John Dominic Crossan - Skepticism towards traditional Christianity

[Doug Shaver]

So in your opinion, words can have any meaning that a person ascribes to them.

They can, yes. Whether they do is a separate issue.

[Doug Shaver]

I am an atheist.

I just happen to believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only son who died for our sins.

Anyone who actually said that would obviously be defining either "atheist" or "God" in a way that no one else defines it. And, they would be free to do that. They could not, however, reasonably expect anyone else to know what they were talking about.

[robrecht]

None of this is really relevant, because I am indifferent to a discussion of 'prescriptive of canon law,' or the intricacies of excommunication either way, or how Crossan would be considered a faithful believer either way.

Just because you are indifferent, that hardly renders canon law irrelevant to this question.

You're touching on some possible lines of thought, but I am by and large still indifferent to this line of reasoning.

Again, your indifference is actually what is irrelevant to the issue you asked about.

Again . . . I am indifferent to all this Lilliputian bureaucratic consideration as who is and who is not in favor as to their canonical status with the royal court of bishops' All this is far from my point which I have made specifically clear. Again I am not remotely concerned how the Roman Church considers the status of Crossan.

Need I remind you, the question was in what sense, if any, do I consider Crossan's statement that he is 'irrevocably Roman Catholic' to be a valid statement. This can be discussed on a variety of levels. If you are not interested, don't ask.

As a side note Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx did not come close to the radical departure Crossan describes as his view of Jesus. They walked the edge of Roman Church canon, doctrine and dogma.

Your ignorance on this matter is overwhelming and reflects your selective biased hostile attitude on this.

But I am not hostile toward the Baha'i faith. My ignorance is based on everything I have learned here from you and Sen McGlinn, and your divergent views of what it means to be a Baha'i. I claim no expertise whatsoever, but I am decidedly not hostile

Again . . . What points of how Crossan describes his beliefs that I do not understand?

You appear to be mostly ignorant or indifferent, which in and of itself may not indicate a lack of understanding. Previously, you were unaware of the fact that Crossan absolutely considers himself a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic. At the very least, you can no longer claim ignorance of this fact.

[shunyadragon]

Just because you are indifferent, that hardly renders canon law irrelevant to this question.

Again, your indifference is actually what is irrelevant to the issue you asked about.

Need I remind you, the question was in what sense, if any, do I consider Crossan's statement that he is 'irrevocably Roman Catholic' to be a valid statement. This can be discussed on a variety of levels. If you are not interested, don't ask.

You appear to be mostly ignorant or indifferent, which in and of itself may not indicate a lack of understanding. Previously, you were unaware of the fact that Crossan absolutely considers himself a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic. At the very least, you can no longer claim ignorance of this fact.

My view is my perspective, and not that of the Roman Church:

I want to emphasize I do consider Crossan a Christian, because of the wide diversity of beliefs of those who call themselves Christian from the Unitarians to the most rigidly orthodox fundamentalist evangelicals, but the description of Jesus by Crossan is diametrically opposite and contradictory. He describes Jesus a humanist Unitarian Jesus. No Resurrection, no Revelation from God, no miracles, no Trinity, and NO GOD, just a rebel with a naive idealistic cause.

But I am not hostile toward the Baha'i faith. My ignorance is based on everything I have learned here from you and Sen McGlinn, and your divergent views of what it means to be a Baha'i. I claim no expertise whatsoever, but I am decidedly not hostile.

Your generalization only reflects one side of one case, and not whole picture. This is not the only case that your bias and hostility has reared its ugly butt. You do not 'learn' the beliefs and character of the Baha'i Faith from Glenn nor I.

[robrecht]

My view is my perspective, and not that of the Roman Church:

But your view of who is and who is not a Roman Catholic is not nearly as relevant to this question as that of the Roman Catholic Church.

I want to emphasize I do consider Crossan a Christian, because of the wide diversity of beliefs of those who call themselves Christian from the Unitarians to the most rigidly orthodox fundamentalist evangelicals, but the description of Jesus by Crossan is diametrically opposite and contradictory. He describes Jesus a humanist Unitarian Jesus. No Resurrection, no Revelation from God, no miracles, no Trinity, and NO GOD, just a rebel with a naive idealistic cause.

