I love my smells and bells at church.

I don't believe in "Christians." Only Christians.

I think they're all the real deal.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It is from part of a bigger section on the definition of what is or is not a Christian.[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Which one does this website use?[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]"We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe themselves to be attempting to follow the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) as they interpret those teachings to be."

[...]

In North America there are over a thousand faith groups including the Roman Catholic church; the Eastern Orthodox churches, other conservative, mainline, liberal and progressive Christian faith groups; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons); Jehovah's Witnesses, the Unification Church, Christian Science, progressive Christians, and other religious organizations. They all feel that they are trying to follow Jesus' teachings; they all identify themselves as Christian. In fact, many regard their group as the only "true" Christian church. Yet these groups, and their followers, have very different beliefs about the life, events, teachings, actions, sinlessness and expectations of Yeshua.

Also included within our definition as Christians are those who regard themselves as being followers of Jesus even though they do not affiliate themselves with any particular religious group. They appear to be growing in numbers as increasing numbers of North Americans are abandoning religion in favor of a personal spirituality.

We realize that we are defining Christians in terms of being Christian. As one person Emailed us, that is like defining a parrot as "something that has the characteristics of a parrot." But since there is no consensus on what the teachings of Jesus are," we see no other choice. In contrast, there is a general agreement about what a parrot -- or mountain, or car, or computer -- are.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]This seems to be a very progressive and tolerant definition, though I am aware that some object to it.[/font]

Seriously.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]You have to take the good with the bad. That is the way it is for everyone. Otherwise, you get a no true scotsman fallacy or type of special pleading.

I would love to exclude some people *COUGH* S. E. Cupp *COUGH* from my group, but I can't [/font]

a problem with the definition.

OTOH, the site takes a clear stand on agnosticism as a stand alone definition, which I strongly support.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

I think it has a very progressive view and takes a variety of nuances into consideration. I believe they are trying to be as inclusive as possible.

Even in the section you are linking they discuss the Agnostic atheist term and the agnostic theist term as well as agnostic as a stand alone. I don't think they are trying to take sides per se, as much as promote understanding of where people are coming from and why. Here is the section on atheism:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

I often link to them during the, "definition debates", that go on here, and am often disappointed they don't get more notice. They provide a lot of references in their article which I find helpful.

agnosticism as a stand alone category.

I know this is a hot spot for you, but I wish you would reconsider.

Go back and read your very passionate piece about being allowed to be called what you choose and substitute agnostic in there.

It is hurtful to make an argument against allowing people to be what they believe themselves to be, particularly when it is merely a semantic argument that is, in the end, meaningless.

That won't be the start of yet another 200 post debate on this issue. I think I have rewritten this at least 10 times now trying to avoid that.

How about this?

I have no problem with someone using that term as a stand alone and even defining it as they wish, I just ask/beg that said person doesn't do it by redefining the labels of others in the process?

That seems to be when the fireworks start.

Everyone can be happy that way. Everyone defines themselves as they want, an accurate description of who they are and what they think.

Will that work?

There is absolutely no problem with refraining from redefining others in the process of taking on the descriptor of agnostic, or any other label for that matter.

I just want to be clear. There are many people who consider themselves agnostic. They do not consider themselves atheist or theists no matter what anyone else says about it.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how others define themselves, and others can use that term as a modifier if they choose.

If your definition does not redefine my label, I have no objections.

If a person wants to define their label as being uncertain one way or the other of the existence of gods, go for it. But, if that person wants to claim that being uncertain is their domain only...they have just redefined one of my labels.

If a person wants to say they don't consider themselves {insert label I use}, then that is fine with me. I won't call them that. When they start saying {insert previous label} is such and such which is different from what said person identifies as, then I get a say because they just redefined one of my label.

For example, if a person says they are an agnostic and don't consider themselves atheists that is fine with me. But if they come in and claim that atheists believe "there are no gods" while they, agnostics, don't have a belief one way or the other, I will take issue with that because they just redefined me.

IE If they come in, like the poster that evoked said OP of mine, and insist we have a belief when we tell them over and over that we don't...I get to object.

I don't tell them what they think, and they don't tell me what I think.

Does that sound okay?

Bottom line - you can call yourself anything you want and so can I.

If I say that I don't know whether there is a god or not, but I don't want to take a position on belief, that is my right. It in no way effects your position or your label. In not way would that say that being uncertain is my domain only.

