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?
I find this to be an accurate statement of my beliefs. I cannot fathom the question of what a Christian is in the absence of that foundation.
However, I know that know that others are trying to drive us towards a hypothetical person who describes themselves as a Christian, believes every aspect of the bible historically inaccurate, disagrees with each of the moral strictures espoused in the Bible and by all denominations of Christianity, doesn't believe in God, anything miraculous and so forth - basically, me but with an "I'm a Christian" badge, nailed to his forehead. And then what of him? Wouldn't we say he was not a Christian, regardless of what he claimed? I don't really have a good answer to that reductio, but find the alternative no more viable.
Would not a Christian, at their very core, simply be one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? The emphasis on different pieces of scripture (along with structure and heirachy) is what seperates most sects.
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.
Following the teachings is all that should be required. Believing in the resurrection and that he was divine are all things that were decided by man. Simply following the words of Jesus should be enough, anything more is a manmade belief being pressed on you.
Would not a Christian, at their very core, simply be one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? The emphasis on different pieces of scripture (along with structure and heirachy) is what seperates most sects.
It's not only the teachings of Jesus which are central, but also his resurrection.
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?
I think technically his death was the covenant, like the one god had with the Jews of the Old Testament.
Would not a Christian, at their very core, simply be one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? The emphasis on different pieces of scripture (along with structure and heirachy) is what seperates most sects.
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.
Why?
To make contemporary people who identify as "Christians" feel more accurately represented. I'm not one of these people, but I know plenty who are. Many reject the literal interpretations of the Bible that so many atheists and agnostics take issue with, yet still feel a connection of divinity through their faith. It gives them a sense of moral direction.
Of course there are still a lot of more traditional Christians who buy the whole story. But I doubt they'd be posting on any internet forum that wasn't directly tailored to their beliefs.
Would not a Christian, at their very core, simply be one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? The emphasis on different pieces of scripture (along with structure and heirachy) is what seperates most sects.
It's not only the teachings of Jesus which are central, but also his resurrection.
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?
I think technically his death was the covenant, like the one god had with the Jews of the Old Testament.
But wasn't Jesus' death for all mankind, not just christians? Would that make every human a christian whether they want to be or not?
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?
I find this to be an accurate statement of my beliefs. I cannot fathom the question of what a Christian is in the absence of that foundation.
However, I know that know that others are trying to drive us towards a hypothetical person who describes themselves as a Christian, believes every aspect of the bible historically inaccurate, disagrees with each of the moral strictures espoused in the Bible and by all denominations of Christianity, doesn't believe in God, anything miraculous and so forth - basically, me but with an "I'm a Christian" badge, nailed to his forehead. And then what of him? Wouldn't we say he was not a Christian, regardless of what he claimed? I don't really have a good answer to that reductio, but find the alternative no more viable.
Sure, but it would be our word against his. Is that really a valid basis for a definition? "I don't think you are X, even though you claim to be?"
I mean, ultimately we could all just draw a line such as has been proposed, but if pressed we could not claim it to have any honest foundation for it.
I agree with the basic definition of Christian as "someone who believes that Jesus was resurrected." This covers the vast, vast majority of people who call themselves Christians, including Oneness Christians who insistently maintain they are not heretics. It also covers the majority of Christians in America who have no fucking clue what the Bible says or what a Trinity is.
It does not, however, cover a few people I've known personally who called themselves Christians. My New Testament professor in college, for example, said that she wasn't sure if Jesus was literally resurrected—and she was a pastor. My ex said that she didn't believe in the resurrection either when pressed about it, and agreed with me that the Bible is largely a disgusting book—though she insisted she was somehow a Christian and not a Unitarian.
Would not a Christian, at their very core, simply be one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? The emphasis on different pieces of scripture (along with structure and heirachy) is what seperates most sects.
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.
Why?
To make contemporary people who identify as "Christians" feel more accurately represented.
Why not tailor it to make anyone who identifies as a Christian feel accurately represented. What right does one self-described Christian have to the validity of another self-described Christians views. It's a he said, she said situation.
