What is you definition of Christian

[General Zod]

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?

I don't remember hearing it used as an argument before. But the fact that Isaiah was pretty clearly talking about himself though, means that this nixes the Isaiah prophecy = Jesus thing. Which is why making the definition less dependent on a specific prophecy makes more sense (to me).

[Plekhanov]

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.'

What proportion of Christian individuals do you think really think have any knowledge of Isaiah? Most I've met haven't even read the New Testament never mind the Old.

They just think 'Jesus is the saviour because he sacrificed himself for us on the cross' or something even less specific than that.

[Surlethe]

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.

Naturally. But an objective definition is one that everybody agrees upon -- after all, that's what a definition is. So you may not ever find a really, truly objective definition of Christianity. This actually makes sense when you think about it: Christianity, as a religion, is constantly evolving. Thus, the spectrum of Christian beliefs in the wider space of superstitions is not sharply defined; it is sort of loose at the edges. It is not difficult to find groups which are similar to Christianity, but also have significant differences -- e.g., Mormons or any of the various pre-Catholic heresies.

In some sense, it's similar to trying to define biological species. Is the ring of songbird populations around the Himalayas a single specie? One will mate with birds from neighboring populations, but not from populations on the other side of the mountain range.

[Darth Wong]

At a baseline, the word "Christian" clearly implies that someone holds Jjesus Christ in some religious regard. The precise nature of that religious regard should not function as some sort of dividing line to determine whether someone is Christian.

The attitude of defining certain specific Biblical claims as mandatory beliefs for Christians while disregarding others is the same attitude that once led people to classify others as "heretics". It's bullshit of the highest order.

Ravencrow claims that a belief in the need for salvation and the exclusivity of Jesus as the path to that salvation is essential for one to be called "Christian". But there is no reason why one could not just as easily say that a willingness to "turn the other cheek" when assaulted is the essential Biblical claim, and that anyone who won't do so is not a Christian. Or that you must give away all of your worldly possessions, else you are not a Christian. Both of those other teachings are found in the same source (and from Jesus himself, not Paul).

At the end of the day, if you think Christ deserves religious worship, then you're a religious person to whom the label "Christian" should deservedly apply. What else would you call such a person?

[sketerpot]

At the end of the day, if you think Christ deserves religious worship, then you're a religious person to whom the label "Christian" should deservedly apply. What else would you call such a person?

What about Muslims? Jesus is considered a great prophet in Islam, and quite worthy of religious veneration despite not being God in drag. They believe that he was born of a virgin and ascended corporeally into heaven, and that he will return some day to join in an apocalyptic war, kill the false messiah, and rule the world.

I'm okay with calling Muslims a subset of Christians, but they would probably be a little annoyed.

[General Zod]

What about Muslims? Jesus is considered a great prophet in Islam, and quite worthy of religious veneration despite not being God in drag. They believe that he was born of a virgin and ascended corporeally into heaven, and that he will return some day to join in an apocalyptic war, kill the false messiah, and rule the world.

I'm okay with calling Muslims a subset of Christians, but they would probably be a little annoyed.

Where is it said they believe he was born of a virgin? That generally requires accepting that Jesus is the son of God, something that most Muslims don't do. They tend to consider him a prophet, but Muhammad is the final and most important prophet in their belief system as far as I'm aware.

[Rye]

What about Muslims? Jesus is considered a great prophet in Islam, and quite worthy of religious veneration despite not being God in drag. They believe that he was born of a virgin and ascended corporeally into heaven, and that he will return some day to join in an apocalyptic war, kill the false messiah, and rule the world.

I'm okay with calling Muslims a subset of Christians, but they would probably be a little annoyed.

Where is it said they believe he was born of a virgin? That generally requires accepting that Jesus is the son of God, something that most Muslims don't do. They tend to consider him a prophet, but Muhammad is the final and most important prophet in their belief system as far as I'm aware.

Of course Mohammed is the most important figure in Islam, but it's said in two Surahs, number 3 and the one named after Mary. Islam is a bastard child of christianity, much as christianity is a bastard child of judaism, but I wouldn't consider either modern christians or muslims as jews. Perhaps the first converts and originators were christians (or jews) respectively, but it's grown beyond its roots.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

What about Muslims? Jesus is considered a great prophet in Islam, and quite worthy of religious veneration despite not being God in drag. They believe that he was born of a virgin and ascended corporeally into heaven, and that he will return some day to join in an apocalyptic war, kill the false messiah, and rule the world.

I'm okay with calling Muslims a subset of Christians, but they would probably be a little annoyed.

Where is it said they believe he was born of a virgin? That generally requires accepting that Jesus is the son of God, something that most Muslims don't do. They tend to consider him a prophet, but Muhammad is the final and most important prophet in their belief system as far as I'm aware.

