What is a Christian? Definition.

[Marc L]

The gnostics didn't believe in Jesus' divinity? I've never heard that before

I'm almost positive that it was them. I do know that it was one of the big controversies in the early Church, though. So, even if it wasn't the gnostics specifically, there were Christians back then who didn't believe in Christ's divinity.

Still, you might accept the philosophy of Christianity and yet be a different religion, so I think I should keep the "divinity" part in there. To me, it seems that respecting Christ (or his mythological symbolism) is not the same as worshipping him.

Enh, I don't know about that. The overall philosophy of the Gospels (do unto others, be meek, turn the other cheek, spiritualism is more important than the physical world, etc) isn't unique to Christianity. If you're a different religion, and you accept that philosophy, there's no real reason that it's not just part of your actual religion. (That sounded cumbersome, if it didn't make sense, let me know and I'll try to be clearer)

As for other parts of the Christian philosophy (the need for Christ as a savior, the punishment of non-Christians at the end of the world, etc), it's very unlikely that someone would accept that as true, and still be their previous religion.

What is unique is the specifics of the Jesus of Nazareth myth (ie, a Jewish carpenter lived 2000 yrs ago, preached reform, and then died on a cross. Following that, his disciples established a new religion). Before someone jumps in and says 'Christianity isn't the first to do that,' I realize that. I'm talking about the specifics, and not the elements.

Marc

 

[Ducky]

Kathy's back. Whee.

Kathy, I believe you had some avoided questions in the thread entitled "The Gospel" from a few months ago. Would you care to answer them, or are you just going to preach at us again?

Ps. If you have Jesus hanging on your wall, for Christ's sake let him down.

Pps. I would love to know how YOUR sins caused Christ's suffering 2000 years ago. Did you find a way to time travel?


ETA:

Starting here you can respond to any of those questions posited. Or you can ignore them and blindly preach again like you did last time. Your choice.

Just to add for my own reference, Kathy also has these questions to answer as well:

Hawk One is looking for a response of substance.

Still haven't provided any response to these either.



Ok derail over. I just wanted to remind Kathy that blindly preaching is not as welcome as she would like it to be. We, here at the Evil Skeptic Forum(tm) require evidence and reasonable discourse.

 

[Complexity]

A rather unpleasant flavor of woo.

Reminds me of the recipe for Loon Soup: Do not make Loon Soup.

 

[thaiboxerken]

There is an objective measure left in the bible to tell who a true christian is:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18

 

[Ducky]

There is an objective measure left in the bible to tell who a true christian is:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18

So has Kurious Kathy done any of that? She says she's a true Christian!

Kathy: Grab a few serpents and swill some hemlock. let us know how that works out for you.

 

[clarsct]

Well, it is the dosages that are important. Hemlock is deadly, but only if you're dumb enough to drink a bunch of it. You want something more potent, like, say, Ricin.


Much like which snakes you handle. Rattlesnakes don't always deliver enough venom to kill, for instance. Take an Australian Fierce snake, though, and you may have something.

Just some helpful suggestions.

 

[Ducky]

Well, it is the dosages that are important. Hemlock is deadly, but only if you're dumb enough to drink a bunch of it. You want something more potent, like, say, Ricin.


Much like which snakes you handle. Rattlesnakes don't always deliver enough venom to kill, for instance. Take an Australian Fierce snake, though, and you may have something.

Just some helpful suggestions.

Indeed, I should have been more specific. Thanks for the clarifacation. I will add those two suggestions to my list of tests for the "true Christian(tm)"

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Indeed, I should have been more specific. Thanks for the clarifacation. I will add those two suggestions to my list of tests for the "true Christian(tm)"

I live pretty close to the main breeding area for Tiger snakes. One of these, even a little baby one, can kill you in a satisfyingly short time. Maybe I could send you a box of them and you could hand them out to christians for faith testing purposes.

 

[Ducky]

I live pretty close to the main breeding area for Tiger snakes. One of these, even a little baby one, can kill you in a satisfyingly short time. Maybe I could send you a box of them and you could hand them out to christians for faith testing purposes.

I'm all for it. Send me a box. What do they eat, just so I know what to throw in my irritating cubemate's bottom drawer at work once a week?

 

[teacher]

What is a Christian?

A Christian.

There are as many differing witness accounts to a single accident as trhere are witnesses (who all supposedly saw the same thing and no-one is out to lie). Likewise there are many versions for Christians too.

I wasn’t looking for a strict definition, more a consensus of what one is basically.

No-one can say who started Christianity – Peter, Paul, James, Jesus, others? As has been said, Jesus did not start a religion and He began and finished a Jew as did many of His followers. Liberally it is a follower of Christ or Christ in you, but what do denominations say?

