XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: bbwebpage+usenet@gmail.com   
      
   Larry Swain (theswain@operamail.com) wrote:   
      
   > darylgene@aol.com wrote:   
   >> On Apr 25, 6:27�am, Larry Swain  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>darylg...@aol.com wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Apr 24, 4:52?am, "?jevind L?ng"    
   >>>>wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> skrev i   
   >>>>>meddelandetnews:1177375870.074684.261800@b58g2000hsg.googlegroup   
   >>>>>s.com...   
   >>>   
   >>>>>?[snip]   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>If one is to believe Paul a person does not get to pick and   
   >>>>>>choose   
   >>>   
   >>>>>what they are to believe. Why would you call someone a   
   >>>>>Christian who rejected either side of Christ? There are   
   >>>>>existential differences between a God that became a man and one   
   >>>>>that was solely divine, so again I would ask, how are they the   
   >>>>>same God?   
   >>>   
   >>>>>However, many early Christians ("the Ebionites") rejected Paul   
   >>>>>as "the new twlfth Apostle". One can reject what Paul says and   
   >>>>>still be a Christian.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>?jevind   
   >>>   
   >>>>Why not what Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, James et al. say then.   
   >>>>You could go the way of the Jesus Seminar and conclude He said   
   >>>>little other than take care of the poor and do unto others.   
   >>>   
   >>>>In his book, "Christ, A Crisis in the Life of God," Jack Miles   
   >>>>quotes Robert W Funk (a founder of the Jesus Seminar,) writing   
   >>>>in his "Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium," �as   
   >>>>saying "I confess I am more intrested in what Jesus of Nazareth   
   >>>>thinks about God's domain than in what Peter the fisherman and   
   >>>>Paul the tentmaker thought about Jesus," to which Miles   
   >>>>continues "one perfectly legitimate reply is: "I confess I am   
   >>>>not."   
   >>>   
   >>>>Perhaps one could claim to be a Christian and reject Paul but I   
   >>>>suspect I would not recognize the doctrines of such a   
   >>>>Christianity. Does a Voodoo priest qualify as a Christian   
   >>>>because they also venerate Jesus? Do they also worship the same   
   >>>>God?   
   >>>   
   >>>The problem continues to be that you define Christian as being an   
   >>>orthodox Christian in the Western mode, as if these were   
   >>>precisely the same thing. �They aren't   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> You reach a point where it is absolutely meaningless then to call   
   >> someone a Christian. Are Hindus Christians because they believe   
   >> Christ an incarnation of Vishnu?   
   >   
   > Please, don't be ridiculous if you can help it.   
      
   I didn't find the question ridiculous at all. I felt it went right to   
   the heart of the trouble we're having with your assertions and   
   similar.   
      
   > As others have   
   > pointed out to you, Greek Orthodox or Coptic Christians for   
   > example do not accept the Apostle's Creed as definitive to their   
   > Christian faith.  By your definition these groups of Christians   
   > aren't Christians. We do not even have to get into the question   
   > of defining "heresies" as also Christian (whether they are   
   > orthodox or not is a different question) to prove your   
   > consistently touted position to be in error.   
   >   
      
   That's not really an answer.   
      
      
   > Second, your examples of the Voodoo priest and Hindus are   
   > inaccurate. Neither of those claims to worship Jesus as the "son   
   > of YHWH who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses"; as for   
   > Jews, Muslims, and Chrisitians, they do in fact say that they are   
   > worshipping the YHWH who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and   
   > Moses among others and who created all that there is, i. e. the   
   > same divine being.   
      
   Ok, now we have an answer. You believe that the irreducible core of   
   worship of the God of Abraham can be expressed as you have just   
   expressed it. Any attempt to cast the net more broadly will result in   
   bringing disparate worshipers together by a fallacy of equivocation   
   saying they worship the same God when clearly the gods they worship   
   differ. Any attempt to draw the lines more narrowly will result in   
   denying that others who worship the same God (as you define that   
   term) when in fact they do.   
      
   Daryl disagrees with where you draw that line. So do I. As far as I   
   can tell you are not making an argument for why you draw the line   
   where you do. You simply say that's where the line *is* and dismiss   
   as "ridiculous" any questions about why the line isn't somewhere   
   else.   
      
   > As   
   >> Dorothy Sayers mentions, you simply, then, have chaos.   
   >   
   > Please don't miscite Sayers.   
   >   
   >> BTW if that is how I DEFINE being a Christian then perforce they   
   >> are the same. If you define it differently, perhaps for you they   
   >> are not :-)   
   >   
   > Is this what you call logic?   
   >   
      
   Responding with abuse isn't what I call logic.   
      
   --   
   Bill Baldwin   
   http://bettercovenant.wordpress.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)