StarGateWars Forums

okay, so i've finally read through it all and here are my thoughts:
the catholic church is by no means similar to the early christianity.
nor does the protestant, the orthodox, the coptic, the church of england, the mormons, or any other up to date churches. to only one simiar is the Messianic Judaism (which is NOT judaism), as jesus and his apostles were religious jews.
now, as an atheist, i'm not going to debate the truth and falacies of different faiths. all i'm going to say is: any one that belives that jesus was the christ, is a christian in my book.
apophis: let jack be. he's just trolling you.
jack:

Hai, creeps.

This was mentioned rather vaguely, but I'm suprised that no emphasis was put on it. Look at the assumption/s, argument/s and conclusion/s and analyse them separately.

First of all, the Chick comic argues that Catholicism and Christianity are fundamentally two different religions/spiritual beliefs. Its argument is only relevant if one understands the assumption that it is using. If you want to disprove an argument, the first step is to look for the assumption/s.

Essentially, the Chick comic is assuming that adherence to the Bible is inherently what defines Christianity. That is why it attempts to use the Bible to argue that Catholicism is not Christian. Therefore, the first question that one must ask themselves is whether or not this assumption is true. Because of the subjective nature of religion and belief, the opinions on this will likely vary and be inherently unprovable, but understanding its unprovable nature will help avoid the employment of the pointless bickering skill, in which many of you are quite proficient.

Second of all, one must check the argument itself. Does it necessarily follow from the assumption/s? Certain points have been raised about interpretation. An interesting note on humanity is that any given event, text or symbol can be interpreted in a manner that suits the interpreter's weltanschauung, if they are willing to ignore contradictory evidence. Having been exposed to a certain view of the Bible at a young age, my perspective would be that Catholicism makes less of an effort to adhere to the Bible than Protestantism. Of course, this is a generalisation, but it is also a simple matter of observing what each party perceives as the ultimate earthly symbol of religious authority. Catholics claim that this is the pope, whereas Protestants claim that it is the Bible.

I could go on, but it'd be pointless. Almost as pointless as religion, itself.

kthxbai

Answer: Yes and No


You are asking the wrong question.

Simply put, you are either Christian, or not. Dominations are pointless.

Since christianity is a personal beleif, and relationship you cant blanket term it.

I.e One can be both a roman cathloic and christian or can be roman cathloic and not christian.

Agapooka wrote:Essentially, the Chick comic is assuming that adherence to the Bible is inherently what defines Christianity. That is why it attempts to use the Bible to argue that Catholicism is not Christian. Therefore, the first question that one must ask themselves is whether or not this assumption is true. Because of the subjective nature of religion and belief, the opinions on this will likely vary and be inherently unprovable, but understanding its unprovable nature will help avoid the employment of the pointless bickering skill, in which many of you are quite proficient.

i believe the commonly accepted test to whether one is a christian or not is whether he accepts jesus as the christ/messiah.

Yet there would be a controversy if one believed that Jesus is actually a reptilian warlord who manufactured a biological weapon whereby all those who did not apply for non-termination status and worship him as their lord and savior would be killed in the year 2013, when all will have been tricked into being relieved that the western understanding of the 2012 prophecy never materialised.

You see, it isn't the only commonly-accepted criterion. The above paragraph conforms to what you claim is a commonly accepted definition of a Christian, yet its minute details stray so far from what the Bible explicitly says that one who adopts those beliefs would not be commonly perceived as a Christian.

Similarly, many in the Protestant world claim that the Catholic Church strays from the scriptures through its worship of Mary, its teachings that one must pray to the saints or petition Mary in order to access God and so forth.

All I am saying is that it's not so clear-cut as you claim it to be.


Agapooka

Agapooka wrote:Yet there would be a controversy if one believed that Jesus is actually a reptilian warlord who manufactured a biological weapon whereby all those who did not apply for non-termination status and worship him as their lord and savior would be killed in the year 2013, when all will have been tricked into being relieved that the western understanding of the 2012 prophecy never materialised.

You see, it isn't the only commonly-accepted criterion. The above paragraph conforms to what you claim is a commonly accepted definition of a Christian.

how exactly?
and please refer to the definition of christ/messiah in you answer.

Agapooka wrote:Similarly, many in the Protestant world claim that the Catholic Church strays from the scriptures through its worship of Mary, its teachings that one must pray to the saints or petition Mary in order to access God and so forth.

