John Dominic Crossan - Skepticism towards traditional Christianity

[Doug Shaver]

Exactly! Just because I eat meat on an almost daily basis doesn't mean that I'm not a Vegan. People who denounce me as a non-Vegan are really only doing it because they don't like my idiosyncratic take on Veganism.

How does that contradict what I said about usage? Can you show me anyone who says "I'm a vegan" while eating a hamburger (while also denying being a hypocrite)?

[Doug Shaver]

The way many Christian groups define "Christianity" is in the adherence to historic confessions of faith.

I haven't denied that the historic creeds represent the dominant usage. I am denying (a) that they represent the only usage and (b) that the dominant usage is the only relevant usage.

That noted, if you wish to convince me that Christianity, as defined by your own usage, is true, then any other usage will be irrelevant to to our discussion.

[Doug Shaver]

The Roman Church of course has no authority here.

If I want to know whether someone is or is not a Roman Catholic, the Roman Church is the only authority I will accept.

[shunyadragon]

If I want to know whether someone is or is not a Roman Catholic, the Roman Church is the only authority I will accept.

As an atheist do you accept anything the Roman Church says?

I reserve the right to disagree with both Crossan and the Roman Church, and I accept neither as an authority on anything.

[Doug Shaver]

As an atheist do you accept anything the Roman Church says?

Not just anything, but I do accept some things the church says.

[Doug Shaver]

I reserve the right to disagree with both Crossan and the Roman Church, and I accept neither as an authority on anything.

I'm not disputing your right to do anything. I'm disputing your justification for believing some things.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not disputing your right to do anything.

It appears by the previous post your were invoking the authority of the Roman Church in the decision making process, which from my perspective is ridiculous.

If I want to know whether someone is or is not a Roman Catholic, the Roman Church is the only authority I will accept.

I believe you are overstating the authority of Roman Church as to whether who is or is not a believer.

[Doug Shaver]

It appears by the previous post your were invoking the authority of the Roman Church in the decision making process, which from my perspective is ridiculous.

The only decision pertinent to my previous post is whether I will believe that somebody who claims to be a Roman Catholic is one.

I believe you are overstating the authority of Roman Church as to whether who is or is not a believer.

I said nothing about whether anyone is a believer. I was talking about whether someone is a Roman Catholic. If the question is whether someone believes, I will take their word for it if they say they do, absent any good evidence that they're lying.

[shunyadragon]

The only decision pertinent to my previous post is whether I will believe that somebody who claims to be a Roman Catholic is one.


I said nothing about whether anyone is a believer. I was talking about whether someone is a Roman Catholic. If the question is whether someone believes, I will take their word for it if they say they do, absent any good evidence that they're lying.

It is not a matter of lying. If someone provides a detailed description of their beliefs that is diametrically opposed and contradictory to their claim than it is very simply, I don't buy it.

[element771]

Doug,

What is your definition of a Christian?

[shunyadragon]

Doug

I want to emphasize I do consider Crossan a Christian, because of the wide diversity of beliefs of those who call themselves Christian from the Unitarians to the most rigidly orthodox fundamentalist evangelicals, but the description of Jesus by Crossan is a humanist Unitarian Jesus. No Resurrection, no Revelation from God, no miracles, no Trinity, and no God, just a rebel with a naive idealistic cause.

[element771]

Doug

I want to emphasize I do consider Crossan a Christian, because of the wide diversity of beliefs of those who call themselves Christian from the Unitarians to the most rigidly orthodox fundamentalist evangelicals, but the description of Jesus by Crossan is a humanist Unitarian Jesus. No Resurrection, no Revelation from God, no miracles, no Trinity, and no God, just a rebel with a naive idealistic cause.

This has got to be one of the most nonsensical ideas ever. You consider someone a Christian who doesn't hold any of the tenants of the faith.

Why do we even have language if you can make words mean anything that you want them to?

[shunyadragon]

This has got to be one of the most nonsensical ideas ever. You consider someone a Christian who doesn't hold any of the tenants of the faith.

Why do we even have language if you can make words mean anything that you want them to?

Not true, there is a distinct difference between the diverse beliefs of Christians, and being a Traditional believer in Christianity, all those who believe in some version of Apostles Creed, and the Trinity. There are a wide variety and diversity of other believers who follow a different version that don't believe in the Trinity, to those like Unitarians that believe in a humanist Jesus. I do differentiate between As long as they are not overtly contradictory, like Crossan, concerning the belief of their chosen faith or church than I accept their claim, which is not an indication I agree with their choice or belief.

Crossan describes his belief in Jesus as a humanist Unitarian Jesus. No Resurrection, no Revelation from God, no miracles, no Trinity, and no God, just a rebel with a naive idealistic cause, and yet claims to irrevocably Roman Catholic, which is diametrically opposed, and overtly contradictory with the beliefs of the Roman Church.

[Doug Shaver]

Doug,

What is your definition of a Christian?

[shunyadragon]

I agree. I consider Crossan a Christian.