It's right in the Quran, Surah 19 (19:16 - 19:22.) Jesus is born of Mary, who is a virgin. However, they make it clear that Jesus is the son of Mary, and not the son of Allah. He was magically created by Allah as a demonstration of his power. In the same surah, it's cautioned that Jesus is not the son of Allah, and to suggest such a thing would be insulting to Allah.

[Kuja]

A Chistian is most easily defined as any person who believes that Jesus Chirst was the literal son of God.

Everything else after that is window dressing.

I repeat.

[Ravencrow]

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?

These points were greatly emphasized in church and church groups that I was with. They were based on John 3:16 as well as the verse where Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one goes to the Father except through me." (John 14:1-6)

I do admit it doesn't say much about end point heaven, but I guess we took it to mean that 'going to the Father' is to go to heaven. If Jesus claims he is the only way, then there is no other way.

You can imagine that at that time when we followed this way of thinking to the letter, that we were quite desperate to get everyone we could to church.

So as it is, I guess I found it odd that any Christian would reject any of the stuff I made in my original reply. Fundamentally, isn't that what they all believe? I guess it demostrates my bias or perhaps my ignorance.

(Sorry I've been so ill-prepared entering the discussion and thus, making a fool of myself.)

[Edi]

I would not say that you're making a fool of yourself, Liz. The definition you gave is narrower than what most people here would use, but it's probably a reflex on your part given your past. It's also in many ways similar to the doctrinal definitions that we were taught in religion class in school, but very, very few people apply it fully. Personally, I count anyone who believes in God and in Jesus having divine origins (or deserving worship) a Christian, as do most people here.

Quite a few people here are also a bit too keen on blasting anyone who makes the slightest mistake with both barrels if that person seems to hold a viewpoint that is in disfavor. In this case, asking a clarifying question like Mike did would probably have cleared the air a lot better than the approach a certain triggerhappy asshat took.

[Darth Wong]

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?

These points were greatly emphasized in church and church groups that I was with. They were based on John 3:16 as well as the verse where Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one goes to the Father except through me." (John 14:1-6)

And I could just as easily quote the part where Jesus says you must give away all of your possessions in order to follow him. How many of your church group members do that?

I do admit it doesn't say much about end point heaven, but I guess we took it to mean that 'going to the Father' is to go to heaven. If Jesus claims he is the only way, then there is no other way.

Jesus also tells you to turn the other cheek if someone hits you. How many of the people you call Christians would seriously do that?

You can imagine that at that time when we followed this way of thinking to the letter, that we were quite desperate to get everyone we could to church.

And millions of Christians feel otherwise, believing that one who does bad things will go to Hell, regardless of whether he believes in Jesus.

So as it is, I guess I found it odd that any Christian would reject any of the stuff I made in my original reply. Fundamentally, isn't that what they all believe? I guess it demostrates my bias or perhaps my ignorance.

(Sorry I've been so ill-prepared entering the discussion and thus, making a fool of myself.)

It sounds like you are functioning from a very limited perspective, ie- just repeating your own brainwashing without ever critically analyzing it.

[von Neufeld]

Well, in my opinion 'people who believe in the divinity of Jesus' is not enough to define a Christian, because that definition would include pantheists. I would say that it's the whole died for your sins stuff that defines a Christian.

[Darth Wong]

Well, in my opinion 'people who believe in the divinity of Jesus' is not enough to define a Christian, because that definition would include pantheists. I would say that it's the whole died for your sins stuff that defines a Christian.

Then what would you call someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God, but who also believes that you must be a good person in life in order to go to Heaven? Keep in mind that this is REALLY common.

[von Neufeld]

Then what would you call someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God, but who also believes that you must be a good person in life in order to go to Heaven? Keep in mind that this is REALLY common.

The trouble is that an Hinduist also believe in divinity in everything and in 'good deeds' (karma & dharma).

It seems that we have trouble finding a description that's narrow enough not include other religions and broad enough to include all Christians. Finding a good description is likely to fail on holes in Christian dogma.
For example 'son of God' thing? Wasn't Adam also 'son of God', which would mean that we can't narrow it down with saying that Jesus was the only 'son of God'.

So, what do we have:
- A definition that describes that path to salvation is too narrow.
- The divinity issue is a bit unclear, due to Adam and pantheism.
- The trinity issue makes a monotheism requirement a bit iffy.

I'm starting to suspect that the final conclusion will be that a Christian is someone who calls themselves that.

[Darth Wong]

Is there some reason why "Christian" must be defined in such a manner that it is absolutely exclusive? Why can't someone be Christian while also believing in some of the tenets of Buddhism?

Plenty of Christians also believe in other things. How many Christians do you know who have all manner of superstitions, or who would be afraid of an ancient native curse, or who believe in the idea of karma?

Your argument pre-supposes that there is no such person: that it is impossible for a Christian to also believe in anything else. I reject this assumption and challenge you to justify it.