It does not, however, cover a few people I've known personally who called themselves Christians. My New Testament professor in college, for example, said that she wasn't sure if Jesus was literally resurrected—and she was a pastor. My ex said that she didn't believe in the resurrection either when pressed about it, and agreed with me that the Bible is largely a disgusting book—though she insisted she was somehow a Christian and not a Unitarian.
These are the sorts of people I was referring to in my previous post.
I agree with the basic definition of Christian as "someone who believes that Jesus was resurrected." This covers the vast, vast majority of people who call themselves Christians, including Oneness Christians who insistently maintain they are not heretics. It also covers the majority of Christians in America who have no fucking clue what the Bible says or what a Trinity is.
It does not, however, cover a few people I've known personally who called themselves Christians. My New Testament professor in college, for example, said that she wasn't sure if Jesus was literally resurrected—and she was a pastor. My ex said that she didn't believe in the resurrection either when pressed about it, and agreed with me that the Bible is largely a disgusting book—though she insisted she was somehow a Christian and not a Unitarian.
So what validity other than your own preference and majority support does that definition have? Because with personal preference and majority support we could certainly cut down the ranks of valid Christians to a much smaller group than you've described.
It does not, however, cover a few people I've known personally who called themselves Christians. My New Testament professor in college, for example, said that she wasn't sure if Jesus was literally resurrected—and she was a pastor. My ex said that she didn't believe in the resurrection either when pressed about it, and agreed with me that the Bible is largely a disgusting book—though she insisted she was somehow a Christian and not a Unitarian.
These are the sorts of people I was referring to in my previous post.
In my opinion, the question of what to call these people is less interesting than the question of "why on earth do these people choose to identify themselves as Christian in the first place?"
My policy is that I'll call you whatever you want to be called. But if you think that Jesus' resurrection is a myth, that the God of the Bible is not only fictional but evil, and that the history of Christianity and the morals of the Bible are among the most atrocious things ever wrought by man, I would certainly argue that you might want to identify yourself as something else.
Qingu on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
Oh noes! A religion is not monolithic! QED all religion is invalid! Seriously, give up. A religion groups people with diverse (and sometimes divergent) beliefs.
It does not, however, cover a few people I've known personally who called themselves Christians. My New Testament professor in college, for example, said that she wasn't sure if Jesus was literally resurrected—and she was a pastor. My ex said that she didn't believe in the resurrection either when pressed about it, and agreed with me that the Bible is largely a disgusting book—though she insisted she was somehow a Christian and not a Unitarian.
These are the sorts of people I was referring to in my previous post.
In my opinion, the question of what to call these people is less interesting than the question of "why on earth do these people choose to identify themselves as Christian in the first place?"
An interesting question, but not the subject of this thread.
Shinto on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Oh noes! A religion is not monolithic! QED all religion is invalid! Seriously, give up. A religion groups people with diverse (and sometimes divergent) beliefs.
Would not a Christian, at their very core, simply be one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? The emphasis on different pieces of scripture (along with structure and heirachy) is what seperates most sects.
It's not only the teachings of Jesus which are central, but also his resurrection.
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?
I think technically his death was the covenant, like the one god had with the Jews of the Old Testament.
But wasn't Jesus' death for all mankind, not just christians? Would that make every human a christian whether they want to be or not?
He died to save people from their sins. I think, but I'm not sure, that he saves the ones that follow all of his teachings, and that you don't neccessarily have to call youself a 'Christian'. What confuses things is that the Church muddles its doctrines with his teachings.
While self-determination is nice, after a (not very certain) point it becomes silly. It makes sense for Mormons to call themselves Christians, but it doesn't for the type of person Qingu describes. Using "people who call themselves Christians" as a definition for Christians is an impediment to discussion.
If I believed that Jesus is the son of God and was bodily resurrected but called myself an atheist, it would be much the same.
I have my personal definition that I use to refer to people who believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected. I also accept the random passers-by that call themselves Christian, and accept that when other people are talking about "Christians" or "Christianity" they could very well be referring to any number of ideas and beliefs that are outside my own definition.
