well part of the whole basis for fundamentalism is to give a definite answer to that question 'what is a Christian, anyway?' So we can see where that has lead. I do much prefer those who think for themselves but the question remains then how to remain free of the tyranny of ego.

Why should a pantheist need to call himself a christian if he only believes in the message rather than his divinity.My question would be are we all christians with that thought process?

---------- Post added 07-24-2009 at 04:30 AM ----------

I will ask you the same question i ask all pantheists,is your god conscious?

The question calls for a longer and more sophisticated response than time currently allows but in brief: IMHO

The relationship between god and the world is faintly analoqous to the relationship between your mind and your body.
My conception of God is not of the big guy in the sky or the man out there, or the master pupeteer pulling all the strings and conducting the play.
God is not some kind of divine tyrant.
God IMV would be persuasive and not coercive.
God would be powerful but not omnipotent.
God would know everything that could be known but not every detail of the future.
God would be the reason there is order and complexity, life and mind and the source of transcendent moral and aesthetic value.
The universe would have purpose and ultimate meaning and significance.

I am not a pantheist. The subtle difference in the words pantheism and panentheism belies a huge difference in concepts regarding the nature of the divine and the relationship between god and the world.

Those damned pantheists are an allusive bunch..

Did you mean allusive, illusive or elusive?

Historical Examples:

The Ebionites (i.e., Jewish Christians, the Jewish followers of Jesus who keep kosher etc. etc., read the disciples and apostles, even prior perhaps to his death) whom Paul ranted against in his Epistle to the Galations, and a predominant sect of Christianity in its very earliest days, certainly disavowed Jesus' transcendent divinity; after this view (it's a Pauline view, by the way) took hold in the general church, many, like the writer of the Gospel of Matthew, favored the interpretation that the Spirit of God had alighted on him upon baptism and left him just prior to his death. A corollary of this view, of course, is that Jesus cannot be innately divine.

The Theodotians, too, were for some time a powerful sect in early Christianity, and they, too, did not think that Jesus was divine, but rather they believed that he was a wholly human prophet.

The view of Jesus' divinity, as I've already pointed out, was a predominantly Pauline view, and to Ebionites it would have been Paul who was the father of all heresies. In fact it's unlikely that any of the earliest disciples, e.g., Simon Peter, ascribed to this view of the Christ they knew. So thus you don't need to adhere to Jesus' divinity to be a Christian (contrary to what some fundamental apologists claim): in fact, some of the very earliest, most authentic Christians did not think Jesus divine at all, and indeed, the only Gospel in which the sense of Jesus' divinity comes through is the Gospel of John, clearly produced later than the synoptics and at a different locale with different sacred oral tradition.

The Gnostic view actually resolves pantheism, divinity, and theodicy really well, even if a) it's a metaphor and b) it's hard for me to ascribe to, believing, as it does, that the world is inherently evil.

One could argue that a "Christian" is one who accepts a certain number of doctrinal or creed statements as factually "true".
One could argue that a "Christian" is one who tries to follow the teachings and emulate the example of Jesus in their own life.
Jesus himself taught the precedence of love over law and of spiritual over material concerns. Jesus was fairly critical and dismissive of the religious orthodoxy the politics of holiness of the temple in his own time and likely would be equally critical of the formal politics of "Christianity" in our own time.
The number of "Christians" who really are familiar with orthodox Christian theology is quite limited.
Personally I assess Christians based on behavior not on professed belief.

I accept christ was possible a very advanced individual for his time and he taught a way of love and mercy unknown too the masses of the time.He was obviously expressing others thoughts and teachings but in a more direct manner.He took it from the few and delivered it to the majority.His story was bastardised by certain elite to make it religious rather than educational and from a simple story of love it became a means to control those who followed the basic message of compassion.
Those who follow christ for his teachings and not his divinity!can they claim to be christian?im not sure they can as his message is no better than others proclaimed ethical reasoning.