It’s always fun to start with the evangelicals isn’t it? My (as good as anybody’s) interpretation:

Evangelical definition:
“A person who recognises/acknowledges God, recognises their sin against Him, repents of that sin (sincerely from the heart), recognises the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in payment for that sin and accepts Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour in full and final atonement for that sin.”

Certain denominations might add certain bits. Baptists want you baptised, certain Pentecostals insist that a second experience or baptism in the Holy Spirit is necessary – sometimes with signs like tongues following (though for most it’s optional or not dependent upon salvation). Most denominations are a bit wary of mentioning works and actions because of the link to salvation by works (which they generally don’t agree with – rather it is by grace, not works so we don’t boast. The works one does are actually a voluntary outpouring of the (past) conversion experienced. It’s faith in action really.

Romans 10:9: “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him up from he dead, you shall be saved.” John 3 too, where Jesus is with Nichodemus (you must be born again) are the key scriptures here, but the Roman road (a series of 5 or 6 scripture all taken from the book of Romans) is a common path.

The problems with this are numerous and considerable. Whilst evangelicals are famed for presenting a very simple, clear gospel story, it is complex and a very specific route that requires the close guidance of other Evangelicals is required (e.g. with jargon) or you’ll miss out. Evangelicals find it hard to spot not unjargonated converts if they haven’t learned the terminology.

I challenge any number of people without coaching, to read the Bible for as long as is required and come to the independent conclusion that this specific path (the 4 things listed above) is what is required. ‘Born again’ is only mentioned once, yet it is THE key scripture for evangelicals, despite the dozens, even hundreds of uses of other words or phrases – like love, faith, works etc.

The other problem is the number of exceptions to the clear rule to becoming a Christian and getting to heaven – as listed in the above mentioned thread.

I went over to my local Catholic Parish Church on Tuesday evening where I was talking to the priest about this very thing. He was happy to define a Christian as a believer in Jesus. He rephrased it when I pointed out that that includes the devil. A follower of Christ. Like many Catholics, he is very easy going and is sympathetic to all Christian denominations and even beyond. Butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. He had absolutely no idea that to evangelicals, Christians aren’t born or baptised, they’re converted and everyone else is damned to hell, whether they follow Jesus or not, whether you’re the Pope, mother Teresa or whoever. He was astonished and had obviously not learned (or remembered) much about Protestant theology, though his seminary is a lot longer than my 3 years.

Kathy (and others), may I refer you later to the post ‘Questions to ask a Christian’.

Non evangelicals, liberals, Anglicans, Orthodox and Catholics would generally be happy to have a broad definition, but in deeper detail, some changes might occur to recognise the schisms perhaps. I won’t entertain them here.

Ned Flandas – you mention no repentence so you’re not saved, Depart from me ye accursed into everlasting flames!

Tricky and Darat – Hindus believe in the divinity (and incarnation) of Christ, but they are NOT Christians.

Mercutio – Cultural Christians? Then that’s a modern definition (in spite of Judaism), like the words ‘gay’ or ‘wicked’. Need Jesus be divine? Within orthodoxy (e.g. the Nicene or Apostles Creed) yes, if you go with the various Church Councils. Christian science is an example of a group that deny the existence of ANYTHING, let alone the real Jesus – you’re right. And to call oneself something doesn’t make it so.

Role play. Relating a football fan to an ‘alleged’ Christian.

Hi Joe, I hear you’re a big football fan!?
Yes.
Wow, great, me too. Which team do you support?
I don’t have a favourite.
Oh, you go to a variety of matches then?
No.
Just a select few?
No, I’ve never been.
Oh right, so you watch it on TV a lot.
No, I’ve never seen a game.
So you just chat about games and players?
Nothing.
So what is it that makes you a football fan?
Because I am, don’t argue with me, I can say what I want.

Likewise, if someone isn’t going to church or getting ‘fed’ or fellowship etc. one might ask what makes them think they are a Christian. The slight affiliation to a potential place of marriage or burial? If just believing without actions or thought or prayer or whatever is their interpretation, many would question it.

P.S. I posted this recently, but don’t remember where. Your goat unicorn!

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...images?q=unicorn+goat&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=N

Marc L - One can’t really say that you are a Christian if you say you are, because I am trying to incorporate implications and consequences based on the reality of what a Christian is understood to be. So if a Christian is someone who prayer 7 times a day (for example) and the reward/consequence is noted as heaven, then if you don’t pray, you aren’t going to heaven even if you think or say you are.

Brodski – like your C of E definition!