When I talk about Christians, I know what I mean. When I hear others talking about Christians, I feel I generally have a pretty good idea, but it's always handy to be sure, because there's a thousand different outliers, and I'm not about to start playing the "you're not a True Christian" game.
I agree with the basic definition of Christian as "someone who believes that Jesus was resurrected." This covers the vast, vast majority of people who call themselves Christians, including Oneness Christians who insistently maintain they are not heretics. It also covers the majority of Christians in America who have no fucking clue what the Bible says or what a Trinity is.
It does not, however, cover a few people I've known personally who called themselves Christians. My New Testament professor in college, for example, said that she wasn't sure if Jesus was literally resurrected—and she was a pastor. My ex said that she didn't believe in the resurrection either when pressed about it, and agreed with me that the Bible is largely a disgusting book—though she insisted she was somehow a Christian and not a Unitarian.
So what validity other than your own preference and majority support does that definition have? Because with personal preference and majority support we could certainly cut down the ranks of valid Christians to a much smaller group than you've described.
I see that you are arguing against what the defenition ought to be, and that's fair.
but it seems you may be saying there shouldn't be a definition at all (i.e., if you call yourself a christian you are a christian), which to me makes the term pointless.
I fail to see that an authority exists which can credibly define what "Christian" is, therefore I'm left with the definition of whoever claims that label for themselves.
Good point - I take whatever group's authoritative writings are and judge them by that.
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.
It posses authority to those that claim to adhere to them.
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.
The only exclusivity that should be claimed is that if a person claims to be a Christian, then one would expect them to adhere to their holy book.
The most basic, general definition of Christian I know is "someone who believes in and proclaims the resurrection of Jesus Christ". That definition would include all the different Christian Churches and sects, as well as the early Christians who lived and died before the various Churches were organised. Interestingly, by that definition, the first two Christians were Mary and Mary Magdelene, who were the first to visit Jesus' tomb, see that he was resurrected, and went to tell the disciples.
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...
I agree with the basic definition of Christian as "someone who believes that Jesus was resurrected." This covers the vast, vast majority of people who call themselves Christians, including Oneness Christians who insistently maintain they are not heretics. It also covers the majority of Christians in America who have no fucking clue what the Bible says or what a Trinity is.
It does not, however, cover a few people I've known personally who called themselves Christians. My New Testament professor in college, for example, said that she wasn't sure if Jesus was literally resurrected—and she was a pastor. My ex said that she didn't believe in the resurrection either when pressed about it, and agreed with me that the Bible is largely a disgusting book—though she insisted she was somehow a Christian and not a Unitarian.
So what validity other than your own preference and majority support does that definition have? Because with personal preference and majority support we could certainly cut down the ranks of valid Christians to a much smaller group than you've described.
I see that you are arguing against what the defenition ought to be, and that's fair.
but it seems you may be saying there shouldn't be a definition at all (i.e., if you call yourself a christian you are a christian), which to me makes the term pointless.
I don't think it makes it pointless. It isn't as though everyone calls themselves a Christian. Basically, absent any definitive authority, I'm rather drawn to the conclusion that you have to take their word for it.
No, you're misunderstanding my point. The writings have authority, are authoritative, to those that claim to abide to it.
That’s a flawed claim. The writings chosen for the standard 66-book Bible were picked by a group of people several hundred years after Christ. It would be disingenuous to be informed about the subject and honestly say that human factors were not involved. I’m Protestant and believe in the integrity of the Bible as we know it, but still—church councils, especially then, were a little iffy at times.
You're absolutely right. But the consensus of the early NT churches and the ones shortly after were that the 66 books collectively now known as the Bible were all agreed upon. Those books that were not, that were in dispute had very valid reasoning as to why they were not accepted as Scripture.
But your point is spot on.
earthless on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
If I believed that Jesus is the son of God and was bodily resurrected but called myself an atheist, it would be much the same.
Not at all. Atheism has a specific meaning, it isn't dependent upon interpretation of some doctrine for its definition and who gets to be included in the term.