Your generalization only reflects one side of one case, and not whole picture. This is not the only case that your bias and hostility has reared its ugly butt. You do not 'learn' the beliefs and character of the Baha'i Faith from Glenn nor I.

Your pretense that I am hostile toward the Baha'i perspective is just a ridiculously repeated false ad hominem without any basis in fact, as I have on numerous occasions assured you that I have a great deal of respect for the Baha'i philosophy. Ifor you think I am being dishonest about this, present your evidence. Or stop making this ridiculous accusation.

By the way, his name is Sen McGlinn, not Glenn.

[shunyadragon]

But your view of who is and who is not a Roman Catholic is not nearly as relevant to this question as that of the Roman Catholic Church.

I do not remotely believe in the Roman Church's authority, and my view does not need to relevant at all to the authority of the Roman Church. It is simply based on the fact of the description of his beliefs by Crossan.

Again . . . What points of how Crossan describes his beliefs that I do not understand?

Your previous response did not answer this question.

[robrecht]

I do not remotely believe in the Roman Church's authority, and my view does not need to relevant at all to the authority of the Roman Church. It is simply based on the fact of the description of his beliefs by Crossan.

Again . . . What points of how Crossan describes his beliefs that I do not understand?

Your previous response did not answer this question.

The issue is not whether or not you believe in the rights of the Roman Catholic Church to define who is and who is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

I did answer your question, but allow me to repeat myself if you do not remember. You appear to be mostly indifferent, which in and of itself may not indicate a current lack of understanding. Previously, however, you were unaware of the fact that Crossan absolutely considers himself a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic. At the very least, you can no longer claim ignorance of this fact.

[shunyadragon]

The issue is not whether or not you believe in the rights of the Roman Catholic Church to define who is and who is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

I am NOT defining who is and who is not a member of the Roman Church from the perspective of the Roman Church. I have made this clear many times.

I did answer your question, but allow me to repeat myself if you do not remember. You appear to be mostly indifferent, which in and of itself may not indicate a current lack of understanding. Previously, however, you were unaware of the fact that Crossan absolutely considers himself a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic. At the very least, you can no longer claim ignorance of this fact.

No you did not answer the question. It has nothing to with Crossan's claim of being a believer in the Roman church. The question directly and specifically refers to how Crossan describe his beliefs.

Again . . . What points of how Crossan describes his beliefs that I do not understand?

Question remains unanswered.

Corssan's claim of being a believer in the Roman Church rivals element 771's claim of being an atheist.

[robrecht]

I am NOT defining who is and who is not a member of the Roman Church from the perspective of the Roman Church. I have made this clear many times.

It is not unclear, but it is largely irrelevant. The validity of Crossan's perspective on whether or not he is irrevocably Roman Catholic rest ls primarily upon what he means by this and how this is perceived by those with the right and responsibilities for determining who is and who is not a Roman Catholic. They appear to consider your perspective on this question to have little relevance.

No you did not answer the question. It has nothing to with Crossan's claim of being a believer in the Roman church. The question directly and specifically refers to how Crossan describe his beliefs.

Again . . . What points of how Crossan describes his beliefs that I do not understand?

Question remains unanswered.

Corssan's claim of being a believer in the Roman Church rivals element 771's claim of being an atheist.

No, not at all. Crossan made a sincere statement about his belief and explained what he meant by this. Element had an entirely different point in his statement. It was not a sincere statement of his own real belief accompanied by an explanation thereof. You do not see a difference between their statements because you do not accept Crossan's statement and explanation as sincere. Rather you claim he is being hypocritical.

Crossan's beliefs about his being a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic are to date the only two of his beliefs that I have addressed in this thread. I did not realize you were asking for my assessment of your level of comprehension of any of his other beliefs. Before I think about how I might try to answer that for you, can you at least tell me why your are interested in my assessing how well you currently understand other beliefs of Crossan?