iano writes:
... "what constitutes a Christian?" Clearly God is the final judge of who is and who isn't actually a Christian. 'Christians' of every other hue would not in fact be real Christians - they'd just bear a hollow name. The obvious follow up question is...
Otto Tellick writes:
First off, if by some chance it turns out that the Christian God (whatever version) doesn't exist, then who is the final judge of who is/is not actually a Christian? Secondly, regardless of the previous point, isn't it the case that a significant number of Christians have in fact taken it upon themselves to draw this distinction?
Q1: Whatever else it is that defines such things I suppose. Whatever the next absolute that happens along..
Q2: People who identify as Christians have certainly declared on who is or isn't. It would be interesting to see how many who are God-defined accurately declare on who is or isn't a God-defined-Christian.
-
1. What proportion of people who consider/call themselves (or are called by others) "Christians" have really had that sort of personal religious experience, as opposed to simply associating themselves with (declaring membership in) a particular group?
It would be interesting to see someone pose a method of figuring out the answer to that question. It appears to me too that there will be God-identified-Christians who never identified with either of the above groups. Add that to the mix!
-
2. Looking just at the people who have had such an experience, how many immutably distinct groups do they fall into, such that each group would look at the others and say "those people cannot be real Christians, because their beliefs are wrong"?
As many immutably distinct groups as there are ways to decide on immutably distinct, I imagine. You'll get some Calvinists calling Arminians heretics and some Calvinists describing those whom they consider to be fellow Christians "doctrinally challenged".
Then there are the shades in between such extremes. And that's but two views.
-
Your argument could equally be applied to atheistic morality btw - without any possibility of anyone being right. One atheist can find it perfectly moral to commit acts of rape. The other finds otherwise. There are no objective standards.
Whoa. No objective standards?
"No objective standards ...from the atheistic pov" ...I could have better expressed. As in having the atheist say; "there are no objective standards".
For that is what any self-respecting, self-declared-objective atheist must conclude for himself.
-
Contrast that with religious affiliation, where the tendency is always in the direction of fracturing into smaller groups (which can only grow in size if evangelism by group members is successful, never by merging with other groups), and declaring membership in any one group tends tends to be an exclusive, all-encompassing acceptance -- people don't tend to base their religious practice on making choices like "well, I like this bit about Judaism, and that part of Islam, and these other things from Catholicism, and those Lutherans are pretty good on some points..." (and similarly for rejecting the particulars that they don't like).
Your conflating (understandably), religious affiliation with belonging to a particular people called "the (a la Christian view) saved".
If I were to suggest that such a party ("the saved") will consist of Luterans, Baptists, Brethern, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc., etc., then your point would begin to flounder.
Were I to
further suggest that a particular people called "the (a la Christian view) damned" would consist of members belonging to all of the above denominational parties then your point would sink without trace.
So it is, I suggest.
-
I accept the majority view - most think me wrong. Now what would you have me do? Democracy doesn't demand that I change my view anymore than the majority voting Conservative means a Labour MP should give up Labour views.
Now you're the one who isn't expressing thoughts clearly enough. That first sentence sounds like a complete self-contradiction. If you accept the majority view, then you are accepting the view that most people think is right. If most people think you are wrong, it must be that you are not actually accepting the majority view, but are expressing or supporting some other view instead. I guess it hinges on what you mean by "accept" here.
Accepting the majority view (in a democracy) means accepting that the majority view should hold sway / have it's will expressed - even thought my (minority) view would desire that we all chart a different course.
Accepting the majority view in a democracy doesn't mean I think the majority view is right/best/advisable/wise/etc
-
I think "tiny, tiny" is a bit far fetched.
Tiny, tiny was going too far perhaps. 84% spiritual vs. 16% non-spiritual would be one way to split the party political cake. Saved/unsaved would be another. Perhaps that ratio balance will be even more skewed in the final summing up - it would depend on how narrow the narrow path.
And how broad the broad.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.