Christianity on the other hand DOES rest on interpretation of some doctrine, and a doctrine for which there can be no conclusive arguments with regard to the authoritiveness of that interpretation. Which is why the question breaks down in terms of making sense.
The big issue is, though, that there are four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, and each account has been edited thousands of times. So there really is no universal definition of "the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Edited a thousand times? Historical and manuscript evidence say otherwise.
It's very telling that with each turn of the archaeological spade, the veracity of the Bible comes forth more and more.
So what validity other than your own preference and majority support does that definition have? Because with personal preference and majority support we could certainly cut down the ranks of valid Christians to a much smaller group than you've described.
Shinto, we're arguing over semantics. Is there any non-arbitrary way to define a Christian? (or anything, really?)
I mean, we're not talking about "who is a christian" from a theological standpoint, attempting to weed out the heretics or whatever (I'm assuming you're not a Christian). It seems like we're talking about how to generalize about a broad group of people, like "young adults" or "Communists." There will always be fringe cases, but I think my definition seems pretty practical—which is why I generally use it.
I fail to see that an authority exists which can credibly define what "Christian" is, therefore I'm left with the definition of whoever claims that label for themselves.
Good point - I take whatever group's authoritative writings are and judge them by that.
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.
It posses authority to those that claim to adhere to them.
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.
The only exclusivity that should be claimed is that if a person claims to be a Christian, then one would expect them to adhere to their holy book.
What makes it their holy book and how is that not arbitrary.
So what validity other than your own preference and majority support does that definition have? Because with personal preference and majority support we could certainly cut down the ranks of valid Christians to a much smaller group than you've described.
Shinto, we're arguing over semantics. Is there any non-arbitrary way to define a Christian? (or anything, really?)
Yes, arguments over definition of words are semantic in nature. This is a semantic thread.
Some of you have correctly stated that the definition, at it's most basic level, is someone who follows Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
BUT
We need to be mindful of the fact that we are either going to accept, for the sake of this argument, what the Bible says Jesus said he was, etc..
And if so, then we must reject those that use the word Jesus, but the person they're describing is completely different than the Jesus seen in the Bible. And by "reject", I mean not accept their claims of being just another Christian like someone that holds to the Jesus of the Bible.
earthless on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
You're absolutely right. But the consensus of the early NT churches and the ones shortly after were that the 66 books collectively now known as the Bible were all agreed upon. Those books that were not, that were in dispute had very valid reasoning as to why they were not accepted as Scripture.
This hurts my brain. *tries valiently not to derail and break the thread*.
Apothe0sis on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
The big issue is, though, that there are four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, and each account has been edited thousands of times. So there really is no universal definition of "the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Edited a thousand times? Historical and manuscript evidence say otherwise.
It's very telling that with each turn of the archaeological spade, the veracity of the Bible comes forth more and more.
Glod, please stop it. I don't want to derail the thread, but that means not responding to outlandish claims. Please stop making claims of the aforesaid nature.
It's very telling that with each turn of the archaeological spade, the veracity of the Bible comes forth more and more.
Yes, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we find Solomon's palace, with its million tons of gold and silver or whatever.
Good example, but allow me to explain my point a bit more. The historical reliability of the bible has been dramatically confirmed particularly in this century through archaeological discoveries. All sorts of details have been confirmed through the discovery of ancient documents, through the examination of artifacts, and in some cases through excavations of entire ancient cities.
These finding have consistently supported the historicity of the Bible. Like I said in an earlier post, it’s save to say that with every turn of the archaeologist’s spade, the historicity and accuracy of the Bible is further confirmed.
However, it would be somewhat of an overstatement to claim that archaeology has proven that everything the Bible says is true. For one thing, there are some historical matters which are discussed in the bible that archaeologists still don’t quite know how to correlate with Scripture.
You see while archaeology has not produced any certain examples of error in the Bible, it has produced questions which are still debated by scholars.
To be sure, there are some things in the Bible which will never be confirmed through archaeology. For example, archaeology has not found any evidence that Abraham lived — but, of course, that’s exactly what you would expect, since in terms of the politics of his day, Abraham was not exactly the most important historical figure.