Tricky – Gnostics are hard to categorise. Whilst they were believers in Jesus, it would not be important for them to grasp any concept of divinity in Him, in fact their very understanding of God is anything and everything anyone could believe. Their identifying feature was having lots of mystical experiences based on knowledge (gnosis) imparted to them through this means and everyone one else were outsiders.

ThaiboxerKen – Good point to bring out a scripture to support our defining a Christian. Whilst some Pentecostals would support this, many would not and cesationists would claim that all the healings and miracles of the NT were specific for the time and no longer get manifest unless God chooses to reveal them.

Kathy – Hi there. A very neat, by the book explanation of what a Christian is from an evangelical point of view. I was upstairs in the flat above me recently. The couple are Pentecostals. Despite telling them that I had been converted from Satanism to Pentecostal where I’d stayed for 20 years, been to Seminary, pastored and everything else, so typical and indoctrinated were they, that despite my wife and I explaining that I was no longer an evangelical more than 12 times, they still insisted on getting the gospel message across to me. They simply could not fathom that anyone who becomes a Christian or is converted can recognise their error and how it came about. Neither your church, pastor or Bible Kathy, will give you any brownie points for sharing or constantly repeating something they have already heard or experienced, no matter how warm it makes you feel inside or how much you go home and tell God who you shared Him with. If you want someone to become a Christian, love/care for or befriend them unconditionally and let your life show God. Don’t nag us. I fully understand why you do it and what causes you to do it (I’ve done tens of thousands of doors). Evangelicalism here is very clearly understood by a good few. Not just the words and meanings but many re-verts have been where you stand and experienced what you have. You need to be able to at least begin to justify your position if pushed, and this is what happens here. If you are very confident, it will not be a problem. The posters here are right to ask you to partake mutually and share, not just come with a sole motif of proselytising. There are some serious, fundamental questions on this site which should concern you to at least resolve. Try them out and try to open up – and I know that’s hard, we don’t want the devil taking advantage or pulling us away or putting ‘doctrines of devils’ in us. I hope we meet again Kathy for a chat.

 

[Ducky]

I hope we meet again Kathy for a chat.

We have. check my links. You'll find it's not much of a chat.

Good luck, though.

 

[username]

Given the universal-ness of the term 'Christian', the supposed two billion or so of them in their various guises/denominations, I was wondering if the term 'Christian' could be defined.

The term Christian can be defined, but will it be accepted?

My present understanding is that a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. A Muslim is one who follows the teachings of Mohammed, A Buddhist follows the teachings of the buddha, etc.

All the other trappings are just that, trappings.

Any belief system seems to rapidly be codified into dogma and then sects develop each claiming to be the true or best representative of the teachings.

Within Christianity one may be Roman Catholic or Lutheran or some other sect. Is one Christian and one not? Well, all I know is that a Roman Catholic is Roman Catholic and a Lutheran is a Lutheran, whether either is Christian depends on whether the individual is endeavoring to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Ultimately Christianity has it's origins in the teachings of a single individual, Jesus. If one accepts the teachings of that individual as true and seeks to follow the lessons and example of that individual then one is a Christian. Everyone else is simply using the label. The same goes for any religion or belief system based upon the teachings of an individual.

 

[teacher]

A Christian

Thanks for response username.

Would you say allegience can vary to the extent that you can be considered loyal or a follower? A girl friend, seeing her once a year, a month, a week? What of people who claim to be Christians but never particularly do anything Christian (or that couldn't be considered just as Jewish or Islamic?

What affiliation or time or efforts spent, constitute a follower?

Can you follow multple leaders and what does thst make you? Some follow a greater % of several religious traditions that others do to just one.

And evangelical groups are more specific and belief Jesus actually teaches that a personal relationship (not JUST following Him) is needed. How do we approach differing views or interpretations of thr Bible or even Jesus' and others teachings?

 

[username]

Thanks for response username.

Would you say allegience can vary to the extent that you can be considered loyal or a follower? A girl friend, seeing her once a year, a month, a week?

Well, if one doesn't spend 'enough' time with his girlfriend she won't long retain him as a boyfriend ;-)

What of people who claim to be Christians but never particularly do anything Christian (or that couldn't be considered just as Jewish or Islamic?

Well, if Jesus exists and is God or the son of God or whatever, then Jesus alone determines who/what qualifies. Among us humans there is no answer as to what qualifies that will be considered authoritative.

What affiliation or time or efforts spent, constitute a follower?

I don't think it is possible to make any judgements based solely upon these criteria.

Can you follow multple leaders and what does thst make you? Some follow a greater % of several religious traditions that others do to just one.

I have no answer.

