:up:

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
— Matthew 16:24
Thus speaks the man who ought to know, and according to His standard, there are very very few Christians or have ever been; nor is belief the criterion. — unenlightened

If this is it, then it seems to me there are many rather then "very, very few," although to be sure also those that weren't and are not. But what exactly did Jesus do that makes him his own class of one - and membership so difficult?

This thought experiment is highly unsophisticated and further, irrational. Suppose somehow? The somehow, or the 'in some way' would have to be explicitly stated and put forth, otherwise it's an exercise in futility. We don't live in a world of hypotheticals, except in works of fiction where we are free from the constraints of reality--or the world of our concrete experience. There are no answers that I could choose from for they are completely arbitrary choices that do not reflect in any real sense, the complexities of our world. My answer would simply be, Jesus was both a physical man and God manifested in human form so He could relate to finite, mortal men and women, and so make God known and someone with whom we can relate. Christianity to me is clearly definable but I won't engage in definig it here; but will say that it offers a complete worldview that makes perfect rational sense; and I cannot exchange that worldview for a worldview that leaves one with only a great abyss of meaninglessness.

The very few refers to those who accept/believe that Christ paid the penalty for our transgressions on the cross. We cannot attain to the perfection demanded by God except within Christ. Our transgressions as the book of Isaiah states will be washed clean and made white as wool, for they were nailed to the cross. Jesus became sin for us. This is the narrow, succinct definition of what it means to be a Christian. The gate is narrow that leads to eternal life. Why?
Because Christi alone, and no other, is the narrow gate. But the gate is wide that leads to destruction (death). Why? Because not everyone, which means the vast majority of humanity, will never accept Christ--they will not find or choose Christ's way even if it becomes known to them or if it is shown to them; rather, they will choose to walk through the gate that is wide and supposedly, more easy and open.

I should have anticipated that introducing the term "blasphemy" would elicit moralistic non sequitur from a secular audience (which is also ultimately self-contradictory, but I digress). The argument remains:

1. It is blasphemous for a Christian to consider themselves God's ontological equal, either now or in the future.
2. Mormons consider themselves God's ontological equal, either now or in the future.
3. Therefore, Mormons are not Christians.

"Blasphemy is mean" is not a logical response.

"Christians" have been accusing each other of blasphemy, setting each other beyond the pale as apostates, heretics, heathens, or whatever, from before the time when the Bible as we know it was compiled; the texts to be included and those to be exiled to the Apocrypha were part of that conflict. Whatever consensus of belief has come to be accepted by you or anyone else about what constitutes a Christian has been arrived at through debate and conflict that has rejected more inclusive positions. — unenlightened

This is not an argument. It is an emotional appeal for inclusivity.

Fine for a religious site, but not for a philosophy site; we're not the choir. Go back and read Unenlightened's post and my question to him. Further, as no one (else) can be Jesus, it becomes a matter of what he did and not who or what he was. So what did he do, that others can do, and that only "very, very few" - apparently - actually do? If it's deny yourself, pick up your own cross, and follow, I say many try and many succeed - and maybe trying is succeeding.

In discussing Mormonism, you're confusing me with someone else; I've expressed nothing on the subject. — tim wood

In your response <here> you entered directly into the Mormonism discussion, which is what I was responding to.

You seem unclear about your own topic. On the one hand, people will claim all kinds of things, on the other is the question as to what something is and is not. — tim wood

The original topic between us, which you began, is about the Creed and its significance. Note that you began with the premise that the significance of the Creed tells about the essence of Christianity, and thus that the two topics are not separate.

On the topic of what Christianity is, with respect to the existence of God, I offer the following excerpt.

"[T]he proposition ‘God exists’ would seem to mean that there is a being more or less like human beings in respect of his mental powers and dispositions, but having the mental powers of a human being greatly, perhaps infinitely, magnified.... I have no fear of being contradicted when I say that the meaning I suppose to be attached by this author to the proposition ‘God exists’ is a meaning Christian theologians have never attached to it, and does not even remotely resemble the meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have expounded at considerable length....The creeds in which Christians have been taught to confess their faith have never been couched in the formula: ‘God exists and has the following attributes’; but always in the formula: ‘I believe’ or originally ‘We believe in God’ ; and have gone on to say what it is that I, or we, believe about him." An Essay on Metaphysics, pp. 186-188. And here:
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.187414/page/n195/mode/2up — tim wood

Thanks for giving a source for your claims. First I want to note that Collingwood's argument against the "God" of the logical positivists on pages 185 and 186 suffices also as an argument against the Mormon conception of "God" as something compatible with Christian thought.

