No, it can’t. Reason is incapable of showing that it is the only way to know things.
1 Like
I’m sure it theoretically is, but it will have to do, and it does do, very well indeed, by as many sigmata as one could possibly wish, in the face of no competition whatsoever, like much in philosophy. There is no Gettier problem for faith in anything other than reason to squeeze in to. No gap to bridge with intentional supernature.
It’s not. Creationists who ask for evidence of evolution are usually given evidence (though they may reject it), not fobbed off with excuses.
2 Likes
No, I’m going to say that the Nicene creed (really the later Constantinople creed) is widespread but not totally accepted, and wonder why you didn’t mention it in any of your first three replies.
I’m also going to object to your mischaracterisation.
Affirmation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is a decent option for a definition of who is a Christian (one that I would agree with, and a decent number of other Christians).
For something even broader, where no one who denies it has any legitimate claim to being a Christian, there’s affirmation of “Jesus is Lord.”
1 Like
No I mean the 325 AD creed of Nicea, which I have spoken of so many many times in this forum as the earliest and widest definition of Christianity.
With the later creeds it is a good demonstration of wider and wider numerical specifications of consensus… something I have also spoken of many times.
Not terrible, rules out the Muslims, BUT… it does not rule out the Hari Krishna and many Hindus. I don’t think this really works as a definition of Christianity. But BTW, for me this is nothing more than the definition of a human word. I don’t believe any religion has any monopoly on God or truth, Christianity included.
because it is such a duh… kind of question. enough like the creationists demanding evidence for evolution… meaning one is making so little effort to answer their own question you know they are pre-disposed to reject any answer and thus an invitation to waste your time.
On the other hand… you do have a point. This is NOT science. So… the creationists really are a different ball game… more dissimilarities than similarities.
And who are you?
1 Like
question with many answers…
I am a son of two psychology majors. I am a total child of the 60s, going to peace marches, visiting a commune, and growing up with the smell of pot in the air. Then I studied physics and math at university… ending education with BS in math, MS in physics, and MDIV from seminary. wife Japanese, three boys…
Considering I have made all my choices on each doctrinal issue separately, I find the degree to which I am orthodox is quite surprising. On the other hand my reasons, being completely my own are often very far from anything which can be called orthodox. Let’s summarize… 5 solas protestant (with protestant canon), trinitarian, not universalist but only believe in a hell created not by God but by ourselves, rejecting all of TULIP Calvinism, incompatibilist libertarian open theist, rational non-magical compatibility with science, more eastern orthodox on atonement and original sin, rejecting meglomaniac, purist, hard hearted, controlling wrathful, and sadistic notions of God, believing only in the loving humble God who sees greatness only in being a servant of servants.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t object to using that either.
I’m not aware of any extant groups that affirm the content of Nicaea and not the later one. Individuals, yes, but not bigger groups.
1 Like
Yes but who are you as an authority?
Ad hominum?
I thought we had put that to bed a long tie ago, but still it rears its ugly head.
Richard
You believe in authority?
the Mormons are really into that
Some might attribute authority based on education. Others based on some kind of official position.
but me? believe in authority? not so much. I mean… I am certainly an authority on me and what I believe.
I don’t think so.
At most it is just a strange and nearly meaningless question as far as I am concerned. But… hey… I know some people are into that kind of rhetoric as nonsensical as it seems to me personally.
2 Likes
As a follow up…
First, did you catch my explanation in the same post
And why do we need such a definition?
simple honesty.
Anybody can say they are something with any kind of weird definition of the word. But it is more honest to look at the most common/widest definition of the word and see if you really fit that definition. Because honestly, pretending to be something you aren’t just seems a little creepy to me. To be sure there are all kinds of groups who have concocted narrow definitions of the word “Christian” fitting only their little group. And to be sure, I am unlikely to fit those definitions and I could hardly care since I likely wouldn’t want to a part of their group. But widest usage of the word is something different… it is a rather wide spectrum of belief and I honestly think I fit within that spectrum. And no I don’t think it entitles me to anything or really signifies something terribly important either.
2 Likes
Seems like nature needs, feels the need for, things of faith.
2 Likes
Modern people do not necessarily get the point of that statement, why it was such a big issue. It is easy to say it but to mean it, live it like the first Christians, is another thing.
Confessing that ‘Jesus is the Lord’ put Jesus in a position like the Roman emperor that was claimed to be or turn into a godlike character. It also meant to confess with the whole life, either through being killed because of the faith, or through living as the Lord instructed.
As human beings, our feelings can be the most important things to us, and that can include religious belief. What I think people are seeking is a way to find harmony between our objective reasoning and subjective beliefs.
If there is a foundation to a bridge that spans between faith and science then I think the law of parsimony is a good place to start (although it may not be applicable in all cases). This law states that when we have overwhelming evidence for a natural cause we don’t invent a supernatural cause that exactly mimics the outcome of the natural process. For example, we shouldn’t invent angels that guide planets in elliptical orbits when we have overwhelming evidence for General Relativity. However, science can only investigate the empirical world and can only lead to tentative conclusions. That leaves a lot of space where belief and science need not clash.
3 Likes
Aye T, as long as we keep our disordered passions out of science (apart from enthusiasm) and reason from it.
Or theologically speaking, it’s what we’re stuck with.
Though when pointing to a standard definition, it’s amazing how often cries of “‘No true Scotsman’!” get thrown around.
Especially its dual import for Hellenized Jews, where it was on the Hellenized level a declaration of, “This is my (divine) sovereign to whom I make offerings and am accountable, my final authority”, and the Jewish side of “This is YHWH-Elohim, He Who spoke to Moses from the bush”.
Each of those is radical enough on its own, but for a first-century Jew it was scary-radical!
1 Like
How so? 234
Fallen humans have to operate with the information the physical senses provide.