Quick note - Karen Armstrong describes herself as a "freelance monotheist"; as far as I know, she does not consider herself to be a Christian any longer.

But you make the point perfectly: there are a great many Christians who are pantheists. Pantheist Christianity exists - some may doubt that these people can reconcile pantheism and Christian teachings, but to simply say 'oh, I've never met a pantheist Christian who was able to explain themself' is no objection at all. There are a great many ways one might go about being a pantheist Christian - simply because one particular way does not make sense to you is no reason to reject the fact that there are people who have some sort of belief.

These people are not catholic Christians, certainly, but they still may be Christians. People argue about what is and what is not a Christian, but the answer seems quite obvious: a Christian is someone who believes that they are a Christian. If we go back to the early Christians, we find a remarkably diverse field of beliefs. We should use these early groups as a guide and allow the same diversity today.

Christian is someone who believes that they are a Christian

Which interestingly enough is exactly the definition the religoustolerance.org web site settled upon after a furious debate.

I still think that in the absence of an effort to follow the teachings of Jesus or emulate his example, it is a stretch to consider yourself a Chrisitan. The doctrines, dogmas and creeds divide but true faith unites.

I have sometimes said that a Christian is someone who primarily turns to the teachings they believe are accurately portrayed as those of Jesus when in need of spiritual guidance, or they turn to someone who turns to those teachings. Which is clumsy, but seems to work.



I agree. But then again, how many people honestly self-identify as a Christian without, in their minds, making some effort to follow those teachings and emulate that example?

As Didymos Thomas mentioned Karen Armstrong, I will mention that I have bought her latest book, The Case for God, which, so far (only into the first chapters as yet) is first rate.

Ah! I really do enjoy Armstrong's work. Here is an excerpt from a recent review of her latest:

New Statesman - The Case for God: What Religion Means


I don't know how many times I've made that argument on this forum. This is something that runs through much of her work - The Battle For God covers the history of fundamentalism, and seems to be a precursor to this latest work.

Hear hear. I

I have never believed in the kind of God which Dawkins seeks to disprove. So really, he has no argument from me.

And except for fundamentalists, his arguments are straw men.

I find it strange that those authors have any academic credibility. Essentially, they take the most absurd, radical, and shallow theological notions, prop these up as religion at large, and then pat themselves on the backs after dismantling it. In the process, they show just how little of theology they really understand. What they do in their books, any precocious ten year old can accomplish.

Dawkins is a hack, and his works are potboilers for unsophisticated atheists. It's ra-ra material for people who just want to feel better about themselves by attacking other people. It's for kids - pathetic, nasty children.

To anyone who reads and takes Dawkins seriously - you owe it to yourself to do better. Go read some Nietzsche.

And Nietzsche realized in abadoning the concept of god one also destroyed the putative basis for western morality. I have yet to see an attractive system of values and aesthetics based purely on reason and science. I do not find Nietzsche's solution attractive.

Sure, but he also managed to offer up a mature replacement.

Also, I am not convinced that Nietzsche was right about his theories, God, and morality. Take for example, JS Mill's utilitarianism. His arguments do not rely on God, instead he drags God with him by arguing that God happens to be a utilitarian.



I also have issues with Nietzsche, but his work is mature and well considered, unlike that of Dawkins.

I do not know your opinion of the world view, but Buddhism relies on reason and experience alone. And what I find interesting is the theistic, Christian response to Nietzsche; instead of outright rejecting him, theologians seem to be moving on with most of his arguments accepted in some way. For some theologians, his work has induced a 'death of God' theology'.

Prothero, I am with you on Neitszche. Also I don't know if Neitszche could ever have been described as 'mature'. He was brilliant, no doubt, but extremely tempestuous even when he was sane. Anyway I have decided to avoid discussing Neitszche altogether, so I better be quiet.