Now I think Collingwood becomes confused when he goes on to talk about presuppositions vs. propositions. When the Creed talks about God it is not talking about a presupposition of natural science, and Collingwood is right in saying that, "[The Christian Church] has not consistently taught that there can be no proof of God's existence."

But I don't want to get bogged down in Collingwood's personal project. What is the crux of the thesis you are proposing? It seems to me something like, <Christianity does not teach that God exists>, or else, <Christianity professes belief in God without in any way committing itself to God's existence>.

If this is not what you are saying, then what are you saying?

Or to dumb it down, I hope not fatally, two questions to be answered in turn. Do you believe in unicorns? Do they exist? — tim wood

What sense does it make to believe in unicorns without believing that unicorns exist? These look to be strange word games. Are you a Christian who claims to believe in God without believing in God? Are these positions related to your own claims?

Believe: to think that something is true, correct, or real — Cambridge Dictionary

I should have anticipated that introducing the term "blasphemy" would elicit moralistic non sequitur from a secular audience (which is also ultimately self-contradictory, but I digress). The argument remains:

It is blasphemous for a Christian to consider themselves God's ontological equal, either now or in the future.
Mormons consider themselves God's ontological equal, either now or in the future.
Therefore, Mormons are not Christians.

"Blasphemy is mean" is not a logical response. — Leontiskos

I would certainly agree that is blasphemous to call oneself God's ontological equal or to believe that one can "become" God.

Yet I'll take the blasphemous mormon who follows the word and teachings of Christ to a T over the foul mouthed and hateful christian who immediately claims adherence to all christian dogmas. Neither are perfect, but I would say the former is more "in christ."

Yet I'll take [X] over [Y]. — BitconnectCarlos

We are not discussing the question of who you "will take." We are discussing the question of whether Mormons are Christian.

What sense does it make to believe in unicorns without believing that unicorns exist — Leontiskos

I fumble-fingered away a decent paragraph in reply. It happens sometimes; hit the wrong keys and the text instantly vanishes. The point is that unicorns both exist and don't exist. That leaves the problem of defining "existence." Belief neatly sidesteps the problem. And your dictionary reference nails it,

Believe: to think that something is true, correct, or real — Cambridge Dictionary

That is, that you think it so, not that it thereby necessarily is so..

And I'm not sure what you're on about - and never mind Mormons; that's a topic for someone else. If it is that some people claim that God is real in some material sense, I agree that some do. My argument is simply that Christians, if they make that claim, are not being Christian, and in terms of the Creed, not Christian at all.

The point is that unicorns both exist and don't exist. That leaves the problem of defining "existence." Belief neatly sidesteps the problem. — tim wood

To say that something is and is not is a prima facie contradiction, and belief does not sidestep the problem in the least. What is required to solve the problem of the contradiction is a distinction:

• Unicorns exist as concepts in the human mind.
• Unicorns do not exist truly, in nature as primary substances.

Or:

• God exists as an immaterial being.
• God does not exist as a material being.

You can take it as a general rule of life that to say one believes X is to say that one believes X is true. I repeat:

What is the crux of the thesis you are proposing? It seems to me something like, <Christianity does not teach that God exists>, or else, <Christianity professes belief in God without in any way committing itself to God's existence>.

If this is not what you are saying, then what are you saying? — Leontiskos

We are not discussing the question of who you "will take." We are discussing the question of whether Mormons are Christian. — Leontiskos

Ultimately, for the Christian, what matters is who is in Christ.

Or:
God exists as an immaterial being. — Leontiskos

Evidence? Apparently it is meaningless to call this a belief, so, evidence?

You can take it as a general rule of life that to say one believes X is to say that one believes X is true. — Leontiskos

Have I disagreed with this? Now you tell us, what makes it true?

The crux as you put it is found in the first words of the Creed, "We believe...", I claim to know what that means, do you? Spoiler alert and hint, it means what it says and not what it does not say.

- If you are going to continue to refuse to explain what your thesis is, then obviously I should stop wasting my time with you.

Ultimately, for the Christian, what matters is who is in Christ. — BitconnectCarlos

Those who set themselves up as God are not in Christ.

They believe they'll one day become Gods, no?

We could also throw out the pantheists and panentheists.