All I am saying is that it's not so clear-cut as you claim it to be.
Agapooka

ah, but the fact it strays from the scriptures only means it is mis-leaded. it does not mean it is not christian.
now, i consider myself a formelist logician. meaning, i believe you can only judge truth or falsness of certain conclusions by the definitions they are derived from. when were talking theology, definitions (as you previously stated) are very personal. we therfore have to take the most widely used ones, and confine ourselves to it. the "a christian is a person who accepts jesus as a messiah" definition is pretty much universelly accapted. what is debated in this thread and the comic is the way to go about it. now, you can (as i asked you too) debate the meaning of messiah, but i am pretty sure not many would accept the reptilian warlord as adquete/accurate definition.

hitchkok wrote:

Agapooka wrote:Yet there would be a controversy if one believed that Jesus is actually a reptilian warlord who manufactured a biological weapon whereby all those who did not apply for non-termination status and worship him as their lord and savior would be killed in the year 2013, when all will have been tricked into being relieved that the western understanding of the 2012 prophecy never materialised.

You see, it isn't the only commonly-accepted criterion. The above paragraph conforms to what you claim is a commonly accepted definition of a Christian.

how exactly?
and please refer to the definition of christ/messiah in you answer.

Seeing as you first used the word, you have burden of defining it. I can look to its etymology and I see no contradiction with your definition of a Christian in using the following understanding of the word "messiah":

www.etymonline.com wrote:messiah
c.1300, Messias, from L.L. Messias, from Gk. Messias, from Aramaic meshiha and Heb. mashiah "anointed" (of the Lord), from mashah "anoint." This is the word rendered in Septuagint as Gk. Khristos (see Christ). In O.T. prophetic writing, it was used of an expected deliverer of the Jewish nation. The modern Eng. form represents an attempt to make the word look more Heb., and dates from the Geneva Bible (1560). Transf. sense of "an expected liberator or savior of a captive people" is attested from 1666.

hitchkok wrote:ah, but the fact it strays from the scriptures only means it is mis-leaded. it does not mean it is not christian.

False. Straying from the "scriptures" means nothing beyond what it says. You interpret that an individual is misguided to do so and you fail to allow for the possibility that one may have to be misguided to adhere to the scriptures, among an essentially endless amount of possibilities.

hitchkok wrote:now, i consider myself a formelist logician. meaning, i believe you can only judge truth or falsness of certain conclusions by the definitions they are derived from.

Definitions demonstrate a theoretical understanding. If we agree to attribute a common definition to a concept, all we are doing is agreeing to come to conclusions within a very limited frame of theoretical reality.

hitchkok wrote:when were talking theology, definitions (as you previously stated) are very personal.

I used the word "subjective". "Personal" has notions of individuality. Religion can be seen as an ultimate form of groupthink with the illusion of individuality. "Subjective" is defined as being based on admittedly individual impressions and/or opinions, but these impressions can be influenced by a group, whereas the word "personal" fails to convey this concept adequately.

hitchkok wrote:we therfore have to take the most widely used ones, and confine ourselves to it.

This conclusion does not follow from the above.

Assumption: The most widely used definition is the most likely to be correct.

hitchkok wrote:the "a christian is a person who accepts jesus as a messiah" definition is pretty much universelly accapted.

Without question. It is also universally accepted that a cow is a four-legged mammal that eats grass. Does that mean that a horse is a cow because it fits the above definition? No. Because the definition is incomplete.

If you were claiming that your definition be complete, you could not claim that it is anywhere near universally accepted, which is what I was attempting to demonstrate. In searching for a definition of a Christian, I found that it was "pretty much universal" to include a certain belief in Jesus within the definition, but almost all definitions included other necessary attributes. One claimed that a Christian must also belong to a Christian denomination, whereas another claimed that adherence to Christ's teachings are necessary. I've seen many claims that adherence to the entire Bible is also necessary.

hitchkok wrote:what is debated in this thread and the comic is the way to go about it. now, you can (as i asked you too) debate the meaning of messiah, but i am pretty sure not many would accept the reptilian warlord as adquete/accurate definition.

"Messiah" is a matter of perception. Its original meaning, "anointed," is not very telling. Anointed by whom? God? Try to define "God". Its more recent definition, "saviour," is also ambiguous. One must only be perceived as a saviour to be called one. It is not impossible for my theoretical reptilian warlord to be perceived as a saviour within the proper frame of mind.

Besides that, you got my point while managing to miss it entirely. My point with that particular example was to show that the reptilian warlord definition of "Jesus the Messiah" IS NOT commonly accepted, but it does not contradict your definition of a Christian. You claim that this definition is widely accepted, yet this example adheres to it and it would not be widely accepted. The reason for this apparent discrepancy is that your definition is incomplete.




Agapooka

Agapooka wrote:

hitchkok wrote:what is debated in this thread and the comic is the way to go about it. now, you can (as i asked you too) debate the meaning of messiah, but i am pretty sure not many would accept the reptilian warlord as adquete/accurate definition.

"Messiah" is a matter of perception. Its original meaning, "anointed," is not very telling. Anointed by whom? God? Try to define "God". Its more recent definition, "saviour," is also ambiguous. One must only be perceived as a saviour to be called one. It is not impossible for my theoretical reptilian warlord to be perceived as a saviour within the proper frame of mind.

