The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Definition of "Christian"
Shinto
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
I fail to see that a collection of scriptures assembled by one group in the fourth century, no matter how widely adopted in current times, possesses said authority. In fact, I don't think you can even get a consensus on the authority of the bible within mainstream Christian groups. Catholics certainly view the Papacy as an alternative source of authoritative decisions while Anglican bishops have been known to flatly disagree with certain sections to give two examples.
Shinto on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Delusional.
Both clever and on topic.
Considering that a sizeable portion of the structure was composed to serve various purposes, it’s not surprising that there’s a lot of disparity between the various sects.
It posses authority to those that claim to adhere to them.
The RCC didn't even exist until centuries after the New Testament churches. So that claim is a bit of a historical stretch.
But... but... what about golden chocolate cows?
By your own standard everyone is delusional. Because every single human being is biased and have certain levels of faith. Whether they will admit it or not.
Er, are you saying that this magical blob of people has the ability to claim adherents? I’m not sure what you’re going at here.
Are you asking what I think or what christians think? What I think is that you shouldn't worship anything, and christians think you shouldn't worship anything except their personal god (who by all accounts isn't a very nice guy).
No, you're misunderstanding my point. The writings have authority, are authoritative, to those that claim to abide to it.
Which is amusing in and of itself, because Jesus never really created a "church," and most people before a church got set up called themselves followers of "The Way" and then Peter or whomever turned it into a church with ALOT more rules.
I like to consider myself basically a Christian, but I don't really believe in organized religion as such. Just leads to animosity.
Though one would think the most clear definition of "Christian" is "One who believes in Jesus Christ"
Yes, but as outside observers what authority is it supposed to have for us? Group A claims to hold exclusive title to a certain label while group b disputes it. Short of sorting all of this out with Jesus on the second coming, I fail to see some kind of valid objective standard.
If you want a more specific and restrictive definition, then you have to start defining essential dogma that all "Christians" must believe and add it to the definition of "Christian". But what you're really doing then is defining sub-groups of Christianity. Like "Roman Catholic Christians" believe in the authority of the Pope, and so on...
Simple. Group A cleanses Group B, because Group A is better-armed.
If Yes, you're Christian.
If No, you're Not.
I fail to see the difficulty of this question. It's got a ton of offshoots with different beliefs, but the core of the faith is that Christ was the Son of God. Anything more minor in the details than that is "are you a catholic (or one of it's offshoots)", etc.
Fair enough - but I have trouble taking this subject seriously. Or maybe I just don't understand the point being posited in the OP. Having trouble finding a consensus on religion? Shocking.
Actually I think even that definition is too specific. One doesn't necessarily have to believe that Jesus is a savior, or part of the "trinity" to be a Christian. Merely that the guy was pretty awesome, existed, and had a good idea of how to run ones life. Personally, wether he was divine or what have you, I could care less. The man had good ideas, I'll just follow those. Besides, his divinity and such was decided by a group of humans. So eh.
Can I safely assume this is to resolve a "No True Scotsman" accusation?
EDIT:
Oh, look at that, Elk pointed it out.
In any case, it's pretty lame to equivocate your way out of an argument when a common definition already exists.
And never mind just 'Everyone who says they're a Christian is one' because that's just not having a definition at all.
I don't even think you can make that statement, otherwise certain early Christian groups around before such doctrines were settled would not be considered "Christian" when clearly that is the label that best fits them.
That's how I've seen it as well.
Also, re:the bible, most serious Christians I know take the bible for what it is, a book put together centuries ago by a bunch of people. It's obviously flawed and requires a great deal of study. It does teach some really good things (when it's not telling you who to not have sex with), but a lot of it has to be taken into context. And as I understand it, the Catholic church doesn't even interpret very much of the Bible literally anymore. All I know that they take literally is the virgin birth, rising from the dead and the stuff that deals with the Seven Sacraments.
As a Christian, I endorse this analysis.
I can be a Texan in El Paso, and claim people in Dallas aren't really Texans, but it doesn't make Dallas not part of Texas. If you think Christ was the son of god and the savior of your religion, you're Christian. Anything else is simply a branch/sect/what have you, no matter how bat shit insane the rest of their views may be.
If our goal is to come up with a definition that include all the different Christian Churches and sects, and this is the rationale Richy has offered for his argument, then it would seem to me simpler to define a Christian as anyone who claims to be a Christian.
Do you know of any Christian churches in which the Resurrection is not a fundamental doctrine? I'm not aware of any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Simpler, yes. But obviously massively flawed.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Would you say Shelby Spong is a christian? He certainly identifies as one. He doesn't believe in anything miraculous at last count, as far as I know.
It's not only the teachings of Jesus which are central, but also his resurrection.
No, but conceptually there is no need for us to mark our definition arbitrarily at the point of the lowest common denomination of observed belief. We can certainly posit the existance of someone who believes Jesus was the Son of God but not in the bodily resurrection and describes themselves as a Christian.
Why would that be more of a criteria than anything else though.
My basic thought is this: If someone disagrees on any - any - tenent of a religion but still describes themselves as a member of that religion, what authority exists that can validly claim they are not a member?
This is good - the definition needs to involve religious words like 'following the teachings' or 'accepting the resurrection' rather than some kind secular 'believes that the bible is true' or 'goes to mass'.
The definition needs to involve internal states and religious acts.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Why?