[TithonusSyndrome]

The whole "nobody goes to the father except through me" and "thou shalt have no other gods before me" thing seemed pretty strongly enforced to me going to Catholic masses as a kid, so while I'm sure there are plenty of Mindless Middle white-collar Babbitts who deviate from this tenet, believe he was merely a "great human teacher" as C.S. Lewis detested, and have vaguely theosophist beliefs as a result of a more cosmopolitan lifestyle that modern communications and racially integrated living promotes, I still blanch a little at suggesting that anyone but a rigidly a priori Jesus-saves believer is a Christian. I've argued with far too many centrist cunts who feel they can jettison their childhood religion's support of shitty, terrible laws and tenets on a whim by making their beliefs more malleable and flexible to the prevailing moral sense in their community. They call it "evolution," but it looks a lot more like political maneuvering to me, like a herpes simplex that fights the immune system to a standstill and then waits until you're old and weak to show it's true face again.

Maybe the overwhelming makeup of modern Christians is reason enough to suggest that Christianity is flexible to the input of outside beliefs. It's not especially important to me and seems like splitting hairs at that point. Either way it just makes me a little sore the think that they can just handwave away all the shit their belief system has been responsible for over the centuries, hitch their wagon to morality and tolerance in the public consciousness, and migrate to where popular opinion resides.

[von Neufeld]

Is there some reason why "Christian" must be defined in such a manner that it is absolutely exclusive? Why can't someone be Christian while also believing in some of the tenets of Buddhism?

Plenty of Christians also believe in other things. How many Christians do you know who have all manner of superstitions, or who would be afraid of an ancient native curse, or who believe in the idea of karma?

Your argument pre-supposes that there is no such person: that it is impossible for a Christian to also believe in anything else. I reject this assumption and challenge you to justify it.

Well, you have a point and I have to conclude that this is an impossible task. The only thing that would make it exclusive is the first commandment, and I think that we can reject the believe in commandment requirement. Right?

We just can't create an objective definition on something that is subjective, at least not without polling the population of the whole world. That would be the only way we would know that we had a definition that all Christians would agree with.

[Darth Wong]

Well, you have a point and I have to conclude that this is an impossible task. The only thing that would make it exclusive is the first commandment, and I think that we can reject the believe in commandment requirement. Right?

We just can't create an objective definition on something that is subjective, at least not without polling the population of the whole world. That would be the only way we would know that we had a definition that all Christians would agree with.

You don't need to get all Christians to agree with it. You only need it to encompass all Christians.

[Kitsune]

According to a Bart Ehrman, there were early Christians who believed that Jesus was born a man through normal means and god later put his "Spirit" in him. What can you define them other than "Christian?"

[Surlethe]

Well, you have a point and I have to conclude that this is an impossible task. The only thing that would make it exclusive is the first commandment, and I think that we can reject the believe in commandment requirement. Right?

We just can't create an objective definition on something that is subjective, at least not without polling the population of the whole world. That would be the only way we would know that we had a definition that all Christians would agree with.

You don't need to get all Christians to agree with it. You only need it to encompass all Christians.

This is a little confusing. We're trying to find the definition of Christian, so we can't know if it encompasses all Christians without having it. Do you mean that we need it to encompass everybody who calls himself Christian?

[Lusankya]

You don't need to get all Christians to agree with it. You only need it to encompass all Christians.

This is a little confusing. We're trying to find the definition of Christian, so we can't know if it encompasses all Christians without having it. Do you mean that we need it to encompass everybody who calls himself Christian?

Not necessarily. You could theoretically have someone who is for all intents and purposes a Christian, who for some reason doesn't identify themselves as such. Sort of like the way you have crazy people who think their children can be faith healed or whatever, but then say that they're 'not religious'.


Personally, I'd describe a Christian as someone who follows or believes they are following the teachings of Jesus and/or Paul.

[Darth Wong]

We just can't create an objective definition on something that is subjective, at least not without polling the population of the whole world. That would be the only way we would know that we had a definition that all Christians would agree with.

You don't need to get all Christians to agree with it. You only need it to encompass all Christians.

This is a little confusing. We're trying to find the definition of Christian, so we can't know if it encompasses all Christians without having it. Do you mean that we need it to encompass everybody who calls himself Christian?

Or everyone that would be referred to as a Christian by most people. In either case, the same objection would apply to the statement I was answering.

[Metatwaddle]

Here's an interesting question: is John Shelby Spong a Christian?

On the one hand, he was a bishop in the Episcopal Church, and he's obviously a fan of Jesus and I think he calls himself Christian. On the other hand, he doesn't literally believe... well, any of it. I personally say he's an agnostic or atheist (can't tell which) with some funny ideas about metaphors.

[Rye]

I'd probably refer to him as a "post-christian". If there's any interpretation of the bible more suited to that title, I've yet to see it.