, if you have to know who is right before you decide who technically counts as a Christian, you have a meaningless term because nobody can know for sure. A physicist is a physicist even if he is still wrong in some of his theories. It's about what he's studying, not whether or not he's correct. If you must know he is correct before you call him a physicist then we can't even apply the definition.

Yes, but it isn't good enough, is it? You know the excuse 'God doesn't want robots'. But if downloading morality into our heads isn't making Robots, why would downloading an effective morality everyone agrees on (let alone observe) make us any more robotic? ]]It is of course an excuse for why God's work isn't better. Some say God can't make his reality too obvious; others blame Satan. It is all excuses for an inadequate argument.

I think it works okay if we all know true morality, but it's hard sometimes to follow it. If people legitimately disagree on morality, with no selfish interest involved, I think that's a knockdown against a fair god existing.

In short, Biology and evolution, logic and science, has a better explanation of morals than a god, whichever one the apologist is rooting for..

Well, they might fear that then, morality is unenforceable. One monkey evolves to do better with strategy A. That is now moral for him. Another evolves to be optimised for strategy B. So for him, B is moral.

Frankly I worry about this too because to me, this means that if monkey #2 evolved to be murderous or parasitical, and he comes and wants to murder me or take all my stuff, I have to let him because what he's doing is the right strategy for him, and if I evolved so that fighting, killing, and hurting is immoral, well then, I have to follow that.

I see no validity in "God says" but if he said it was okay to defend ourselves from Monkey #2, I'd be rooting for him whether he existed or not.

[Mae von H]

A Christian is someone who identifies as a Christian.

If they're misled, that's on the misleader. If they're faking that's between them and God. If it's all fakery then it doesn't really matter, except that people can still be twisting essentially good teachings toward their own benefit. And they can still be called out.

More difficult than you imagine. But you don’t avoid them. You just know that what they say or teach or preach might very well be off. Depends upon the topic.

If you're a Christian and you really, really think they're faking, and you know you're not faking, you're probably right and you don't have to associate with them.

No one knows for sure who has it right, so if we make that part of the definition, we have a meaningless term.

Not how we work as I said.

Even a physicist doesn't have to have only correct theorems to be a physicist. Likewise, if we baked into the definition of physicist, the idea that he is absolutely correct about all of physics, we would have a completely useless term.

A physicist doesn’t have a relationship with the particles. That’s the problem. They claim a relationship they don’t have.

My point is, if you have to know who is right before you decide who technically counts as a Christian, you have a meaningless term because nobody can know for sure. A physicist is a physicist even if he is still wrong in some of his theories. It's about what he's studying, not whether or not he's correct. If you must know he is correct before you call him a physicist then we can't even apply the definition.

Interesting point, but I don’t agree. Knowing who is a christian is not the same as knowing who is a certain professional. A christian is a person who is following Christ. That’s relationship. When I wrote I’d be careful about what a fake christian says, it’s because I know they aren’t receiving understanding from Jesus. They’ve no relationship to do so. I suspect an atheist hasn’t a clue as to how one knows this and it’s difficult to find a good example. If several people were on a project to write a book about a man, and two of them had actually been close friends with him and another just pretended he was, the real deals would know the faker was faking. How? By what he said. That’s the closest example I can think of.

Yes, but it isn't good enough, is it? You know the excuse 'God doesn't want robots'. But if downloading morality into our heads isn't making Robots, why would downloading an effective morality everyone agrees on (let alone observe) make us any more robotic?

We already have a downloaded morality in our heads. All humans agree murder is wrong. All humans agree stealing is wrong. All humans agree rape is wrong. You’re assuming KNOWING some act is wrong means we DON’T do it. That’s where you make an error.

]]It is of course an excuse for why God's work isn't better. Some say God can't make his reality too obvious; others blame Satan. It is all excuses for an inadequate argument.

I think it works okay if we all know true morality, but it's hard sometimes to follow it. If people legitimately disagree on morality, with no selfish interest involved, I think that's a knockdown against a fair god existing.

Where do people legitimately disagree on the wrongness of murder, rape, theft, torture and a few others. What are the points of disagreement?