And because they don’t exist, archaeologists are obviously not going to dig up tapes and transcripts of Abraham having a conversation with Sarah, or for that matter with anyone else. All we can legitimately expect form archaeology in matters like this is to show that the events described in the Bible make sense in context. And that, of course, has been done in a very spectacular manner.
In fact, the skeptics laughed at the bible for asserting that Ninevah was a real city that the Assyrians were, in fact, a real people. Perhaps you know the story — someone discovered a brick on the Tigris River. The brick had the name of “Sargon†on it which, of course, was one of Syria’s great kings. It was sent to a Paris museum and was forthwith declared a fraud. Not long afterward, Laird, the great Assyriologist, had the temerity to dig up the entire city with its temples and palaces. And once again, the critics were proved wrong and the Bible reliable.
The big issue is, though, that there are four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, and each account has been edited thousands of times. So there really is no universal definition of "the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Edited a thousand times? Historical and manuscript evidence say otherwise.
It's very telling that with each turn of the archaeological spade, the veracity of the Bible comes forth more and more.
Glod, please stop it. I don't want to derail the thread, but that means not responding to outlandish claims. Please stop making claims of the aforesaid nature.
Having a discussion on matters which people hold their beliefs in (either one way or the other) will generally include claims which you can deem to outlandish. But they are not made to derail a thread, but to convey a thought.
I fail to see that an authority exists which can credibly define what "Christian" is, therefore I'm left with the definition of whoever claims that label for themselves.
Good point - I take whatever group's authoritative writings are and judge them by that.
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.
It posses authority to those that claim to adhere to them.
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.
The only exclusivity that should be claimed is that if a person claims to be a Christian, then one would expect them to adhere to their holy book.
What makes it their holy book and how is that not arbitrary.
It makes it their holy book because they claim it to be. So they are then judged and viewed upon by the words of their writ. If someone claims to adhere to the Vedas, then it is only reasonable for me to look at that as a source of their theology and beliefs.
earthless on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
The big issue is, though, that there are four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, and each account has been edited thousands of times. So there really is no universal definition of "the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Edited a thousand times? Historical and manuscript evidence say otherwise.
It's very telling that with each turn of the archaeological spade, the veracity of the Bible comes forth more and more.
Glod, please stop it. I don't want to derail the thread, but that means not responding to outlandish claims. Please stop making claims of the aforesaid nature.
Having a discussion on matters which people hold their beliefs in (either one way or the other) will generally include claims which you can deem to outlandish. But they are not made to derail a thread, but to convey a thought.
This is a discussion about the semantics of the term Christian, not the historicity of the Bible. I'd quite like to get into a discussion regarding biblical historicity, but this isn't the thread for it. I'm just registering my stunned disapproval of your statements.
The big issue is, though, that there are four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, and each account has been edited thousands of times. So there really is no universal definition of "the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Edited a thousand times? Historical and manuscript evidence say otherwise.
It's very telling that with each turn of the archaeological spade, the veracity of the Bible comes forth more and more.
Glod, please stop it. I don't want to derail the thread, but that means not responding to outlandish claims. Please stop making claims of the aforesaid nature.
Having a discussion on matters which people hold their beliefs in (either one way or the other) will generally include claims which you can deem to outlandish. But they are not made to derail a thread, but to convey a thought.
This is a discussion about the semantics of the term Christian, not the historicity of the Bible. I'd quite like to get into a discussion regarding biblical historicity, but this isn't the thread for it. I'm just registering my stunned disapproval of your statements.
Also:
The walls of Jericho
Did you harp on those that made the original comments regarding biblical historicity? I must have missed those. I was simply answering their questions and providing my input on the topic they brought up.
It makes it their holy book because they claim it to be.
What if they don't claim it to be, or claim that it shares authority with another scripture? I mean, Mormons go off both the bible and the Book of Mormon. Protestants go off both the Old and New Testaments. Muslims go off both the Bible and the Koran.
