What is you definition of Christian

Ravencrow · Post by **Ravencrow** » 2008-06-20 04:21am

sketerpot wrote:
Well, that disqualifies most of the Christians I know. Nice work, Scotsman.

Scotsman? I'm neither Scot nor a "man". I bet you thought you were witty too.

sketerpot wrote:
That's not what Ravenclaw said. The definition I was responding to included some mildly controversial points:

1. Jesus is the son of God, sent down to earth by God. There's so much quibbling over this. Was Jesus literally descended from God? Was he just a really important prophet? What was the deal with the virgin birth story that backs up the son-of-God angle?

2. Resurrection. Many of the more liberal Christians treat this as metaphorical.

3. Believing in and submitting to Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. Most of the non-fundies I've talked to about this will, when pressed, admit that they don't actually believe it. They want God to give non-Christians some justice, so they believe that he does.

The thing about Jesus dying for sins so people could go to heaven is less controversial among Christians, but the question of what happens to people who never heard the Good News tends to make people believe that Jesus is not the only path to heaven -- just the only proper path to Salvation, whatever that means.

Most Christian beliefs are incoherent. That's why I favor hazy definitions based on how the word is typically used.

I'm aware of these controversies and one is never going to get the perfect definition that qualifies every Christian sect and church. My definition was what was taken from my years as a church-going fundie thus why it bears such fundie-like ideas, I suppose.

Gothic Christians believe that Resurrection is metaphorical.

As for the Jesus Ticket into Heaven, that's the biggest one that Christians I know tend to argue about. Some say that believing is enough. Some say you still need to go through Judgement by God. The bible doesn't help because it also says that you can only get in if your name is in the Book of Life, which is written in the beginning of time, which seems to mean that nothing you do matters.

The topic asked for a definition, so I gave one that I know. Whether I believe it for truth or not, is quite another thing. Whether or not, I'm still a Christian (even a liberal one) is a rather open question nowadays. But that's personal.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2008-06-20 09:38am

Ravencrow wrote:
sketerpot wrote:
Well, that disqualifies most of the Christians I know. Nice work, Scotsman.
Scotsman? I'm neither Scot nor a "man".

In case you missed it, that was a reference to the No True Scotsman fallacy. I was not implying that your ancestry or gender were scottish or male, respectively.

I bet you thought you were witty too.

I might say the same about your weaksauce retort.

The topic asked for a definition, so I gave one that I know. Whether I believe it for truth or not, is quite another thing.

Oh, so you weren't actually vouching for that definition that you posted so matter-of-factly? Great! I submit a new definition: a Christian is someone who is sexually attracted to boytaurs.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2008-06-20 11:01am

Sketerpot wrote:a Christian is someone who is sexually attracted to boytaurs.

That definition is actually supported by the earliest church fathers, especially amongst the writings of Polycarp (a major proponent of early christian apologetics regarding pokémon) , Irenaeus of Lyons and Augustine of Hippo, all renowned for their parties and stand up comedy.

As for how I define a Christian, I go by John 3:16-18, the less you believe from that quick snippet, the less christian you are. As a rule, though, I tend to err on the side of culture and society to determine what views the population holds are a result of christianity as a social force, rather than direct from the bible.

Ravencrow · Post by **Ravencrow** » 2008-06-20 11:43am

sketerpot wrote:
Ravencrow wrote:
sketerpot wrote:
Well, that disqualifies most of the Christians I know. Nice work, Scotsman.
Scotsman? I'm neither Scot nor a "man".
In case you missed it, that was a reference to the No True Scotsman fallacy. I was not implying that your ancestry or gender were scottish or male, respectively.

I bet you thought you were witty too.
I might say the same about your weaksauce retort.

The topic asked for a definition, so I gave one that I know. Whether I believe it for truth or not, is quite another thing.
Oh, so you weren't actually vouching for that definition that you posted so matter-of-factly? Great! I submit a new definition: a Christian is someone who is sexually attracted to boytaurs.

To be honest, I don't understand what your retorts are meant to do other than to appear to be trying to be witty. You are just looking for an argument where there is none. If your definition of Christian is different from mine, I don't have a problem with it. And I can't help if you read a certain attitude of matter-of-factness into my post when I wasn't trying to be anything other than posting just what I know or rather was taught.