In short, Biology and evolution, logic and science, has a better explanation of morals than a god, whichever one the apologist is rooting for..

Well, they might fear that then, morality is unenforceable. One monkey evolves to do better with strategy A. That is now moral for him. Another evolves to be optimised for strategy B. So for him, B is moral.

Frankly I worry about this too because to me, this means that if monkey #2 evolved to be murderous or parasitical, and he comes and wants to murder me or take all my stuff, I have to let him because what he's doing is the right strategy for him, and if I evolved so that fighting, killing, and hurting is immoral, well then, I have to follow that.

I see no validity in "God says" but if he said it was okay to defend ourselves from Monkey #2, I'd be rooting for him whether he existed or not.

No monkeys have been observed to evolve one iota. But it’s an interesting development in those who faithfully believe they are doing so despite no evidence. That’s a strong faith.

[TRANSPONDER]

A Christian is someone who identifies as a Christian.

If they're misled, that's on the misleader. If they're faking that's between them and God. If it's all fakery then it doesn't really matter, except that people can still be twisting essentially good teachings toward their own benefit. And they can still be called out.

More difficult than you imagine. But you don’t avoid them. You just know that what they say or teach or preach might very well be off. Depends upon the topic.

If you're a Christian and you really, really think they're faking, and you know you're not faking, you're probably right and you don't have to associate with them.

No one knows for sure who has it right, so if we make that part of the definition, we have a meaningless term.

Not how we work as I said.

Even a physicist doesn't have to have only correct theorems to be a physicist. Likewise, if we baked into the definition of physicist, the idea that he is absolutely correct about all of physics, we would have a completely useless term.

A physicist doesn’t have a relationship with the particles. That’s the problem. They claim a relationship they don’t have.

My point is, if you have to know who is right before you decide who technically counts as a Christian, you have a meaningless term because nobody can know for sure. A physicist is a physicist even if he is still wrong in some of his theories. It's about what he's studying, not whether or not he's correct. If you must know he is correct before you call him a physicist then we can't even apply the definition.

Interesting point, but I don’t agree. Knowing who is a christian is not the same as knowing who is a certain professional. A christian is a person who is following Christ. That’s relationship. When I wrote I’d be careful about what a fake christian says, it’s because I know they aren’t receiving understanding from Jesus. They’ve no relationship to do so. I suspect an atheist hasn’t a clue as to how one knows this and it’s difficult to find a good example. If several people were on a project to write a book about a man, and two of them had actually been close friends with him and another just pretended he was, the real deals would know the faker was faking. How? By what he said. That’s the closest example I can think of.

Yes, but it isn't good enough, is it? You know the excuse 'God doesn't want robots'. But if downloading morality into our heads isn't making Robots, why would downloading an effective morality everyone agrees on (let alone observe) make us any more robotic?

We already have a downloaded morality in our heads. All humans agree murder is wrong. All humans agree stealing is wrong. All humans agree rape is wrong. You’re assuming KNOWING some act is wrong means we DON’T do it. That’s where you make an error.

No, the error is yours. You produced a strawman, understandable but not the argument. The instinct of survival and co -operation as well as looking after No 1 is an instinct 'downloaded' by evolution through DNA. There always going o be an instinct to get for ourselves or the family vs.the social rules based on everyone respecting the rights of others. This is seen in critter of many kinds as hellof societies of various kinds. It was downloaded into the heads of people who had no belief in your god.

]]It is of course an excuse for why God's work isn't better. Some say God can't make his reality too obvious; others blame Satan. It is all excuses for an inadequate argument.

I think it works okay if we all know true morality, but it's hard sometimes to follow it. If people legitimately disagree on morality, with no selfish interest involved, I think that's a knockdown against a fair god existing.

I think it makes more sense as a common human instinct, especially as we see it in pack animals, too. Also, you note you said 'a fairgod', You seem to understand, it doesn't tell us which god, even if it was a better hypothesis than evolved instinct.

Where do people legitimately disagree on the wrongness of murder, rape, theft, torture and a few others. What are the points of disagreement?

In short, Biology and evolution, logic and science, has a better explanation of morals than a god, whichever one the apologist is rooting for..