I mean, let's say tommorrow someone claims to have had a vision of Jesus describing to them new teachings which are to supercede/clarify previous scripture. God wants to make a new covenant. The person calls themself a Christian. By what authority do you judge him to not be a Christian? It's your word against his on what the prerequisites of being a Christian are.
Shinto on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I agree with the basic definition of Christian as "someone who believes that Jesus was resurrected." This covers the vast, vast majority of people who call themselves Christians, including Oneness Christians who insistently maintain they are not heretics. It also covers the majority of Christians in America who have no fucking clue what the Bible says or what a Trinity is.
It does not, however, cover a few people I've known personally who called themselves Christians. My New Testament professor in college, for example, said that she wasn't sure if Jesus was literally resurrected—and she was a pastor. My ex said that she didn't believe in the resurrection either when pressed about it, and agreed with me that the Bible is largely a disgusting book—though she insisted she was somehow a Christian and not a Unitarian.
So what validity other than your own preference and majority support does that definition have? Because with personal preference and majority support we could certainly cut down the ranks of valid Christians to a much smaller group than you've described.
I see that you are arguing against what the defenition ought to be, and that's fair.
but it seems you may be saying there shouldn't be a definition at all (i.e., if you call yourself a christian you are a christian), which to me makes the term pointless.
I don't think it makes it pointless. It isn't as though everyone calls themselves a Christian. Basically, absent any definitive authority, I'm rather drawn to the conclusion that you have to take their word for it.
I know a great deal of people who call themselves catholic that absolutely are not. as well, a great many people who call themselves christian who (arguably) are not. this is bad for two reasons.
first of all, assumptions are made about your beliefs. Obviously, under current circumstances this is not fair, as there is not or may not be an absolute defnition. however, it is to be expected that a given person has a mindset of what each of these groups of people believe and will thus assume that you grouping yourself with these people means you share those beliefs.
second, I think it weakens people's faith in whatever they personally believe. they don't ever really need to think about it, because "hey... I'm christian". because what that actually means is never brought up, they never question how they actually feel about things. This is the much greater problem. (This is not an anti-religious point... some people believe thigns that fit them into different religions, but still call themselves christian because it's what they are used to.
As an extension of the second point, I've noticed a lot of people in my family, even, who though they greatly alter their stance/beliefs, refuse to acknowledge that they are no longer christian. it's as though to not be a christian is so abhorrent that no matter what they actually believe, they still hold onto that word.
this is why it ought to be defined. people should more accurately know what they are, compared to how they are defining themselves.
for what it's worth, all I think it should require is agreement and following of the teachings of jesus christ.
Posts
I find this to be an accurate statement of my beliefs. I cannot fathom the question of what a Christian is in the absence of that foundation.
However, I know that know that others are trying to drive us towards a hypothetical person who describes themselves as a Christian, believes every aspect of the bible historically inaccurate, disagrees with each of the moral strictures espoused in the Bible and by all denominations of Christianity, doesn't believe in God, anything miraculous and so forth - basically, me but with an "I'm a Christian" badge, nailed to his forehead. And then what of him? Wouldn't we say he was not a Christian, regardless of what he claimed? I don't really have a good answer to that reductio, but find the alternative no more viable.
Following the teachings is all that should be required. Believing in the resurrection and that he was divine are all things that were decided by man. Simply following the words of Jesus should be enough, anything more is a manmade belief being pressed on you.
I think technically his death was the covenant, like the one god had with the Jews of the Old Testament.
To make contemporary people who identify as "Christians" feel more accurately represented. I'm not one of these people, but I know plenty who are. Many reject the literal interpretations of the Bible that so many atheists and agnostics take issue with, yet still feel a connection of divinity through their faith. It gives them a sense of moral direction.
Of course there are still a lot of more traditional Christians who buy the whole story. But I doubt they'd be posting on any internet forum that wasn't directly tailored to their beliefs.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
But wasn't Jesus' death for all mankind, not just christians? Would that make every human a christian whether they want to be or not?
Sure, but it would be our word against his. Is that really a valid basis for a definition? "I don't think you are X, even though you claim to be?"
