John Dominic Crossan - Skepticism towards traditional Christianity

[element771]

I agree. I consider Crossan a Christian.

I am an atheist.

I just happen to believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only son who died for our sins. He was then bodily resurrected after three days to proclaim the kingdom of God has arrived.

Anyone going to TAM this year?

[element771]

So in your opinion, words can have any meaning that a person ascribes to them.

[shunyadragon]

I am an atheist.

I just happen to believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only son who died for our sins. He was then bodily resurrected after three days to proclaim the kingdom of God has arrived.

Anyone going to TAM this year?

Sarcasm gets you nowhere in this dialogue. Doug Shaver and I are relatively neutral on who calls themselves 'Christian,' as well as the diverse believers in different religions around the world. We have no investment in belief as to who is right, nor which of the many diverse churches is the true 'Way.' Virtually all the people I know describe their beliefs as roughly conforming to their affiliation. Consistency is an important issue in what people claim to believe and actually how they describe their beliefs. This would be most important if one is a well known scholar like Corrosan.

I more than doubt your sincerity hanging out the 'Atheist' shingle, like Crossan it is not remotely consistent with your nor his claim affiliation.

If you want to address a real contradiction, talk with Robrecht, who believes that Crossan's beliefs as he describes them are compatible with his claim of being belief irrevocably in the Roman Church.

What is TAM? You might ask Robrecht if he is going.

[Sea of red]

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?

I think it's more complicated than that.

Christianity is composed of a philosophy, a metaphysics, and a theology. The philosophy is usually agreed upon - The Golden Rule and such. The metaphysics is also usually something most Christians agree on in that most believe in a creator God, afterlife, prayer, and man having some sort of a special connection with God. It's usually the theology that can get messy. Most agree Jesus was some sort of prophet, but people like Crossan and Borg see events like the resurrection as having more philosophical importance - as opposed to any strict theology.

I say if you get two out of three, you should able to call yourself a Christian.

[seer]

Most agree Jesus was some sort of prophet, but people like Crossan and Borg see events like the resurrection as having more philosophical importance - as opposed to any strict theology.

I never understood this, what philosophical importance could there be if Christ wasn't actually resurrected?

[element771]

I think it's more complicated than that.

Christianity is composed of a philosophy, a metaphysics, and a theology. The philosophy is usually agreed upon - The Golden Rule and such. The metaphysics is also usually something most Christians agree on in that most believe in a creator God, afterlife, prayer, and man having some sort of a special connection with God. It's usually the theology that can get messy. Most agree Jesus was some sort of prophet, but people like Crossan and Borg see events like the resurrection as having more philosophical importance - as opposed to any strict theology.

I say if you get two out of three, you should able to call yourself a Christian.

I don't think Crossan is in line with the metaphysics angle either.

If you don't believe in a central tenant of the faith, use a qualifier. The term "humanist Christian" seems applicable to Crosson.

Vonnegut classified himself as a "Christ-worshiping agnostic".

[element771]

Sarcasm gets you nowhere in this dialogue.

It is satire Shuny and it proves my point.

What is TAM? You might ask Robrecht if he is going.

The Amazing Meeting is a conference that focuses skepticism, science, and "critical thinking". Basically, it is a meeting where atheists gather to mock religious people.

I never understood the point of the meeting. I don't believe in fairies, unicorns, and Bigfoot but I don't go to any meetings to discuss people that do.

[robrecht]

... If you want to address a real contradiction, talk with Robrecht, who believes that Crossan's beliefs as he describes them are compatible with his claim of being belief irrevocably in the Roman Church. ...

Shuny, I'm sure it is best if you do not try to speak for me. I have not said what you ascribe to me immediately above.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I'm sure it is best if you do not try to speak for me. I have not said what you ascribe to me immediately above.

You consider Crossan's claim to be Irrevocably a Roman Catholic believer to be valid, and ridiculed me for objecting. You have bought the problem!!!!!

My post stands as worded!

[robrecht]

You consider Crossan's claim to be Irrevocably a Roman Catholic believer to be valid, and ridiculed me for objecting. You have bought the problem!!!!!

My post stands as worded!

Nope. I never said that.

[element771]

Nope. I never said that.

No way Robrechy. Shuny never misrepresents people's post. You should apologize immediately.

That, Shuny, is sarcasm.

[shunyadragon]

Nope. I never said that.

Than you agree that Corrosan is not 'irrevocably a Roman Catholic' as he claimed.

What points of how Crossan describes his beliefs that I do not understand?

[shunyadragon]

No way Robrechy. Shuny never misrepresents people's post. You should apologize immediately.

That, Shuny, is sarcasm.

Do you consider Crossan even a Christian, much less 'irrevocably a Roman Catholic' based on how he describes his beliefs?

[robrecht]

Than you agree that Corrosan is not 'irrevocably a Roman Catholic' as he claimed.

What points of how Crossan describes his beliefs that I do not understand?

[shunyadragon]

There are a variety of ways to discuss this. From the perspective of canon law, he can be excommunicated, thus his canonical status is not irrevocable, but he has not been as far as I know, but under certain circumstances he could even excommunicate himself, and I might never know this.

None of this is really relevant, because I am indifferent to a discussion of 'prescriptive of canon law,' or the intricacies of excommunication either way, or how Crossan would be considered a faithful believer either way.

From Crossan's own perspective, as I've shown you, all it means for him to say that he is irrevocably Roman Catholic, is that he loves the community and tradition, so much so, presumably, that even if he were excommunicated, that would not change his love for the tradition and community. How does he express his love of the tradition? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that he considers some of the fundamental questions and the variety of answers and approaches to these questions found in the Catholic tradition have indelibly shaped his thinking on such theological and cultural matters. Thus, in an extreme example, one could even describe himself as a Catholic atheist, meaning something like the God he rejects is the God as described by Roman Catholicism, which he learned about and believed in from childhood on. Such a statement is oftentimes said in jest, but it also has some truth to it. If one rejects a caricature of God, has she truly rejected God or merely the caricature?

You're touching on some possible lines of thought, but I am by and large still indifferent to this line of reasoning.

for example, in the Baha'i Faith, where one is apparently not allowed to publicly teach contrary to various authoritative items.

Your ignorance on this matter is overwhelming and reflects your selective biased hostile attitude on this.

Again . . . What points of how Crossan describes his beliefs that I do not understand?