Besides that, you got my point while managing to miss it entirely. My point with that particular example was to show that the reptilian warlord definition of "Jesus the Messiah" IS NOT commonly accepted, but it does not contradict your definition of a Christian. You claim that this definition is widely accepted, yet this example adheres to it and it would not be widely accepted. The reason for this apparent discrepancy is that your definition is incomplete.

I will take this up first as it seems to be the pivot of this discussion.
here is an historical-etymological explanation of what is a Messiah.
[spoiler]Messiah in hebrew literally means anointed. anointing with olive oil was the act of appointing a person to a high post. The first to be anointed was Aharon (Moses eldest brother) anointed as the first Cohen (hebrew priest). Later, Shaul and David were anointed as kings. Now, this is important Although later kings were also anointed, the old testament refers only to them as "messiah".
The modern meaning of messiah, and the one to which i refer, arises later, in different prophecies. They speak of a person, a scion of David (hence, refered to as "messiah son of David", or "king messiah"), which will be inspired by god and which will bring the end of days (not as in apocalipse, rather as in end of history, similar to the christian notion of jesus victory in the battle at Meggido mount (Armagedon)).
now, why have i bolded the sentence about David and Shaul?
they were the only kings appointed by God via Shmuel the prophet.
similarly, to be the true Messiah, a person must be chosen by God[/spoiler]
SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE: messiah is a specific person, anointed by the will of God, who will bring about the end of days.

the discussion on the essence of god does not belong here, as it is very clear in the Judeo-Christian (as well as islamic, BTW) tradition. in this tradition god is a un-definable, un-percieveble, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient deity, which predates EVERYTHING, and created everything. it is also the only one of it's kind.

Agapooka wrote:

hitchkok wrote:

Agapooka wrote:Yet there would be a controversy if one believed that Jesus is actually a reptilian warlord who manufactured a biological weapon whereby all those who did not apply for non-termination status and worship him as their lord and savior would be killed in the year 2013, when all will have been tricked into being relieved that the western understanding of the 2012 prophecy never materialised.

You see, it isn't the only commonly-accepted criterion. The above paragraph conforms to what you claim is a commonly accepted definition of a Christian.

how exactly?
and please refer to the definition of christ/messiah in you answer.

Seeing as you first used the word, you have burden of defining it. I can look to its etymology and I see no contradiction with your definition of a Christian in using the following understanding of the word "messiah":

www.etymonline.com wrote:messiah
c.1300, Messias, from L.L. Messias, from Gk. Messias, from Aramaic meshiha and Heb. mashiah "anointed" (of the Lord), from mashah "anoint." This is the word rendered in Septuagint as Gk. Khristos (see Christ). In O.T. prophetic writing, it was used of an expected deliverer of the Jewish nation. The modern Eng. form represents an attempt to make the word look more Heb., and dates from the Geneva Bible (1560). Transf. sense of "an expected liberator or savior of a captive people" is attested from 1666.

well, now that i have defined messiah, you can clearly see why you example does not fit (although you MIGHT argue that God works in peculiar ways, so he may choose a reptilian warlord).

Agapooka wrote:

hitchkok wrote:ah, but the fact it strays from the scriptures only means it is mis-leaded. it does not mean it is not christian.

False. Straying from the "scriptures" means nothing beyond what it says. You interpret that an individual is misguided to do so and you fail to allow for the possibility that one may have to be misguided to adhere to the scriptures, among an essentially endless amount of possibilities.

i'm working in the context of the comic, in which adherence to the scriptures is the right way.

Agapooka wrote:

hitchkok wrote:now, i consider myself a formelist logician. meaning, i believe you can only judge truth or falsness of certain conclusions by the definitions they are derived from.

Definitions demonstrate a theoretical understanding. If we agree to attribute a common definition to a concept, all we are doing is agreeing to come to conclusions within a very limited frame of theoretical reality.

true. however, we have to limit ourselves to come to any conclusion.

Agapooka wrote:

hitchkok wrote:when were talking theology, definitions (as you previously stated) are very personal.

I used the word "subjective". "Personal" has notions of individuality. Religion can be seen as an ultimate form of groupthink with the illusion of individuality. "Subjective" is defined as being based on admittedly individual impressions and/or opinions, but these impressions can be influenced by a group, whereas the word "personal" fails to convey this concept adequately.

mere semantics. for me, subjective is sinonymus with personal. you are welcomed to rephrase my comment, if it's such a big of an issue.

Agapooka wrote:

hitchkok wrote:we therfore have to take the most widely used ones, and confine ourselves to it.

