Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

SecretMethod70 · 02-06-2005, 12:16 PM

It's interesting for me to observe that you feel a necessity toward literal interpretation of ancient texts as well as a lack of comprehension regarding the implications of your own statements. "You did not literally state that Catholics, or Mormons, ought not be considered Christians, so therefore it must not be present in your statements." Now, perhaps you didn't intend to give that impression, but if that's the case then I see a severe lack of acknowledgement on your part regarding how the rest of the world works and thinks.

Anyway, to the point regarding labels (and if that's what you were trying to discuss, why didn't you say it in the first place?), most people around the world understand the term "Christian" to be one who believes that Jesus was not only a spectacular person and teacher, but somehow divine and specially connected to what we call God as well. Your implication (whether literally stated or not, and whether intended or not) that Catholics are not Christian flies in the face of this accepted understanding. So, to the majority of the world, by denying Catholics (I'm not sure about the particulars of the Mormon relationship with Jesus) the "right" to call themselves "Christian," you are, in effect, telling them that they are not what they think they are. You are TELLING them what to believe as opposed to observing what they believe. Now, if you'd like to say that Catholics are not "Christian fundementalists," that is perfectly reasonable. There are certain understood guidelines to that label, such as a more literal interpretation of the bible, that Catholics freely admit they do not share. But "Christian" and "Christian fundementalist" are not one in the same.

No, the mechanics of my faith are not less important than a label with which to identify. However, I'd venture to say most people are not going to have someone tell them that they are not or do not have the right to say that they are a part of a varied and diverse grouping such as "Christian." Anyone who, at the core of their faith, understands Jesus to be Christ is a "Christian." The fact that you do not agree with the way in which they interpret the meaning of this existence does not grant the ability to deny them "membership" to this exclusive club you'd apparently prefer that it be.

I'm willing to accept that many people may have different understandings of the meaning of Jesus as Christ than I do...what I'm wondering is why aren't you?

And, on a completely separate note, if you keep on making subtle flames and calling other members of the board asses (don't think I didn't notice), you'll find that your time here will become much less enjoyable or lengthy.

02-06-2005, 12:16 PM	#29 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	It's interesting for me to observe that you feel a necessity toward literal interpretation of ancient texts as well as a lack of comprehension regarding the implications of your own statements. "You did not literally state that Catholics, or Mormons, ought not be considered Christians, so therefore it must not be present in your statements." Now, perhaps you didn't intend to give that impression, but if that's the case then I see a severe lack of acknowledgement on your part regarding how the rest of the world works and thinks. Anyway, to the point regarding labels (and if that's what you were trying to discuss, why didn't you say it in the first place?), most people around the world understand the term "Christian" to be one who believes that Jesus was not only a spectacular person and teacher, but somehow divine and specially connected to what we call God as well. Your implication (whether literally stated or not, and whether intended or not) that Catholics are not Christian flies in the face of this accepted understanding. So, to the majority of the world, by denying Catholics (I'm not sure about the particulars of the Mormon relationship with Jesus) the "right" to call themselves "Christian," you are, in effect, telling them that they are not what they think they are. You are TELLING them what to believe as opposed to observing what they believe. Now, if you'd like to say that Catholics are not "Christian fundementalists," that is perfectly reasonable. There are certain understood guidelines to that label, such as a more literal interpretation of the bible, that Catholics freely admit they do not share. But "Christian" and "Christian fundementalist" are not one in the same. No, the mechanics of my faith are not less important than a label with which to identify. However, I'd venture to say most people are not going to have someone tell them that they are not or do not have the right to say that they are a part of a varied and diverse grouping such as "Christian." Anyone who, at the core of their faith, understands Jesus to be Christ is a "Christian." The fact that you do not agree with the way in which they interpret the meaning of this existence does not grant the ability to deny them "membership" to this exclusive club you'd apparently prefer that it be. I'm willing to accept that many people may have different understandings of the meaning of Jesus as Christ than I do...what I'm wondering is why aren't you? And, on a completely separate note, if you keep on making subtle flames and calling other members of the board asses (don't think I didn't notice), you'll find that your time here will become much less enjoyable or lengthy. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 03-30-2005 at 10:04 PM..