I mean, ultimately we could all just draw a line such as has been proposed, but if pressed we could not claim it to have any honest foundation for it.
It does not, however, cover a few people I've known personally who called themselves Christians. My New Testament professor in college, for example, said that she wasn't sure if Jesus was literally resurrected—and she was a pastor. My ex said that she didn't believe in the resurrection either when pressed about it, and agreed with me that the Bible is largely a disgusting book—though she insisted she was somehow a Christian and not a Unitarian.
Why not tailor it to make anyone who identifies as a Christian feel accurately represented. What right does one self-described Christian have to the validity of another self-described Christians views. It's a he said, she said situation.
These are the sorts of people I was referring to in my previous post.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
So what validity other than your own preference and majority support does that definition have? Because with personal preference and majority support we could certainly cut down the ranks of valid Christians to a much smaller group than you've described.
My policy is that I'll call you whatever you want to be called. But if you think that Jesus' resurrection is a myth, that the God of the Bible is not only fictional but evil, and that the history of Christianity and the morals of the Bible are among the most atrocious things ever wrought by man, I would certainly argue that you might want to identify yourself as something else.
An interesting question, but not the subject of this thread.
Not the argument.
He died to save people from their sins. I think, but I'm not sure, that he saves the ones that follow all of his teachings, and that you don't neccessarily have to call youself a 'Christian'. What confuses things is that the Church muddles its doctrines with his teachings.
If I believed that Jesus is the son of God and was bodily resurrected but called myself an atheist, it would be much the same.
When I talk about Christians, I know what I mean. When I hear others talking about Christians, I feel I generally have a pretty good idea, but it's always handy to be sure, because there's a thousand different outliers, and I'm not about to start playing the "you're not a True Christian" game.
Have we gone over that already?
I see that you are arguing against what the defenition ought to be, and that's fair.
but it seems you may be saying there shouldn't be a definition at all (i.e., if you call yourself a christian you are a christian), which to me makes the term pointless.
The only exclusivity that should be claimed is that if a person claims to be a Christian, then one would expect them to adhere to their holy book.
I don't think it makes it pointless. It isn't as though everyone calls themselves a Christian. Basically, absent any definitive authority, I'm rather drawn to the conclusion that you have to take their word for it.
You're absolutely right. But the consensus of the early NT churches and the ones shortly after were that the 66 books collectively now known as the Bible were all agreed upon. Those books that were not, that were in dispute had very valid reasoning as to why they were not accepted as Scripture.
But your point is spot on.
Not at all. Atheism has a specific meaning, it isn't dependent upon interpretation of some doctrine for its definition and who gets to be included in the term.
Christianity on the other hand DOES rest on interpretation of some doctrine, and a doctrine for which there can be no conclusive arguments with regard to the authoritiveness of that interpretation. Which is why the question breaks down in terms of making sense.
Edited a thousand times? Historical and manuscript evidence say otherwise.
It's very telling that with each turn of the archaeological spade, the veracity of the Bible comes forth more and more.
I mean, we're not talking about "who is a christian" from a theological standpoint, attempting to weed out the heretics or whatever (I'm assuming you're not a Christian). It seems like we're talking about how to generalize about a broad group of people, like "young adults" or "Communists." There will always be fringe cases, but I think my definition seems pretty practical—which is why I generally use it.
What makes it their holy book and how is that not arbitrary.
Yes, arguments over definition of words are semantic in nature. This is a semantic thread.
BUT
We need to be mindful of the fact that we are either going to accept, for the sake of this argument, what the Bible says Jesus said he was, etc..
And if so, then we must reject those that use the word Jesus, but the person they're describing is completely different than the Jesus seen in the Bible. And by "reject", I mean not accept their claims of being just another Christian like someone that holds to the Jesus of the Bible.
This hurts my brain. *tries valiently not to derail and break the thread*.
Glod, please stop it. I don't want to derail the thread, but that means not responding to outlandish claims. Please stop making claims of the aforesaid nature.
