John Dominic Crossan - Skepticism towards traditional Christianity

[element771]

That is basically what I said form my perspective concerning what it is to be a Christian. Your problem is a reading English issue, and clarify your position.

"I also consider him a Christian as he claims, . . ."

The substance of my post is I believe; "Christian can mean not believing the basis of the Christian faith."

Do you not believe "Christian can mean not believing the basis of the Christian faith."?

No I don't.

Words have meaning for a reason.

People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?": or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognizable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

This isn't about religion or theism...it is about language.

[element771]

Shuny,

There is a simple way to fix this tag issue.

Do you believe in God?

Just to be clear...I am not specifying the God of the Abrahamic tradition, it is just easier to write God.

Please answer using one of the following options: yes, no, not sure.

Also, don't go on a long diatribe about Socratic methods, questioning everything, etc. Don't give in to your overwhelming tendency of paralysis by analysis.

I too question everything on a pretty regular basis. BUT, at the end of the day...I believe in God.

[Adrift]

Shuny,

There is a simple way to fix this tag issue.

Do you believe in God?

Just to be clear...I am not specifying the God of the Abrahamic tradition, it is just easier to write God.

I don't think that would fix the tag issue. He has previously claimed to believe in God, and still does, yet also has expressed that he is, in fact, an agnostic. See here for instance:, "The reasons you gave lead me to question all religions, and take an agnostic skeptical approach to religion. Ultimately I am an agnostic, because I do not know and there is no specific objective evidence for God, nor convincing logical arguments that do not 'Beg the Question'."

shunya had long been suspected of being an agnostic before this admission simply based on the tone of his posts over the years (which always leaned heavily pro non-theism). Many people, myself included, believed that he used his Baha'i faith tag to move between subforums, and so that he could attack religion while maintaining some sort of neutrality (he's never been one to allow any of his beliefs to be definitively nailed down). His lack of understanding of even some basic Baha'i beliefs over the years seemed to confirm that he was, at best, a nominal Baha'i believer. I think the mods just got tired of his antics, and seized on his admission that he was, in fact, an agnostic, and finally nipped it in the bud.

[element771]

I don't think that would fix the tag issue. He has previously claimed to believe in God, and still does, yet also has expressed that he is, in fact, an agnostic. See here for instance:, "The reasons you gave lead me to question all religions, and take an agnostic skeptical approach to religion. Ultimately I am an agnostic, because I do not know and there is no specific objective evidence for God, nor convincing logical arguments that do not 'Beg the Question'."

shunya had long been suspected of being an agnostic before this admission simply based on the tone of his posts over the years (which always leaned heavily pro non-theism). Many people, myself included, believed that he used his Baha'i faith tag to move between subforums, and so that he could attack religion while maintaining some sort of neutrality (he's never been one to allow any of his beliefs to be definitively nailed down). His lack of understanding of even some basic Baha'i beliefs over the years seemed to confirm that he was, at best, a nominal Baha'i believer. I think the mods just got tired of his antics, and seized on his admission that he was, in fact, an agnostic, and finally nipped it in the bud.

Fair enough. I don't really know the history.

I think the ultimate problem is that Shuny doesn't like to take a solid position on anything. He may be a Baha'i but because he is "always questioning"...he comes across as being agnostic. I believe he does this to make himself seem intelligent. He isn't like us "sheep" Christians because he questions everything.

I knew a grad student who exhibited this behavior of paralysis by analysis. Sure, you come across as "thorough" but you ultimately never make a decision or take action on a situation which ultimately paralyzes the outcome. When confronted by this, the student would often say that we should excuse him because he is a "careful scientist" unlike the rest of us. This sounds exactly like something Shuny would say.

[Adrift]

Fair enough. I don't really know the history.

I think the ultimate problem is that Shuny doesn't like to take a solid position on anything. He may be a Baha'i but because he is "always questioning"...he comes across as being agnostic. I believe he does this to make himself seem intelligent. He isn't like us "sheep" Christians because he questions everything.

I knew a grad student who exhibited this behavior of paralysis by analysis. Sure, you come across as "thorough" but you ultimately never make a decision or take action on a situation which ultimately paralyzes the outcome. When confronted by this, the student would often say that we should excuse him because he is a "careful scientist" unlike the rest of us. This sounds exactly like something Shuny would say.

Yep, exactly. I mean, I suppose technically almost all of us could claim to be "agnostic", since very few of us can claim 100% certainty on most anything, but most of us are honest enough to make plain our convictions based on the percentage of certainty we do have. shunya's constant polemic against not only the Abrahamic religions (of which the Baha'i Faith is one), but religion in general, speaks heavily for where his true convictions lay.

[seer]

Yep, exactly. I mean, I suppose technically almost all of us could claim to be "agnostic", since very few of us can claim 100% certainty on most anything, but most of us are honest enough to make plain our convictions based on the percentage of certainty we do have. shunya's constant polemic against not only the Abrahamic religions (of which the Baha'i Faith is one), but religion in general, speaks heavily for where his true convictions lay.

Right, Shuny is always attacking the Bible, especially the Old Testament, yet the Baha'i Faith teaches that Abraham and Moses are manifestations of God.

