Thomas said:
You should also realise that the term "Christian" is subjective.
I don't think so - if it is then in the end it means nothing. Christ never said 'make of this what you will...' - he always pushed his people to understand what He meant, not what they made of what He meant?
Let's look at it this way. Let's suppose we have a common destination, but we were all in different places when we were called to gather at that destination. We would have to move in different directions in order to reach the same destination. The term "Christian" would depend on where, when, why and how we were called. Where do you come from? What is your background? The meaning of "Christian" is stamped into that context. The term "Christian" distinguishes you from everyone else in
that context, culture, society, etc. We're all moving in different directions even though we have the same target. We're not all moving north because we're not all south of our destination. Some of us come from the the west, east and the south.
Thomas said:
Whether a person is "Christian" is not defined by a set of rules.
I can thinbk of two, from the Man Himself.
The way I see it is . . . Jesus explained but didn't define. An explanation and a definition aren't the same thing. Different people have a different relationship with God. That, I reckon, is all I can say about it. The explanation Jesus gave leads us to God. Jesus didn't define anything. He just explained. It's like giving the same instructions to different people in different places on how to reach the same destination. You can't
define the route because everyone takes a different route. You can only
explain how to get to the destination. What landmarks will you meet? What enemies and predators will you encounter? Who do you ask for information?
My impression from reading the Bible is that its purpose is not to give Christianity structure, but to explain it. Defining is like giving map directions. But, if we are all in different places, giving map directions won't necessarily help us get there. Giving Christianity structure is like providing map directions. Most of the division in Christianity are about map directions. I think the idea should be to explain the journey, not the exact route for getting there.
Thomas said:
The terms "Christian" and "faith" are both personal. They are defined by what they mean to you.
If it becomes personal, or subjective, then one begins to negotiate the paradigm into more amenable and acceptable, and desirable, terms. This is why religions are so adamant on their principles - invariably the argument is to water the thing down.
But . . . then again, when we were called, we weren't found in the same locality. We are in different places. Getting everyone to conform is like using the same map directions. Ultimately, far less of us reach the destination because we didn't know how to get there in the first place . . . That's because the map directions didn't help us understand the journey. Map directions don't say much about the enemies we will meet, or where to get information from, and what advice to avoid. There instructions would be unnecessary if map directions were sufficient.
Despite the sheer number of divisions and factions in Christianity, we might be overlooking how much we really have in common. Yet, we can't help arguing over map directions even though we come from different places and the same map directions won't help us all get there. Our error is to treat Christianity as something systematic and technical rather than intuitive.
Thomas said:
Language is a structural and systematic framework for conveying meaning, but human thinking is not restricted by such a framework.
If that is so, how are you sure you have understood the message correctly? Are you not assuming you have a right or viable meaning, attained by a system that is fallible and liable to error? Christ might as likely say to you 'that's not what I meant at all.' - where is your certitude?
Sometimes sentences can be ambiguous. So how do we know the "true meaning?" I think there are times when there is no such thing as "the true meaning." It depends on the intention of the speaker. What did he mean? The same sentence can mean two different things in two different contexts.
That's why we need a conversation. For clarity. You provide extra information. That's why we write whole books on involved topics/subjects. If one sentence is not enough, provide a second one, a third one, and so on. I have never heard of a religion that was quantified in exactly one statement, like a logical, mathematical equation. Imagine if that was possible -- that a religion could be summed up in one single equation.
I don't think it's an accident that people have different interpretations of the Bible. I don't see that as wrong. We filter out different aspects of a written piece as more important than others. If one verse doesn't give you the information that you need, find another that will -- that one verse is only one part of the story. The information you need and I need may not be the same thing. I may notice something you do not even though we're reading the same verse, and vice versa. But even then we can both be led to the same Christ -- it's just that I needed a different verse to you. The same verses don't serve the same purpose for everyone. We are similar but our minds function differently.
Thomas said:
"Christian" and "faith" are supposed to define a concept that is abstractly and vaguely common to two or more people, so trying to define (quantify) it doesn't make sense.
Again I disagree - there are concrete examples everywhere that people can readily agree to, without doubt..
Concrete vs. abstract . . . I'm thinking agreement doesn't necessarily mean a concept is "concrete," it's just that it has a similar meaning to a lot of people.
What I am talking about here is a separation between logic and sentiment. Logic has a fixed structure. Sentiment is about what we feel. Reasoning can be either logical or sentimental. Not all "correct" reasoning is logical. Some of it is sentimental. There is a difference between a romantic relationship between a man and woman (a marriage -- driven by emotions) and a customer's professional relationship with a bank (the bank account - driven by numbers, rules and laws). With Christianity it's a similar thing. Do you treat God like a bank or more like someone you love?
There is room for being "wrong" as well as being "right" with sentiment. The question is not whether our "logic" is right, but whether our "sentiment" is right. There are things that are "wrong" in a relationship that involves love and one that involves numbers, logic, calculations, calculus and money. I think it's more of a personal understanding of ourselves rather than following a set of rules.
Let me honestly say, I can't find much in the Bible to suggest the idea that "Truth" in Christianity is something driven by logic over the idea of sentiment. If so, then I find that the sentiment for Christianity to be driven by logic is very weak, hard to discern and identify.
Thomas said:
... Not trying to be argumentative (well, I am - but in a good natured way) but if, for a moment, we take Scripture and the incarnation as a mode of revelation, is not your philsophy saying we cannot understand it? That rather negates the whole point of Revelation.
Same here. Don't want to give anyone the wrong impression. Just saying. Should we follow formulas or trust our feelings? I just think that what we believe about Christianity should be compatible with who we are as human beings.
Thomas said:
In all I would say that is a very post-Enlightenment philosophy, and I can suggest a few philosophers who would argue that it is inherently flawed.
I'd be interested to know what category you think my thinking belongs to . . . as I have no idea. I did not get this kind of thinking from reading books about Christianity or any religion. It's just my personal view, one that's evolved over time from reading about different views and approaches to Christianity. You could say it's my response to how Christianity has been approached. Seeing the different ways of thinking has been interesting.
I don't use the common labels "liberal", "traditional" or "conservative" as that suggests that Christianity has structure. Liberals are "casual" towards structure, "conservatives" cling to it. I am neither for or against structure in Christianity, but I prefer it not to be used as a yardstick for measuring people.
![Smile :) :)]()