As for the Scotsman reference, well pardon my ignorance, I'm not a debate expert nor do I take part in many debates here or elsewhere, so I don't know there is a fallacy by that reference. So you can laugh about that on my expense.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2008-06-20 06:11pm

Ravencrow wrote:As for the Scotsman reference, well pardon my ignorance, I'm not a debate expert nor do I take part in many debates here or elsewhere, so I don't know there is a fallacy by that reference. So you can laugh about that on my expense.

Then we highly recommend you become familiar with the concept of logical fallacies and why they don't constitute a legitimate argument.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... logic.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... ing-1.html

madd0ct0r · Post by **madd0ct0r** » 2008-06-21 12:26pm

And is incidentally irrelevant to the topic. Knowing the name of the fallacy is not as important as being.

Ravencrow wrote:A Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the son of God, sent by God to come down to earth to die for our sins, who died on the cross and was risen, and that believing and submitting to Jesus is the only way by which one can get into Heaven.

Seems a fairly standard defination to me. I can't think of any Christians I know who'd disagree wholesale with it.
The last point might be a sticking point and the exact meaning and application of each part can be argued over till the cows come home but as a general defination I fail to see any major issues about it.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2008-06-21 01:06pm

But does is count of said "Christian" can't enunciate what it is they believe in with something similar to those words, but only agree, "Yeah, that's it" if someone asks them if that's what they believe, directly, using those words?

Because if it doesn't, there's a big heathen land in the middle of nowhere, Georgia (and possibly surrounding states as well), full of people who call themselves Christians but don't have any of this fancy city talk called "theology" and thus aren't Christians. But they say they are, even though I know from experience that most of them don't know a damn thing about their religion.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2008-06-21 01:17pm

Historically, how many "Christians" even knew much about their religion.
After all, the Catholic Church used to restrict access to the bible

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-21 04:09pm

Kitsune wrote:Historically, how many "Christians" even knew much about their religion.
After all, the Catholic Church used to restrict access to the bible

Historically? Fuck, most Christians today are pig-ignorant about their religion. You can point out the numerous contradictions and horrors in the Bible and they'll say they either never knew about it before or backpedal and deny it as much as possible.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2008-06-21 04:49pm

I once asked someone (after he watched a commercial on the bible on VHS - specifically Noah's flood - and said he wanted to get if for his kid) if he could come up with a good story out of it and tried to hand him the KJV I had. He would not take it.....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-06-21 04:53pm

Ravencrow wrote:A Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the son of God, sent by God to come down to earth to die for our sins, who died on the cross and was risen, and that believing and submitting to Jesus is the only way by which one can get into Heaven.

Is there any particular reason you can give why this should be the proper definition of "Christian" and anyone who deviates from it should be regarded as a non-Christian?

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2008-06-21 05:13pm

It's a terrible definition too. By that definition neither the Catholic Church, nor the Orthodox Churches are Christians.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-06-21 05:28pm

Dark Hellion wrote:It's a terrible definition too. By that definition neither the Catholic Church, nor the Orthodox Churches are Christians.

No, it covers both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-21 05:32pm

Surlethe wrote:
Dark Hellion wrote:It's a terrible definition too. By that definition neither the Catholic Church, nor the Orthodox Churches are Christians.
No, it covers both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.

Don't those churches include more ways of getting into heaven than just beleif in Jesus?

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2008-06-21 07:38pm

Yes. The Catholic church is works/mechanism, the orthodox is similar.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2008-06-21 11:24pm

madd0ct0r wrote:And is incidentally irrelevant to the topic. Knowing the name of the fallacy is not as important as being.

Ravencrow wrote:A Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the son of God, sent by God to come down to earth to die for our sins, who died on the cross and was risen, and that believing and submitting to Jesus is the only way by which one can get into Heaven.
Seems a fairly standard defination to me. I can't think of any Christians I know who'd disagree wholesale with it.
The last point might be a sticking point and the exact meaning and application of each part can be argued over till the cows come home but as a general defination I fail to see any major issues about it.

Really so you don't for example know any self described Christians who believe that 'works' will stop nice people from being tortured in hell for all eternity?

This is hardly a minor problem with Ravencrow's definition, most Christians I know (save for those who are members of an imported US evangelical church) including church going ones have real difficulty with the believing that a 'loving god' will torture good people who lead blameless lives forever simply for failing to believe in him. So they selectively focus on verses like Matthew 16:27 and John 5:29 which allow them to believe that their god won't condemn their children, friends and Ghandi to hell.

