NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/21770

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 6.4 KB

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21770 alt.messianic:3744
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pacbell.com!att-out!cbfsb!shep!tke
From: [e-mail] (Tom Epstein [415])
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: tke@shep (Tom Epstein [415])
Nntp-Posting-Host: shep.cnet.att.com
Organization: Bell Laboratories
References: <roelle.724628610@uars_mag> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:20:00 GMT
Lines: 113

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Carl J Lydick) writes:

|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Epstein [415]) writes:
|> >Mr. Edward's question, "...how are we... to judge whether or not they _are_a
|> >(sic) christian" is a valid one.  It seems to me; however, that his conclusion
|> >that skeptics *must* assume that "somebody who claims to be a christian _is_ a
|> >christian" is not easy to defend. If one wishes to hold the skeptical line, the
|> >best conclusion one can draw from anyone's claim of Christianity (unless other
|> >evidence is offered) is, "This person claims to be a Christian."
|>
|> Well, perhaps you're not aware of the fact that about a month or so ago, in
|> sci.skeptic, there was a discussion in which we skeptics asked for an
|> operational definition of the term "Christian."  Needless to say, the
|> creationists posting to sci.skeptic were not forthcoming with an answer.
|> Perhaps you are.  Let's read on.

No I was not aware of the previous discussion.  I would be very much surprised
if there had been anything close to a consensus.

[Stuff I wrote about intra-"Christian" sectarian
abuses predicated by "definition" disputes, deleted]

|> Hmmm.  Now, you see, you've just hit on a very problematical point:  There are
|> various Christian sects that claim that OTHER Christian secst "behave in a
|> manner which Jesus (based upon what the sect in question believes were his
|> teachings) would condemn."
|> So, to paraphrase Grant, "Which of those sects should I believe it correct?"
|> You see, your agument assumes a unanimity that simply doesn't exist.

Hummm.  I must have been unclear.  My point is that an adaquate definition
cannot be obtained.  We seem to agree here.

Yes, your paraphrase of Grant (I assume you refer to Grant Edwards.) is a logical
extension of my original point.  I have never assumed such unanimity exists.
In fact I'm sure it does not.  However your paraphrase, "Which of those sects
should I believe is correct?"  does not support his conclusion that all who
claim to be Christian must be assumed to be Christian.

|> But when one group of soi-disant Christians claim that the fruit of another
|> group of soi-disant Christians is corrupt, and vice-versa, how are we to tell
|> which (if either) is correct)?

Of course, from the skeptical viewpoint, there is no way to tell
unless the "fruit" can be demonstrated to be a flagrant violation of the
offending sect's own stated understanding.  Thus when Baptists condemn Cath-
olics for their baptismal methodology, the skeptic has no means to opine on
the correctness of either sect's doctrine.  On the other hand, when a sect
supports the doctrine of "Thou shall not murder," then as a matter of doctrine
withholds life-saving medical procedures from its followers, there would seem
to be a basis to dismiss the sect as ersatz-Christian on the strength of the,
"bad fruit" argument. This assumes that withholding proper care = murder.  Your
statement supports my point (minus the soi-disant epithet which, I think, beneath
you). Read on.

|> Despite your raising my hopes, you didn't come anywhere near providing a useful
|> operational definition of Christianity:  All you said is that "Christianity is
|> wehat Christians say it is."  Since there are numerous conflicting definitions
|> using your criterion, how am I to choose which one is correct?

No, I said nothing of the kind.  I never attempted to provide any definition
of Christianity at all.  Sorry to raise your hopes.  I didn't mean to do so.
Again, it seems I did not make myself clear (alas).  Let me try again.

My supposition is the following:

If one wishes to hold the skeptical line, the best conclusion one can
draw from anyone's claim of Christianity is, "This person claims to be
a Christian."  One would require more evidence to conclude more.

The subpoints:

1) Neither skeptics nor those who call themselves Christian are able to
produce a test which can verify such a claim.

2) At *best* one *might* be able to dismiss some claims on the basis that
the behavior of some claimants seems to consistantly defy what they *them-
selves* profess to be requisite behavior. This is the point of the "duck"
speech; not that there is a definitive test *for* Christianity, but that
there is a way to make a reasonable assumption against individuals' claims
of Christianity in some cases.

Let me add the following points:

3) The "good" fruit argument (as Mr. Edwards [To him: May I call you Grant?]
correctly points out in another post) does nothing to verify claims of
Christianity;
however, the "bad" fruit argument provides a basis by which some claims *might*
be dismissed, or at least cause one to be, well, skeptical.  It seems to me
that his posted list of Christian evils does more to undermine his initial
assertion than to support it.

4) Many individuals and sects disagree on the definition of Christianity.
Such definitions are often *mutually exclusive*.  Both exclusive definitions
cannot be true.  In such a case:
  Sect A, holds a doctrine that sect B cannot be truly Christian.
  Sect A is assumed to be truly Christian as per Grant's approach.
  Sect B must be assumed to *not* be Christian according to Christianity.
  Sect B is assumed to be truly Christian as per Grant's approach in
  direct conflict with previous assumptions.
To assume all claimants are Chistian is logically not valid.

Ergo:

The assumption of Grant's assertion: One "must" assume that *all* who claim to
be Christians are indeed Christians, is not the best assumption one could
make regarding such claims.

Indeed, one must conclude that *all* claimants cannot *all* be Christians.
I remain unconvinced (and much, much too wordy.  Sorry.)

Truly,

Tom