This conclusion does not follow from the above.

true. let me rephrase.
as i stated, to get to ANY conclusion, we must confine ourselves to a certain definition. to have our discussion meaningful to more than only the two of us, that definition must be the most common definition.
since in this case, this definition ("a christian is a person who believes Jesus is the messiah") is both very precise (precise NOT being sinonymus with accurate!!!) and almost universal, it is a very good one.
in the spoiler, the difference between precise and accurate
[spoiler]accurate means on target. in the context of this discussion it means (roughly) true.
precise means of an exact nature. in the context of this discussion it means not open to interpration.[/spoiler]

Agapooka wrote:Assumption: The most widely used definition is the most likely to be correct.

as the definition is subjective, it is merely a norm. a convention. hence, if it is the most widely used, it is not the most likely to be true, it is true.

Agapooka wrote:

hitchkok wrote:the "a christian is a person who accepts jesus as a messiah" definition is pretty much universelly accapted.

Without question. It is also universally accepted that a cow is a four-legged mammal that eats grass. Does that mean that a horse is a cow because it fits the above definition? No. Because the definition is incomplete.

If you were claiming that your definition be complete, you could not claim that it is anywhere near universally accepted, which is what I was attempting to demonstrate. In searching for a definition of a Christian, I found that it was "pretty much universal" to include a certain belief in Jesus within the definition, but almost all definitions included other necessary attributes. One claimed that a Christian must also belong to a Christian denomination, whereas another claimed that adherence to Christ's teachings are necessary. I've seen many claims that adherence to the entire Bible is also necessary.

NO. these definitions are definitions of a religious christian. it is not uncommon for a person to have a conviction or belief of something and fail to follow suit with the acts required by said conviction. therefore, you can be a christian, belief jesus is the messiah, and fail to turn the other cheek, for instance.

An oddity... you claim that adherence to the Bible is not necessary to constitute a Christian, yet you insist that one must adhere to the Bible to obtain the definitions required to know who is and who isn't a Christian.

Furthermore, you only repeat your claim that your definition of a Christian as an individual who believes that Jesus Christ is the messiah is universally accepted and you attempt to draw a distinction between a religious Christian and simply a Christian, whereas we are both likely to agree that Christianity *is* a religion. I know some who disagree.

On another note, you failed to address my most relevant criticism of your definition of a Christian, which is that it is incomplete. It remains that, as a complete definition, it is far from universally accepted.

"He who distinguishes well learns well."

I hope that you don't see this as a mere opportunity to compete in any sort of debate. I see this as a place to discuss. I do not see how you can logically believe that your definition of a Christian is complete AND universally accepted, while justifying the aforementioned discrepancy by stating that a feature apparently irrelevant to your definition of a Christian must ultimately guide the dependencies of that definition.


Agapooka

lol arguing semantics, a frustrating act at the best of times.

If you accept that jesus is the son of god, and mankind's savior. You are a Christian. If you do not agree with statement above then you are not a Christian in my book.

Simple, abrasive, and easy to understand.

Haha.

My only qualm with his definition is that he claims it is practically universally accepted and seems to imply that it is complete. If you've read my posts, you'll see why both cannot simultaneously be true.

If he states that it is only his own definition, I have no problem with it. XD


Agapooka

Agapooka wrote:Haha.

My only qualm with his definition is that he claims it is practically universally accepted and seems to imply that it is complete. If you've read my posts, you'll see why both cannot simultaneously be true.

If he states that it is only his own definition, I have no problem with it. XD


Agapooka

Maybe it'll turn it into a another metaphysics argument... subjective truth seems to be your answer for everything

It's not only a matter of metaphysics. It's a matter of not making claims that are ultimately self-contradictory. "Subjective truth" isn't "an answer to everything".

I can't argue with your claim that you have a certain definition of something. I can argue with someone's claim that the majority have a certain definition of something. I hope you can see the difference. It also isn't just a matter of being able to argue, but rather, exposing the logical reasons for which a proposition cannot be true. Mere semantics, perhaps...


Agapooka

It is deffinately semantics in this context.

If you want to nitpick that there can't be a agreed upon definition of Christianity, then the word essentially has no meaning. Ultimately self defeating unless you are a dictionary writer.

Hmm, no, I guess you're operating on assumptions and haven't really read my posts.

No, that's not what I've been saying. He mentioned a possibility and I attempted to demonstrate how that particular possibility clearly is NOT universally recognised. That is all.

Whether it can be defined or not, I have never addressed. Oftentimes, religious authorities define what is and what is not a member of their particular faith. You have created a whole new tangent, here. My original claim was that a major distinction between Roman Catholicism and many Evangelical movements is that one claims that the Pope is the ultimate earthly representation of religious authority and the other claims that the ultimate representation of earthly authority is the Bible.

Authority is admittedly a poor revealer of reality, but we are operating within the theoretical framework of a particular faith.


Agapooka