[shunyadragon]

It looks like you edited and added to your post while I was replying to your original post, so I did not see this question.

As far as I'm aware, there is no place that JimL can post as an agnostic that he can't post as an atheist, so I can't see why the staff of TWeb would find this problematic. The purpose of having you change you faith designation (as I understand it) was to prevent you from posting in subfora you weren't allowed in. JimL doesn't really have that issue even if his faith designation is not exactly accurate.

Is the issue than where one can post, and not ones choice of tag to reflect their belief?

This sounds like a type of selective censorship, and not a question of whether one's tag line for belief reflects their belief.

[shunyadragon]

Right, Shuny is always attacking the Bible, especially the Old Testament, yet the Baha'i Faith teaches that Abraham and Moses are manifestations of God.

I attack some of the interpretations of the Bible and not the Bible. I believe Abraham and Moses are Manifestation of God. Can you cite me anywhere where I deny this?

[shunyadragon]

Yep, exactly. I mean, I suppose technically almost all of us could claim to be "agnostic", since very few of us can claim 100% certainty on most anything, but most of us are honest enough to make plain our convictions based on the percentage of certainty we do have. shunya's constant polemic against not only the Abrahamic religions (of which the Baha'i Faith is one), but religion in general, speaks heavily for where his true convictions lay.

I have never attacked any religion in and of itself. I have consistently attacked the traditional arguments for the existence of God, and reasons for belief. You cannot cite me anywhere, where I attacked religion in general nor attack any Abrahamic belief system.

Disagreeing with believers and considering them ancient worldviews not relevant to today is part of the reason I am a Baha'i now.

[element771]

Shuny,

Why not answer my question?

[Adrift]

Is the issue than where one can post, and not ones choice of tag to reflect their belief?

I'm assuming it has to do with both, but I imagine the main concern from the mods point of view is making sure that people who shouldn't be posting in certain subforums (based on their worldview) don't frustrate other posters when posting to exclusive sections of the website. As you are aware, there are sections of the website exclusive to only non-theists, and there are sections exclusive to only theists, so that those who share a worldview can discuss issues in peace without the concern of having to get into a debate with someone on a foundational issue. There are, of course, plenty of areas for theists and non-theists to debate as well.

I just noted, though, that the JimL example you offered only just happened last night. Fussing about it doesn't seem particularly fair seeing as the mods likely hadn't seen him post that. JimL himself admits that he leans more atheist rather than coming right out and saying he is, indeed, an atheist. That may be reason enough for him to keep the tag. Again, though, it doesn't allow him access to any other part of the forum he wouldn't normally have. I imagine it would be less of an issue from the mods perspective.

This sounds like a type of selective censorship, and not a question of whether one's tag line for belief reflects their belief.

It's a private webforum. The rules on this issue, as far as I can tell, haven't changed. If you don't like how things are done here you don't have to stay.

[Adrift]

I have never attacked any religion in and of itself. I have consistently attacked the traditional arguments for the existence of God, and reasons for belief. You cannot cite me anywhere, where I attacked religion in general nor attack any Abrahamic belief system.

Disagreeing with believers and considering them ancient worldviews not relevant to today is part of the reason I am a Baha'i now.

Yeah, I don't think anyone here is going to buy that song and dance. You routinely take the side of non-theism against theism, and have very often in the past taken aim at the Abrahamic faiths, specifically Christianity, but also Judaism and Islam. I'm not going through your post history to demonstrate that. If others are curious, they can dig through it themselves.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny,

Why not answer my question?

I believe in God.

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, I don't think anyone here is going to buy that song and dance. You routinely take the side of non-theism against theism, and have very often in the past taken aim at the Abrahamic faiths, specifically Christianity, but also Judaism and Islam. I'm not going through your post history to demonstrate that. If others are curious, they can dig through it themselves.

If you go through my post history you cannot demonstrate that.

In just a few posts prior to this one I defined my position and how I dialogue and debate. The main theme is debate against logical arguments for the existence of Good and justification of belief, and I will support sound science over bogus use of science to support apologetics arguments always. If you missed it, I believe in the Socratic method of the dialogue and debate in philosophy, which is to be skeptical of everything including ones own beliefs. Socrates was condemned to death, fortunately I was only forced to have the tag 'agnostic.'

[Doug Shaver]

And usage of long standing has Christian meaning among other criteria accepting Resurrection. Fact and narratives.

That has been the usage of a substantial fraction of people calling themselves Christians. The editors of the Oxford English Dictionary don't seem to have regarded it as a definitive usage.

Of course, calling Crossan an apostate, since he has been a Christian, is true, but if you like there are less reproachful terms

Being an outsider, I would just call him unorthodox. I accept that there is a body of beliefs that a majority of people calling themselves Christians regard as definitive of their religion, but I don't have to agree when they say, "Anyone who doesn't accept these beliefs is not a real Christian."

Anyhow, if I think I have good reason to doubt that the resurrection really happened, you're not going to change my mind by convincing me, if you could, that anyone who doubts it has no right to call themself a Christian.