They believe they'll one day become Gods, no? — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, and because of that they might view Christianity the way Buddhists view Buddhism, namely as a vehicle that can be dispensed with once the destination is reached. But to make the Christian participatory metaphysic temporary and superable is already to have left Christianity behind.

I'm guessing you dramatically edited a post while I was looking up a link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)

Theosis (Ancient Greek: θέωσις), or deification (deification may also refer to apotheosis, lit. "making divine"), is a transformative process whose aim is likeness to or union with God, as taught by the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Church; the same concept is also found in the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, where it is termed "divinization". As a process of transformation, theosis is brought about by the effects of catharsis (purification of mind and body) and theoria ('illumination' with the 'vision' of God). According to Eastern Christian teachings, theosis is very much the purpose of human life. It is considered achievable only through synergy (or cooperation) of human activity and God's uncreated energies (or operations).

Perhaps, not relevant to what you have edited to, but it seems relevant to what I thought you were claiming earlier.

- That post was never edited.

...And deification is an example of the Christian participatory metaphysic, not a counterexample against it.

This thought experiment is highly unsophisticated and further, irrational. Suppose somehow? The somehow, or the 'in some way' would have to be explicitly stated and put forth, otherwise it's an exercise in futility. — Ray Liikanen

Yes, true.

It's a bit like asking, "If you left the United States, where would you be?" Well, it depends a great deal on where, when, and how one leaves the United States.

Or else, "If your car broke down, what parts and tools would you buy to fix it?" Erm..

But to be fair to the OP, it sets a suitable pace for what has been a remarkably silly thread.

- That post was never edited. — Leontiskos

Ok, I guess I misinterpreted of misattributed something.

- To be fair, many of my posts in this thread were written with the awareness that they are vulnerable to imprecise objections, and deification represents one of those imprecise objections. Given that there is nothing precise happening in this thread, I don't find it useful to try to erect bastions against possible misinterpretation at each step. Still, my edited posts in this thread involve additions, not retractions.

Christians and Mormons are a bit like bees and wasps. The uninitiated is liable to confuse them but someone who understands their significant differences—their respective theologies and histories—will see them as very different animals. Of course if one doesn't care and only wants to avoid being stung, then one can think of bees and wasps as identical.

Christians and Mormons are a bit like bees and wasps. The uninitiated is liable to confuse them but someone who understands their significant differences—their respective theologies and histories—will see them as very different animals. Of course if one doesn't care and only wants to avoid being stung, then one can think of bees and wasps as identical. — Leontiskos

It's not that I am unaware that Mormonism began as a weird cultish offshoot of Christianity and that many if not most Christians, do not consider Mormons to be Christians.

The fact is, I'm sufficiently initiated to understand that many Christians are apt to label large swaths of Christians as heretical. For example:

https://carm.org/about-theology/what-is-theosis/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon#Reformation_view

It's just an aspect of the inherent divisiveness of Christianity.

It's just an aspect of the inherent divisiveness of Christianity. — wonderer1

This is a good example of the non sequitur I referred to earlier. "Christians are divisive, therefore Mormons are Christians." The conclusion does not follow. The argument could only plausibly function as some variety of ad hominem.

This is a good example of the non sequitur I referred to earlier. "Christians are divisive, therefore Mormons are Christians." The conclusion does not follow. — Leontiskos

No. I wasn't making any such argument. I was just pointing out what is easily recognized with sufficient knowledge of history.

This is not an argument. It is an emotional appeal for inclusivity. — Leontiskos

It's not an argument indeed. It is a piece of history; the plain fact of the matter is that the term "Christian" has always been disputed from its inception and such identity labels nearly always are disputed.
No true philosopher would be unaware of this, or claim to possess the truth of the matter. :wink:

But what exactly did Jesus do that makes him his own class of one - and membership so difficult? — tim wood

I'm so glad you asked me, because not many people know this. He didn't just carry his cross up the hill, when he got to the top, he was nailed there to it and left until dead. The difficulty for followers though is that he did it for others, whereas followers tend to do it for their own salvation, to the extent that they make any sacrifice at all.

The difficulty for followers though is that he did it for others, whereas followers tend to do it for their own salvation — unenlightened

Don't know why I never thought about it this way. Well put

Don't know why I never thought about it this way. Well put — flannel jesus

Thanks. I wouldn't call myself a Christian, but I appreciate the story, and hate it when people wilfully distort the meaning or claim the copyright on interpretation. We are surely all God's people, and none are excluded - that's the story.