Well, they might fear that then, morality is unenforceable. One monkey evolves to do better with strategy A. That is now moral for him. Another evolves to be optimised for strategy B. So for him, B is moral.

Frankly I worry about this too because to me, this means that if monkey #2 evolved to be murderous or parasitical, and he comes and wants to murder me or take all my stuff, I have to let him because what he's doing is the right strategy for him, and if I evolved so that fighting, killing, and hurting is immoral, well then, I have to follow that.

I see no validity in "God says" but if he said it was okay to defend ourselves from Monkey #2, I'd be rooting for him whether he existed or not.

The problem is you have been sold the idea of a good, fair moral system, and if it doesn't work, it's man's fault. When it comes down to it, Me, monkeys, or wolves or dolphins have evolved to co -operate because the common interest makes life better for the individual, as well as the pack. We have lost sight of this as life has been made too easy and we don't need to struggle.

No monkeys have been observed to evolve one iota. But it’s an interesting development in those who faithfully believe they are doing so despite no evidence. That’s a strong faith.

No, it's based on evidence. I know that creationists scoff at 'it takes time' as an excuse. Changes have been observed, but that, too is dismissed as 'still within kinds'. I think we did penguins evolving, horses evolving and of course whales and the like evolving. It takes 100,000 years for an eohippus to turn into Eqqus, and still the creationists say 'It's still horse -kind'. You need a couple of million years for Pakicetus to whales or apes to humans. You don't see it happen before your very eyes, and frankly it is a lack of honesty, fairness and/or education to not argue evolution as it is, not as some 'moths to mammoths' strawman.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Post 10 - "Many denominations are like a brood of ducklings thriving under the assurance of a collective parent. The whole endeavour is blurred, irrevocably!
Christian Unity .....NO!
Definition ......NO!
Recognition and Influence.....????
A communal splash about!"

-------
This issue is really bugging me. Otseng is entitled to his opinion, ..like everyone else. A resurrection and a Divinity to Jesus as The Christ is a deal breaker for him as a devout Christian. I ,on the other hand can avoid these absolutes with ease. I am a Jesus follower.

Otseng and I, both share the Bible, whether it is as a general theistic reference or as the Authoritive Word of God.
Jesus drags me into Christianity as it appears to be the only specific theistic experiment, with his message at its centre, that I can find....a poor excuse, I admit!

The point is that both Otseng and I appear to regard ourselves as Christians. We may well have common beliefs, our attitude to God could not be more different but it may well be the same God. How does that work? Jesus, as a 1st Century Jew, drags me back into the biblical context of his being. So what is bugging me?

Let us go back to the baby ducks.

I feel like the fattest ,ugliest duckling on the pond.
I am having a great time under the parentage of this Christianity thing. Complacency reigns!

If I put petrol in my car that has been sold by Russia, am I a murderer of Ukrainian children? Am I allowed a moral amnesty in the Supermarket as a Christian.
We all can go to Mass but can any of us do the graft? Where is the push that I expect from a Jesus follower? Is the Jesus impetus still with us as the declared entity, that is Christianity?

Thanks

ps: 'God Bless the U.S.A. Bible'.....????!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #24]

Infantile. Look, this is the stuff of Sci -fi fandom. Affictionadoes treat the world of Startrek (not Star wars which is simply fantasy) as though it was real.How does a transporter work? How does a replicator work? Can you bunk in with a crewmate off duty or is against regulations.

That is all fine so long as the adherents do not take it seriously.

Of course at one time, people seriously discussed the details of Jesus' life as based on Bible comments which are as likely to be metaphorical as not, while they try to excuse wrong things as 'we can't understand what they meant' they take as serious clues to the minutiae of Jesus' daily doings as though it mattered, never mind whether it's true.

I suggest you confine your posts to proper apologetics and hot Biblical fanfic speculations.

Hello
Would anyone care to evaluate this Post(or mine). I personally have lost the will to live.
Thanks

Have you read Screwtape Letters, by chance? There’s a chapter where the Uncle undergoes a change. There’s a reason why and there’s an outcome that is connected to the reason. This might be of help to you. Your posts have been helpful to me, if that’s any comfort.