So please tell me madd0ct0r if most of the Christian's I know, who don't like to think I and most other people are going to hell, aren't christians then what exactly are they?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-06-21 11:53pm

General Zod wrote:
Surlethe wrote:
Dark Hellion wrote:It's a terrible definition too. By that definition neither the Catholic Church, nor the Orthodox Churches are Christians.
No, it covers both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.
Don't those churches include more ways of getting into heaven than just beleif in Jesus?

Not that I know of. More liberal members of the Catholic Church will say that anyone who really honestly searches for the truth is seeking for Jesus (even though the person may not know it), so you can be saved that way, but it's still through Jesus - people who use that line of argument are playing with technicalities. I understand that the Orthodox churches are the same way, but I could be wrong there.

Dark Hellion wrote:Yes. The Catholic church is works/mechanism, the orthodox is similar.

No, it's not. The Catholic position is, and has always been, that works are necessary but insufficient for salvation.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-22 01:00am

Surlethe wrote: Not that I know of. More liberal members of the Catholic Church will say that anyone who really honestly searches for the truth is seeking for Jesus (even though the person may not know it), so you can be saved that way, but it's still through Jesus - people who use that line of argument are playing with technicalities. I understand that the Orthodox churches are the same way, but I could be wrong there.

Why waste time with all the extra window-dressing? What's wrong with a simple "Belief that Jesus is the savior of humanity" as a definition of Christianity?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-06-22 06:16am

General Zod wrote:
Surlethe wrote:Not that I know of. More liberal members of the Catholic Church will say that anyone who really honestly searches for the truth is seeking for Jesus (even though the person may not know it), so you can be saved that way, but it's still through Jesus - people who use that line of argument are playing with technicalities. I understand that the Orthodox churches are the same way, but I could be wrong there.
Why waste time with all the extra window-dressing? What's wrong with a simple "Belief that Jesus is the savior of humanity" as a definition of Christianity?

Nothing, really, though it may be a little overly broad if you don't specify what it means to be the 'savior'. For example, a person who thinks that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, isn't the son of God, and was an excellent moral teacher could agree that "Jesus is the savior of humanity" because his moral teachings are widely disseminated, but most Christians would not consider him a Christian.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-22 10:15am

Surlethe wrote: Nothing, really, though it may be a little overly broad if you don't specify what it means to be the 'savior'. For example, a person who thinks that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, isn't the son of God, and was an excellent moral teacher could agree that "Jesus is the savior of humanity" because his moral teachings are widely disseminated, but most Christians would not consider him a Christian.

I think the point is to come up with a relatively objective definition of the term though, not whether or not most Christians would consider <definition x> a Christian.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-22 11:34am

You could say that Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied by Isaiah (all present Christian sects agree on this, right?), that Jesus was the begotten Son of God (pretty sure all present sects agree on this, too) and that Jesus died on the cross for the purpose of expiating human sin (all present sects agree on this, too, I think).

Maybe 'present sects' is too broad; I suppose that if you can get one other person besides yourself to agree that Jesus was something else, you now are a 'sect.'

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-22 11:48am

Kanastrous wrote:You could say that Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied by Isaiah (all present Christian sects agree on this, right?), that Jesus was the begotten Son of God (pretty sure all present sects agree on this, too) and that Jesus died on the cross for the purpose of expiating human sin (all present sects agree on this, too, I think).

The "prophecy" about Isaiah is arguably dodgy at best. The problem is that Isaiah was not referring to Jesus, but himself if you read the passage.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-22 12:10pm

It's not about what Isiah meant; it's about what Christians believe.

Are there Christian sects who reject the idea that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied by Isiah?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-22 12:38pm

Kanastrous wrote:It's not about what Isiah meant; it's about what Christians believe.

Are there Christian sects who reject the idea that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied by Isiah?

I'm not aware of any, but it doesn't really matter if they believe he was the Messiah prophesied by Isaiah or not, as long as they believe he was supposed to be the savior of humanity. Because there's a fair number of sects that incorporate things besides that prophesy, (I'm looking at you LDS), and trying to be selective about it is rather problematic on its own.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-22 12:50pm

General Zod wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:It's not about what Isiah meant; it's about what Christians believe.

Are there Christian sects who reject the idea that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied by Isiah?
I'm not aware of any, but it doesn't really matter if they believe he was the Messiah prophesied by Isaiah or not, as long as they believe he was supposed to be the savior of humanity. Because there's a fair number of sects that incorporate things besides that prophesy, (I'm looking at you LDS), and trying to be selective about it is rather problematic on its own.

My understanding is that Jesus is regarded as the savior of humanity in large part because he supposedly fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy. No fulfillment of prophecy, no savior. Is that not correct?