And evangelical groups are more specific and belief Jesus actually teaches that a personal relationship (not JUST following Him) is needed. How do we approach differing views or interpretations of thr Bible or even Jesus' and others teachings?

Well, if we accept that the sayings attributed to Jesus in the bible are the most authoritative record of Jesus' teachings we have then one would do well to read and reflect upon those teachings and decide for themselves how they measure up.

My short answer is I find no value in measuring or labelling others according to any subjective criteria so I cannot answer any of these questions.

To me a Christian is one who seeks to follow the teachings of Jesus as they understand them. Questions such as "How much time must be spent studying?", "What about considering other teachings?" and the like are unanswerable questions.

It is something like defining pornography. Some would define is as nude images, but most wouldn't. Those who wouldn't define it as such struggle to find any definition. Some questions simply do not have answers and trying to force an answer to fit leads only to a worse understanding than having no answer.

 

[Z]

I'd guess there's more than 34,000 ways to define 'Christian'.

And, no, not all of them share any single component, except for a name.

 

[Rufo]

(BTW, I saw a unicorn at the Circus once--Barnum & Bailey's, I believe it was--and it did indeed have a single horn. It was, however, a modified goat rather than a modified horse, so the kids near me were a bit dissappointed. But it did have a single horn, and so perhaps it was of a different denomination of unicorn--Unitarian Unicorn rather than Orthodox.)

Just as a side note, it's actually very likely that the idea of unicorns come from goats like these in the first place! On really old paintings picturing unicorns, they look more like goats than the horse-with-horn versions we see today.

 

[ruach1]

I challenge any number of people without coaching, to read the Bible for as long as is required and come to the independent conclusion that this specific path (the 4 things listed above) is what is required.

What four things?

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio – Cultural Christians? Then that’s a modern definition (in spite of Judaism), like the words ‘gay’ or ‘wicked’. Need Jesus be divine? Within orthodoxy (e.g. the Nicene or Apostles Creed) yes, if you go with the various Church Councils. Christian science is an example of a group that deny the existence of ANYTHING, let alone the real Jesus – you’re right. And to call oneself something doesn’t make it so.

Just curious--does saying you are not a christian mean that you well and truly are not?

(Not a rhetorical question, actually. I am an atheist, but was formerly a born-again christian. I have been told, though, that being born again is a one-way street; that I am now a christian whether I like it or not. This is the other side of the false dichotomy whereby others have told me that I could not possibly be a former born again christian, that it must have been a lie on my part.)

Role play. Relating a football fan to an ‘alleged’ Christian.

Hi Joe, I hear you’re a big football fan!?
Yes.
Wow, great, me too. Which team do you support?
I don’t have a favourite.
Oh, you go to a variety of matches then?
No.
Just a select few?
No, I’ve never been.
Oh right, so you watch it on TV a lot.
No, I’ve never seen a game.
So you just chat about games and players?
Nothing.
So what is it that makes you a football fan?
Because I am, don’t argue with me, I can say what I want.

I like it. But the more common "no true christian" type argument goes the other direction:

Are you a football fan?
Oh, yes!
What team?
[insert team here], of course!
Well done--do you go to the games?
Of course, every one!
Have you painted your house in team colors?
Wouldn't have it any other way!
Named your kids after the team?
Both of them!
Left your life savings to the team in your will?
Of course! The house, too!
Let's see your tattoo of the team emblem over your heart!
Sorry, my tattoo is on my left arm, right here.
Not over your heart? You're not a true fan, then, are you?

Likewise, if someone isn’t going to church or getting ‘fed’ or fellowship etc. one might ask what makes them think they are a Christian. The slight affiliation to a potential place of marriage or burial? If just believing without actions or thought or prayer or whatever is their interpretation, many would question it.

Likewise, is it being born again? Going to church? Washing feet? (been there, done those) Tithing? Pilgrimages? Scouring? Cutting off your hand because it offended you? Plucking out your eye? Wherever you draw the line, someone will stand on the other side and say you are not a true christian.

I think the point of the "if they say they are" definition is that it covers the widest range of people who fit other definitions, while excluding the vast majority who do not.

P.S. I posted this recently, but don’t remember where. Your goat unicorn!

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...images?q=unicorn+goat&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=N

Thanks! If it was not this one, it was one very much like it!

 

[Spidey13]

<snip> I see Him hanging there on that cross for me. My sins put him there and I am very sorry about that! <snip>

Wow, Kathy must be pretty old if she was alive and sinning 2,000 years ago!

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Wow, Kathy must be pretty old if she was alive and sinning 2,000 years ago!

She's probably another Atlantean. Remember, they have time machines. Buggers seem to be popping up all over the place lately.