I have read the Screwtape letters. Also the Perelandra trilogy, have you? Indeed I was quite a CS Lewis fan in my teens, though I of course saw the obvious Christian propaganda. Indeed, it was seeing through his flawed propaganda that made me even more of a questioner and doubter.

The Scewtape thing is a Plot line set up to validate his points.

What does he know about Demons, really? I reckon nothing. They are fairytale characters invented to underpin his own faithclaims.

They are lovely fantasies, but fantasies, nonetheless.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #24]

Infantile. Look, this is the stuff of Sci -fi fandom. Affictionadoes treat the world of Startrek (not Star wars which is simply fantasy) as though it was real.How does a transporter work? How does a replicator work? Can you bunk in with a crewmate off duty or is against regulations.

That is all fine so long as the adherents do not take it seriously.

Of course at one time, people seriously discussed the details of Jesus' life as based on Bible comments which are as likely to be metaphorical as not, while they try to excuse wrong things as 'we can't understand what they meant' they take as serious clues to the minutiae of Jesus' daily doings as though it mattered, never mind whether it's true.

I suggest you confine your posts to proper apologetics and hot Biblical fanfic speculations.

Hello
Would anyone care to evaluate this Post(or mine). I personally have lost the will to live.
Thanks

Have you read Screwtape Letters, by chance? There’s a chapter where the Uncle undergoes a change. There’s a reason why and there’s an outcome that is connected to the reason. This might be of help to you. Your posts have been helpful to me, if that’s any comfort.

I have read the Screwtape letters. Also the Perelandra trilogy, have you? Indeed I was quite a CS Lewis fan in my teens, though I of course saw the obvious Christian propaganda. Indeed, it was seeing through his flawed propaganda that made me even more of a questioner and doubter.

The Scewtape thing is a Plot line set up to validate his points.

What does he know about Demons, really? I reckon nothing. They are fairytale characters invented to underpin his own faithclaims.

They are lovely fantasies, but fantasies, nonetheless.

I’m very glad you missed my point. It was a message to Masterblaster that was veiled on purpose. I can only say, “whew, dodged that bullet.”

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #24]

Infantile. Look, this is the stuff of Sci -fi fandom. Affictionadoes treat the world of Startrek (not Star wars which is simply fantasy) as though it was real.How does a transporter work? How does a replicator work? Can you bunk in with a crewmate off duty or is against regulations.

That is all fine so long as the adherents do not take it seriously.

Of course at one time, people seriously discussed the details of Jesus' life as based on Bible comments which are as likely to be metaphorical as not, while they try to excuse wrong things as 'we can't understand what they meant' they take as serious clues to the minutiae of Jesus' daily doings as though it mattered, never mind whether it's true.

I suggest you confine your posts to proper apologetics and hot Biblical fanfic speculations.

Hello
Would anyone care to evaluate this Post(or mine). I personally have lost the will to live.
Thanks

Have you read Screwtape Letters, by chance? There’s a chapter where the Uncle undergoes a change. There’s a reason why and there’s an outcome that is connected to the reason. This might be of help to you. Your posts have been helpful to me, if that’s any comfort.

I have read the Screwtape letters. Also the Perelandra trilogy, have you? Indeed I was quite a CS Lewis fan in my teens, though I of course saw the obvious Christian propaganda. Indeed, it was seeing through his flawed propaganda that made me even more of a questioner and doubter.

The Scewtape thing is a Plot line set up to validate his points.

What does he know about Demons, really? I reckon nothing. They are fairytale characters invented to underpin his own faithclaims.

They are lovely fantasies, but fantasies, nonetheless.

I’m very glad you missed my point. It was a message to Masterblaster that was veiled on purpose. I can only say, “whew, dodged that bullet.”

I'm more concerned with the very plain message to me, intended to wrongfoot me. No, no, sorry.That was to masterblaster. Let me look. Or maybe not. Masterblaster purported to be above responding to my post (as distinct from being unable to) and invited others to pinch -hit. That you did chucking Screwtrape at me, which I dult took down. Ball back in your court.