Good example, but allow me to explain my point a bit more. The historical reliability of the bible has been dramatically confirmed particularly in this century through archaeological discoveries. All sorts of details have been confirmed through the discovery of ancient documents, through the examination of artifacts, and in some cases through excavations of entire ancient cities.
These finding have consistently supported the historicity of the Bible. Like I said in an earlier post, it’s save to say that with every turn of the archaeologist’s spade, the historicity and accuracy of the Bible is further confirmed.
However, it would be somewhat of an overstatement to claim that archaeology has proven that everything the Bible says is true. For one thing, there are some historical matters which are discussed in the bible that archaeologists still don’t quite know how to correlate with Scripture.
You see while archaeology has not produced any certain examples of error in the Bible, it has produced questions which are still debated by scholars.
To be sure, there are some things in the Bible which will never be confirmed through archaeology. For example, archaeology has not found any evidence that Abraham lived — but, of course, that’s exactly what you would expect, since in terms of the politics of his day, Abraham was not exactly the most important historical figure.
And because they don’t exist, archaeologists are obviously not going to dig up tapes and transcripts of Abraham having a conversation with Sarah, or for that matter with anyone else. All we can legitimately expect form archaeology in matters like this is to show that the events described in the Bible make sense in context. And that, of course, has been done in a very spectacular manner.
In fact, the skeptics laughed at the bible for asserting that Ninevah was a real city that the Assyrians were, in fact, a real people. Perhaps you know the story — someone discovered a brick on the Tigris River. The brick had the name of “Sargon†on it which, of course, was one of Syria’s great kings. It was sent to a Paris museum and was forthwith declared a fraud. Not long afterward, Laird, the great Assyriologist, had the temerity to dig up the entire city with its temples and palaces. And once again, the critics were proved wrong and the Bible reliable.
Go figure.
Having a discussion on matters which people hold their beliefs in (either one way or the other) will generally include claims which you can deem to outlandish. But they are not made to derail a thread, but to convey a thought.
It makes it their holy book because they claim it to be. So they are then judged and viewed upon by the words of their writ. If someone claims to adhere to the Vedas, then it is only reasonable for me to look at that as a source of their theology and beliefs.
This is a discussion about the semantics of the term Christian, not the historicity of the Bible. I'd quite like to get into a discussion regarding biblical historicity, but this isn't the thread for it. I'm just registering my stunned disapproval of your statements.
Also:
Did you harp on those that made the original comments regarding biblical historicity? I must have missed those. I was simply answering their questions and providing my input on the topic they brought up.
What if they don't claim it to be, or claim that it shares authority with another scripture? I mean, Mormons go off both the bible and the Book of Mormon. Protestants go off both the Old and New Testaments. Muslims go off both the Bible and the Koran.
I mean, let's say tommorrow someone claims to have had a vision of Jesus describing to them new teachings which are to supercede/clarify previous scripture. God wants to make a new covenant. The person calls themself a Christian. By what authority do you judge him to not be a Christian? It's your word against his on what the prerequisites of being a Christian are.
I know a great deal of people who call themselves catholic that absolutely are not. as well, a great many people who call themselves christian who (arguably) are not. this is bad for two reasons.
first of all, assumptions are made about your beliefs. Obviously, under current circumstances this is not fair, as there is not or may not be an absolute defnition. however, it is to be expected that a given person has a mindset of what each of these groups of people believe and will thus assume that you grouping yourself with these people means you share those beliefs.
second, I think it weakens people's faith in whatever they personally believe. they don't ever really need to think about it, because "hey... I'm christian". because what that actually means is never brought up, they never question how they actually feel about things. This is the much greater problem. (This is not an anti-religious point... some people believe thigns that fit them into different religions, but still call themselves christian because it's what they are used to.
As an extension of the second point, I've noticed a lot of people in my family, even, who though they greatly alter their stance/beliefs, refuse to acknowledge that they are no longer christian. it's as though to not be a christian is so abhorrent that no matter what they actually believe, they still hold onto that word.
this is why it ought to be defined. people should more accurately know what they are, compared to how they are defining themselves.
for what it's worth, all I think it should require is agreement and following of the teachings of jesus christ.