Well, so long as you count Buddha's realisation of Nirvana as 'experience', but it is a stretch in my view. It is certainly not within the realm of the experience of the ordinary 'wordling' and in fact it is said that 'can only be experienced by the wise' i.e. the ability to experience Nirvana is the final fruit of the entire Buddhist path. It is very convenient to neglect the supernatural element of the Buddha's teaching, but it is definitely there, even if he is frequently enlisted as a kind of secular hero.

In the East the problem is suffering and the solution is enlightenment.
In the West the problem is sin and the solution is salvation.
The Buddha did not claim to be divine. The Buddha only wanted to teach a method which for him anyway had resulted in "enlightenment". The Eastern solution may not solve our western problem.
Neitszche created more problems than he was able to solve, as he himself I think realized but lacking belief in god and desiring to be intellectually honest leaves one in a bit of a quandry with respect to values and aesthetics.

This is how it is described, an experience. The experience is the same as those often called "mystical" in the west; given that we have people in nearly all traditions claiming essentially the same experience, only using slightly different language, it seems likely that the experience is a real one. The only way to contest that the experience is real is to call all who have had the experience either liars, or deluded - but such mass delusion seems more unlikely than the reality of the experience.



We in the west tend to call elements of Buddhism "supernatural", but Buddhists disagree. They say, instead, that what appears to be supernatural to those unfamiliar with the experiences are completely natural - and that we call them supernatural only because those experience are, as you say, outside the realm of normal, untrained experience.

I see no reason to assert, in spite of Buddhist philosophy, that there are these supernatural elements. A long standing trouble for westerners trying to understand Buddhism, and other eastern systems, is poor translation of sacred text and poor, however honest, understandings of those texts. Even Herman Hesse, renowned for his famous novella Siddhartha, exhibits clear misunderstandings of Buddhism in that classic work.

Two great books, I think, help clear up these common understandings among westerners. First, there is Robert Thurman's invaluable introduction to Buddhism, Inner Revolution. He discusses the history of Buddhism, the essence of the Buddhist path, all within the frame work of a personal narrative. In the book, he argues that Buddhism is not even a religion in the western sense in part because of the dearth of supernatural elements. The other text is Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Bachelor.

One of the troubles in saying that Buddhism has supernatural elements is recognizing the difference between Buddhism, and Buddhism in practice. What I mean is this - Buddhists often retain elements of traditional religions, which typically do have supernatural elements. Thus, when we look at Tibetan Buddhism, for example, it is sometimes difficult to see where Buddhism ends and the traditional Bon religion begins. Bon certainly has supernatural elements, but the Buddhism, according to eminent scholars like Robert Thurman, does not have that supernatural element.

Prothero - I am not sure how eastern thought cannot solve, or help resolve, our western problems. To be sure, we often paint our spiritual life with different language, but human spirituality is universal. The language is local, not the experience and the spiritual need. I am not saying that Eastern solutions are the Rosetta Stone to our western problems - each culture has slightly different circumstances, and these circumstances must be addressed by that culture's spiritual traditions - but it seems, given the universality of the human spiritual experience, that we can at least learn from eastern solutions and adapt them to western spiritual needs. Likewise, I think easterners can learn from western religion in the same manner. This sort of cross-traditional learning has already been going on with great vigor from at least sixty years, and this great practice continues today. Thomas Merton was more than happy to learn from eastern traditions, especially Buddhism and Taoism; the Vietnamese Buddhism monk Thich Nhat Hahn has learned a great deal from Catholicism as well.

And I still do not buy this argument that lack of God-belief leaves us with some great trouble regarding values. Sure, the move from God-belief to God-disbelief/apathy creates trouble because we are moving from something familiar into something unfamiliar, but apart from this comfort level, I see no trouble. Surely, with time for adjustment, we can overcome this discomfort of the alien. Many people already seem to have done just this, given the preponderance of atheism and agnosticism. I mean, it does not seem that Bertrand Russell had a more difficult time with values than any given theist.