Christian Atheist?

[BlackCat]

Funny, all this reminds me of Asimov's Foundation. There archeologists didin't go out diggin' - they studied documents - especially what previous experts on the subject had stated.

One can only wonder if Asimov made a joke on the study of biblical "proofs"

[Jon Miller]

Except that we do go digging. And we find stuff that was referenced first in the Bible all the time (several references in the old testament were doubted by scholars but then were found evidences for archeology).

But it is easier to find a reference to a king or city or whatever rather than a reference to a Rabbi who doesn't have a tomb.

JM

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Except that we do go digging. And we find stuff that was referenced first in the Bible all the time (several references in the old testament were doubted by scholars but then were found evidences for archeology).

But it is easier to find a reference to a king or city or whatever rather than a reference to a Rabbi who doesn't have a tomb.

JM

No offense, but there are a lot of myths that has proven true - troy f.ex., but do you consider that as a proof of the existence of the greek gods involved in that war ?

[Elok]

Not having read much of this thread, I'd just like to say that a "Christian Atheist" is probably no more nonsensical than a "Jew for Jesus." Thank you.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Elok
Not having read much of this thread, I'd just like to say that a "Christian Atheist" is probably no more nonsensical than a "Jew for Jesus." Thank you.

Not really, because "Jew" is an identifier of ethnicity and parentage not just religious belief.

The term "Christian" doesn't have that property.

[Elok]

"Jew" can be used to refer to ethnicity or religion. In the context of "Jews for Jesus," it's pretty plainly the latter. So booya.

[Perfection]

It clearly isn't. Jews for Jesus don't view themselves to be followers of Judaism.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No offense, but there are a lot of myths that has proven true - troy f.ex., but do you consider that as a proof of the existence of the greek gods involved in that war ?

When did I ever say that there was proof of the divinity of Christ?

I am merely pointing out how stupid it is to beleive that the events described in the gospels is entirely fabrication.

It is up to you whether you beleive He raised from the dead or not.

JM

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Perfection
I'm not confused! I just think you're wrong! Look, correct me if I'm wrong, but your view of Christianity would hold true weather or not God exists. I would say that deviates far too much from the doctrine of Christianity for you to be called a Chirstian.

Those who I think my be aptly called Christian and agnostic are those who recognize that God may not exist but hold via faith that He does (and similar notions).

OK unlike a good Christian I lied when I said I wouldn't post in this thread anymore.

What this comes down to and has from the beginning is various different people's opinion about what a word means.

When people have a difference of opinion about the location or size of a river they consult an almanac. They might not like the answer that that source gives them but that is the accepted answer.

When people want to know the various accepted definitions of a word they consult a dictionary. If you, just like many an opponent in a Scrabble game, are not happy with the result of the dictionary, I am sorry but it still defines what is acceptable usage in the English language. So...

When I call myself a Christian, even though I question and honestly doubt (but am not certain) the divinity of Christ, according to the dictionary I am not misusing the word Christian. Because I am: (to quote the dictionary)

.....a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

and I hope

.....a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ:

so while I fill those 2 definitions I do not fill the next one - (and may I point out that the 2 above were the first 2 defintions for a noun and the next was the third listed for a noun)

.....a member of any of certain Protestant churches

As for Adjectives, I try my best to be the first, fourth, fifth and sixth definitions listed:

.....of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings:

.....exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike:

.....decent; respectable:

.....human; not brutal; humane

Only the second definition talks about belonging to a religion:

.....of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ

So as a matter of linguistic fact, it is not improper for me to say that I am a Christian, even though I question and doubt the divinity of Christ. If you don't like it argue with dictionary.com and the millions of people who accept the definitions listed above.

This time I am done, unless someone says something real stupid

[Elok]

Originally posted by Perfection
It clearly isn't. Jews for Jesus don't view themselves to be followers of Judaism.

IIUC most "messianic Jews" want to hold on to Jewish customs like the sabbath, kosher, etc. while recognizing Jesus as messiah. In other words, having it both ways. Christian Atheists.

[Cort Haus]

Near where I live there's a 'shop' called "Jews for Jesus". I don't know what that's all about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That always amuses me... simply because well, that really makes you just Christians. The original ones were Jews for Jesus, after all.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
...Christ...

Actually, since you doubt the divinity of the Christ, I think you believe in Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph. This just means you're a follower of some guy named Jesus; perhaps we should call you a Jesist and not a Christian.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


OK unlike a good Christian I lied when I said I wouldn't post in this thread anymore.

What this comes down to and has from the beginning is various different people's opinion about what a word means.

When people have a difference of opinion about the location or size of a river they consult an almanac. They might not like the answer that that source gives them but that is the accepted answer.

When people want to know the various accepted definitions of a word they consult a dictionary. If you, just like many an opponent in a Scrabble game, are not happy with the result of the dictionary, I am sorry but it still defines what is acceptable usage in the English language. So...

When I call myself a Christian, even though I question and honestly doubt (but am not certain) the divinity of Christ, according to the dictionary I am not misusing the word Christian. Because I am: (to quote the dictionary)

.....a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

and I hope

.....a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ:

so while I fill those 2 definitions I do not fill the next one - (and may I point out that the 2 above were the first 2 defintions for a noun and the next was the third listed for a noun)

.....a member of any of certain Protestant churches

As for Adjectives, I try my best to be the first, fourth, fifth and sixth definitions listed:

.....of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings:

.....exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike:

.....decent; respectable:

.....human; not brutal; humane

Only the second definition talks about belonging to a religion:

.....of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ

So as a matter of linguistic fact, it is not improper for me to say that I am a Christian, even though I question and doubt the divinity of Christ. If you don't like it argue with dictionary.com and the millions of people who accept the definitions listed above.

This time I am done, unless someone says something real stupid

I'm totally fine with what the dictionary says. I never once argued the dictionary was incorrect!

What I'm not fine with is your notion that if you use a term meaning one of the accepted definitions that it must always be valid regardless of context. This is not the case.

Take a look at the first two entries for the definition of Bear:
1. any of the plantigrade, carnivorous or omnivorous mammals of the family Ursidae, having massive bodies, coarse heavy fur, relatively short limbs, and almost rudimentary tails.
2. any of various animals resembling the bear, as the ant bear.

The Koala (a marsupial that resembles a bear often refered to as a "Koala bear") fits 2 but not 1 and depending on the context which one implied varies.

It's acceptable to say "look at the Koala Bear", but not "The Koala is a bear". This context can even be forced to change midsentance. The sentance "the Koala bear is not a bear" is acceptable but not "the Koala bear is a bear".

I think that this soundly demonstrates that you must take account context not just definition when using a word.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Elok


IIUC most "messianic Jews" want to hold on to Jewish customs like the sabbath, kosher, etc. while recognizing Jesus as messiah. In other words, having it both ways. Christian Atheists.

Jews for Jesus aren't Messianic Jews, they don't keep Kosher and the like.