Define Evidence

[Bradski]

Ironic comments about what Christians could possibly believe about Jesus violate the forum rule of respect…

If irony amd sarcam are violations of forum rules, then I am dead in the water.

 

[minkymurph]

If irony amd sarcam are violations of forum rules, then I am dead in the water.

It’s funny you should say this - I was in the process of formulating a post to the effect a critique I would make of arguments atheists present is they are not arguments, but opinions and their opinions are frequently loaded with irony and sarcasm.

You’ve saved me the trouble by conceding this is in fact the case.

Being serious, sound arguments don’t require irony and sarcasm. In fact irony and sarcasm devalue what could potentially be a sound argument so why use it?

 

[Vonsalza]

A list, you say.

Sure, and they vary from person to person. The only commonality between all of them is the deity of Christ. Some require creationism, some don’t. Some require communion and baptism, some don’t. Some require belief in this, some require belief in that. All claim the title Christian.

Your reluctance to acknowledge that doesn’t prohibit its reality.

No, it’s not just a belief in a vague amorphous creator that’s required.

Good grief man, that isn’t what I said, thou “Lord of Straw-men”. The belief in the deity of Christ is.

Some of which are the most basic attributes of almost all Christians who are or who have ever lived.

Which many self-described Christians eschew with apparent pride. When personal revelation trumps any formal, visible authority (as it does for most of Protestantism) just about anything goes. I think that’s essentially the lesson you’re lacking here.

Although, you might have noticed that you have already added to the list the required fact the creator is a personal God… …and that He had a son… …[and] the resurrection.

None of these are without debate or substantial addendum in wider Christendom. I’m sorry, but you don’t get to set the bar for others as to what it takes to be a Christian; especially when personal revelation from the spirit is the go-to source of authority, as opposed to the demands of any one person such as yourself.

Now, if you were discussing a specific form of Christianity like Catholicism, you would have the ability to make specific statements about required belief. But if you discuss Christianity in the whole, there are few beliefs that all who claim the title “Christian” will have in common. - Be that good or bad.

 

[Bradski]

It’s funny you should say this - I was in the process of formulating a post to the effect a critique I would make of arguments atheists present is they are not arguments, but opinions and their opinions are frequently loaded with irony and sarcasm.

You’ve saved me the trouble by conceding this is in fact the case.

Being serious, sound arguments don’t require irony and sarcasm. In fact irony and sarcasm devalue what could potentially be a sound argument so why use it?

I think one need a light touch with sarcasm. Overused and it becomes an irritation and does indeed deflect from the argument. It often is used instead of an argument. But use it correctly and you can have someone walk away from a discussion and later think: ‘Hey, hang on…’.

As Wilde said, it’s the lowest form of wit, so I don’t use it for humour (but he did go on to say it’s the highest form of intelligence). But irony? Ah…irony.

But yeah, you need a good argument as well.

 

[Bradski]

Sure, and they vary from person to person. The only commonality between all of them is the deity of Christ. Some require creationism, some don’t. Some require communion and baptism, some don’t. Some require belief in this, some require belief in that.

Then I think we are done. My point was not that all Christians believe the same thing, although to deflect from my point you have insisted on arguing against that. With whom I am not sure.

The point is (and I shan’t be repeating it) that any given Christian has multiple beliefs which are required for his or her interpretation of what he or she believes is required to be classed as a Christian. Whether you are a dyed in the wool Catholic, a tin foil hatted tree hugging hippie or indeed anyone who describes themselves as a Christian.

You have the floor.

 

[Vonsalza]

My point was not that all Christians believe the same thing…

Oh? Your own words: “I am pointing out what is required to be a Christian.”

At any rate, it seems you’ve come down from your indefensible position of “Christians must think ‘X,Y and Z’”.

The point is (and I shan’t be repeating it) that any given Christian has multiple beliefs which are required for his or her interpretation of what he or she believes is required to be classed as a Christian.

Excellent. Then you observe the relativism that espouses Christianity - especially the post-reformation derivatives of it.

Should you ever decide to approach the topic again, I’ll look forward to reading your substantially abridged “list of boxes” that must be checked in order to call oneself “Christian”.