XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: theswain@operamail.com   
      
   Bill Baldwin wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   You should have.  Nowhere in this discussion so far has anyone intimated   
   that a Hindu is a Christian; the point has been that Daryl's definition   
   of who is a Christian as in Christian religion is far too narrow and   
   would automatically exclude a number of recognized Christian bodies.   
   Whether an animist, Hindu, Taoist or Buddhist is a Christian or not was   
   introduced by Darryl in an effort to win debating points rather than   
   engage the actual data under discussion.  So it doesn't go to the heart   
   of anything.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>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.   
      
   Clarifying AGAIN the subject under discussion is an answer, and the   
   correct one.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>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.   
      
   On what grounds?  Daryl at least has been honest enough to confess that   
   his knowledge of Islam is limited and while he knows more about certain   
   types of modern Judaism, his knowledge is limited there too....these are   
   Daryl's confessions, not mine.  So based on a confessed ignorance of the   
   subjects in question, on what basis can Daryl really disagree with where   
   the line is drawn?  I've also noted in other parts of the thread that   
   Daryl at least seems to want to conflate views and definition of   
   "Christian" with those whom certain parts of Christianity would define   
   as "saved", which isn't the same thing when defining Christianity as a   
   "religion" rather than a personal faith.   
      
   There have been claims by you and Daryl that Jews and Muslims worship a   
   different god, but I've not seen any proof of that or why you think so   
   other than claims that they "clearly differ."   
      
     As far as I   
   > can tell you are not making an argument for why you draw the line   
   > where you do.   
      
   I thought it was implicit.  If I worship the God who made the world and   
   appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses and call him by the same   
   name as a Muslim and Jew, then it seems to me that we're talking about   
   the same god.  MY conception and image of that god may differ, as even   
   within Christianity images and conception of Jesus differ greatly   
   between pentecostals and Lutherans and Copts, but that doesn't mean that   
   Lutherans worship a different Christ than the Assemblies of God.   
      
   You simply say that's where the line *is* and dismiss   
   > as "ridiculous" any questions about why the line isn't somewhere   
   > else.   
      
   No, I dismissed as ridiculous the introduction of the possibility that   
   Hindus or Buddhists are in any way included in this discussion of the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)