I agree with you and that is why I strongly object to you or anyone else telling me that I must be either a theist or an atheist. I don't.

You do get to object when someone else defines you and so do I. Don't insist that I must be something when it comes to beliefs in god. Like you, I don't want to be told what I think.

Yesterday someone posted one of those "Militant christian, muslim, atheist" things. This one had a picture of a "militant agnostic" and it was a person with their head in the ground. When it gets to the point that atheists think they can mock and attack agnostics, some have definitely jumped the shark.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]If I say that I don't know whether there is a god or not, but I don't want to take a position on belief, that is my right. It in no way effects your position or your label. In not way would that say that being uncertain is my domain only.

I agree with you and that is why I strongly object to you or anyone else telling me that I must be either a theist or an atheist. I don't.

You do get to object when someone else defines you and so do I. Don't insist that I must be something when it comes to beliefs in god. Like you, I don't want to be told what I think.

Yesterday someone posted one of those "Militant christian, muslim, atheist" things. This one had a picture of a "militant agnostic" and it was a person with their head in the ground. When it gets to the point that atheists think they can mock and attack agnostics, some have definitely jumped the shark.

I can't speak on the behalf of others, nor control them, but for myself I have no objections to what you posted here. So we have come to an agreement. You want to refrain from making a statement one way or the other on belief. Totally fine with me.

I did not see the cartoon so I can't comment beyond your description. I would just like to point out, that I am not the only person on DU who defines atheism the way I do, and technically we (people using that definition) would also be included on the people being mocked for having our heads in the ground.

So if the point was to mock agnostics only they made their joke at the expense of some of their fellow atheists as well.

This is the kind of thing that leads to mutual respect and it definitely increases my respect for you.

It wasn't a very good cartoon in many ways. That was only one of them.

And I agree that while making a point about atheists, it mocked those that consider themselves agnostic atheist, which is most atheists.

I think things are going well so far. Let us keep it up.

That said, I think that I have spent enough time on DU for today (trying to cut down my online time and failing miserably).

See you next time.

Let me know if I stray, because I am not always that self aware.

Have a great rest of your day. I also have things to get to, but I do a little at a time, lol.

Hasta luego.

Some stuff of interest there.

It respects the individuality of each Christian while identifying what they have in common with greater accuracy than most statements of this kind.

This is a nice short thread where maybe we could continue our conversation. I seriously can not longer open that other thread.

IIRC, you made the initial statement that knowledge is gained either through reason or revelation.

While I understand reason, I am struggling with your definition of revelation, and based on how I define it, I do not agree with you.

If I understood your initial statement, you said that you supported reason over revelation, equating reason with evidence and revelation with hocus pocus.

I had objected to RaionalWiki being used as a source after a rather definitive article was linked about the truth of Moses and the Exodus story.

I objected because it has an agenda that is not entirely reasonable. IOW, I think that some of their anti-religion push is driven by emotion.

So, while I put a very high value on reason and data and science, I don't think it's the shoe that fits everything.

Sorry if I was rude previously. The whole logical fallacy thing really puts me off, as does the facile use of very worn out things like cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty. They are like fingernails on a chalkboard and rarely do anything but put the other person down and dismiss the entire conversation.

BTW, the cactus is a disaster. I can not stomach it at all and have had to come up with new dinner plans. Is my dislike of it based on reason or revelation?

That's all I have to say about this.

You might want to start your own thread.

I'm definitely not going to start a new thread.

Perhaps we will get the opportunity to talk about these things in the future.

with any way the thread goes.


As a UU, I kind of, sort of, go with our Living Traditions

Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

If I were into organized religion, that would be the one. It pretty much takes all the good stuff out of all of them and leaves the bad stuff behind.

check your brain at the door.

The last thing in the world I ever thought I would be doing is going to a church.

His idea was religion was something I needed to figure out for myself, and although he did provide religious education it was only to provide information and not to compel me to believe in anything. We had people of numerous faiths and beliefs in our congregation, including atheists.

that got a religious deferment because he was a UU.

It didn't grab me but I did feel comfortable.

No opportunity to check it out again in my current location, but maybe in the future.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

Try one in a college town. Old hippies and professors. Also, on the East coast they seem a little more Christ focussed and as you move west more humanist.

However, there are "assemblies" of people that meet in local dives from time to time.