5 ms·

> "anything vaguely resembling trinitarianism". So they exclude Jehovah's Witnesses, then. Not really all-inclusive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_

by derleth 13y ago

> "anything vaguely resembling trinitarianism". So they exclude Jehovah's Witnesses, then. Not really all-inclusive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

cgore 13y ago
Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentacostals, various others. Being all-inclusive isn't the point, nor should it be. If you want my personal definition of "Christian", it's this: 1. There is a god. 2. I'm not it, and neither are you. 3. Jesus is. 4. Therefore, Jesus is the boss. After that, all the rest just sort of flows out of it. It is amazing how many doctrinal issues either instantly disappear or don't even matter anymore. You don't end up with all sorts or absurd "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" questions to argue about endlessly, with one camp saying 144,000 and another saying 144,000,000. Instead you get real questions, like "what does God want of me?" It would be like having a major disagreement within a company over if the shoe size of the CEO is 12 or 13. The CEO doesn't care if you know his shoe size, he cares if you do your job or not.
- derleth 13y ago
  > Therefore, Jesus is the boss. Meh. My boss can't tell me how to live my life. My boss's authority ends precisely where I'm no longer doing what they're paying me to do. My point is that, even in your simplified theology, there is still a lot of room for debates. And, in religion, debates turn into bloody warfare, because this is peace and love we're talking about, and peace and love really matter.
  - avn2109 13y ago
    Much has been made lately about how HN comment quality is declining, but it seems to me that we're still the civilest, most on-topic bunch around. As exhibit A I submit the fact that this thread has not devolved into a silly Theological pissing contest and is instead still relevant to the OP. Touche, HN, touche.
  - cgore 13y ago
    "And, in religion, debates turn into bloody warfare, ..." Seriously? You sure do know how to keep discussion polite.
    - derleth 13y ago
      The Albigensians would like a word with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
- jarrett 13y ago
  As the article points out, it doesn't get us very far to use loaded, imprecise words like "god." Points 2 through 3 all depend on 1, which in turn depends on the word "god." So, for that definition of Christianity to be workable, we'd need to define "god" more precisely while avoiding equally vague terms, per the article's recommended procedure.

by derleth 13y ago

cgore 13y ago

Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentacostals, various others. Being all-inclusive isn't the point, nor should it be. If you want my personal definition of "Christian", it's this: 1. There is a god. 2. I'm not it, and neither are you. 3. Jesus is. 4. Therefore, Jesus is the boss. After that, all the rest just sort of flows out of it. It is amazing how many doctrinal issues either instantly disappear or don't even matter anymore. You don't end up with all sorts or absurd "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" questions to argue about endlessly, with one camp saying 144,000 and another saying 144,000,000. Instead you get real questions, like "what does God want of me?" It would be like having a major disagreement within a company over if the shoe size of the CEO is 12 or 13. The CEO doesn't care if you know his shoe size, he cares if you do your job or not.

derleth 13y ago
> Therefore, Jesus is the boss. Meh. My boss can't tell me how to live my life. My boss's authority ends precisely where I'm no longer doing what they're paying me to do. My point is that, even in your simplified theology, there is still a lot of room for debates. And, in religion, debates turn into bloody warfare, because this is peace and love we're talking about, and peace and love really matter.
- avn2109 13y ago
  Much has been made lately about how HN comment quality is declining, but it seems to me that we're still the civilest, most on-topic bunch around. As exhibit A I submit the fact that this thread has not devolved into a silly Theological pissing contest and is instead still relevant to the OP. Touche, HN, touche.
- cgore 13y ago
  "And, in religion, debates turn into bloody warfare, ..." Seriously? You sure do know how to keep discussion polite.
  - derleth 13y ago
    The Albigensians would like a word with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
jarrett 13y ago
As the article points out, it doesn't get us very far to use loaded, imprecise words like "god." Points 2 through 3 all depend on 1, which in turn depends on the word "god." So, for that definition of Christianity to be workable, we'd need to define "god" more precisely while avoiding equally vague terms, per the article's recommended procedure.