Definition of Christian

[RNHC]

I am neither a scholar or an academic so I find the discussion in this thread extremely enlightening, brilliant, though-provoking, and awe-inspiring.

But I still have trouble connecting how acceptance of divinity of Jesus Christ is not the core crucial characteristic of being Christian as jar and dneal seem to suggest. Even the term has Christ in it: Christ-ian. If I don't accept Jesus as divine but temporal, isn't that pretty much what Judaism and Islam think about Jesus?

[dneal]

I am neither a scholar or an academic so I find the discussion in this thread extremely enlightening, brilliant, though-provoking, and awe-inspiring.

But I still have trouble connecting how acceptance of divinity of Jesus Christ is not the core crucial characteristic of being Christian as jar and dneal seem to suggest. Even the term has Christ in it: Christ-ian. If I don't accept Jesus as divine but temporal, isn't that pretty much what Judaism and Islam think about Jesus?

I suspect Jews see him as someone who went off the reservation, so to speak; but Islam considers him a great prophet / messenger.

I don't see how "Christian" using the base "Christ" conveys divinity or equivalency to God. "Christ" is just the Greek translation of "Messiah". You have to get into Judaism to define that term, which means "Savior" or "Anointed One". Mainstream Christianity uses "Savior" to mean the savior of our souls, absolving us from sin, etc... but that's not the Jewish meaning. The Savior would re-unite the Tribes, for example; because mainstream Judaism believes everyone goes to be with G-d after they die.

[Bold2013]

Jesus being God is the cornerstone of it all

[dneal]

Jesus being God is the cornerstone of it all

I don't think so. Now what?

[Mortiana27]

So if I follow and live the basic message, i.e., be good, love, be kind and forgiving, etc., as taught by Jesus in the Bible (which, incidentally, are same as taught by many other religions in the world) but do not believe in divinity of Jesus, I am Christian in your book?

I don't have a book to keep track of other people's chosen religional designations. Nor can I ever be qualified to make such a judgement. I guess I'm confused as to what it is you're looking for when you ask others if you are Christian.

[RNHC]

I guess I'm confused as to what it is you're looking for when you ask others if you are Christian.

I wasn't asking that at all. I was simply asking for clarification to your definition of being Christian since there was a debate on the concept of Trinity being the core of being a Christian.

[matteob]

@RNHC You have it exactly right. Both Buddhists, Muslims and Messianic Jews can fall into the catagory of what you suggest. Being a Christian involves a commitment to Christ, Son of God as your Lord and Saviour. It is that simple. Ignore the sophistry of some of the posts here.

I have asked several of my fellow Christians how they would define being a Christian. These are Baptist, Methodist, Catholics and Anglicans. The definition they gave is to "accept you are a sinner, that Jesus died for your sins and that you accept the risen Jesus into your life as your own personal saviour and you will seek to follow him and his teaching and let him into your life". Both Catholics, Protestants (high and evangelical), Baptist,Methodist, United Reformed and Orthodox, Copts and Mormons (calling the Trinity the Godhead) believe in the Trinity.Only Jehovahs Witness and Unitarians (may be a few others) deny the Trinity and yet call themselves Christians. There is nothing about victors here. All the major Christian churches despite other differences hang onto this belief as fundamental to Christianity.

I am not going to enter into any further debate. My faith is steadfast. One can judge my religion as folly: fine. One must live according to their own beliefs and consciences.

bye.

[Bold2013]

Well I can't argue something that isn't truly knowable without divine inspiration but before I respectfully withdraw from circular discussion let me leave you with some scripture that's been on my heart

Matthew 7:14 How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it.

7:18-20 A good tree can't produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn't produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into fire. So you will recognize them by their fruit.

7:21 not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord! Will enter the kingdoms of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

if anyone wants to pm me for a heart to heart about this feel free too. I may not be the most philosophical mind but I do have some life experiences and if it matters academic experience from attending a bible school for undergrad.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I don't know if this is a discussion about Christianity, or a discussion by Christians (of all stripes).

From an atheist perspective it could be argued that the definition of Christian should include "Someone who believes in something for which there is no evidence", and that Christianity is "A system of thought and practice centred on something for which there is no evidence".

I think there can be a big difference between how a Christian may be defined by others, and how a Christian defines themselves.


This is going to get me in lots of trouble, yes?

[dneal]

I am not going to enter into any further debate. My faith is steadfast. One can judge my religion as folly: fine. One must live according to their own beliefs and consciences.

bye.

You keep threatening this, but come back with more confrontational language. "Sophistry"? puhleeze...

This has been a civil, thoughtful discussion. Thumping your bible more and more loudly because you don't like the content is wasting everyone's time. If you were more secure in your belief, perhaps you would try to persuade with thoughtful discussion rather than indignation.

[dneal]

I don't know if this is a discussion about Christianity, or a discussion by Christians (of all stripes).

From an atheist perspective it could be argued that the definition of Christian should include "Someone who believes in something for which there is no evidence", and that Christianity is "A system of thought and practice centred on something for which there is no evidence".

I think there can be a big difference between how a Christian may be defined by others, and how a Christian defines themselves.


This is going to get me in lots of trouble, yes?

Probably.

It's probably more precise to say that the definition of a religious person is "someone who believes in something for which there is inconclusive evidence". That leads back to Kierkegaard and his leap of faith - which I see as a reasonable position.

Strangely, it's the atheist who has the most logically untenable position. Where the agnostic suspends judgement due to lack of evidence, the true atheist actively denies the existence of the thing they say is unprovable - making an assertion they can't hope to prove.

Schroedinger: There is an invisible cat under my desk.
Agnostic: I don't see any evidence.
Atheist: There is not an invisible cat under your desk.

"Atheists" have assumed the agnostic position over the last couple of decades while retaining the label "atheist" - which I think is even more disingenuous than sticking to the logically weakest position. Now we have to determine if they're a "big-A" or "little-a" atheist, which is absolutely ridiculous.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Bad choice of labels on my part, but the intent was clear.

Anyway, this may be splitting hairs, but there is a significant difference between "inconclusive evidence" and "no evidence". The first suggests that at least there is some evidence to test. Personally I don't think that is the case with theistic religions.

[dneal]

Bad choice of labels on my part, but the intent was clear.

Anyway, this may be splitting hairs, but there is a significant difference between "inconclusive evidence" and "no evidence". The first suggests that at least there is some evidence to test. Personally I don't think that is the case with theistic religions.

There is rational evidence for God's existence, sometimes using empirical evidence (e.g.: watch is to watchmaker as eye is to God). The "big 3" are the Teleological, Ontological and Cosmological arguments. They are flawed, and therefore inconclusive. But the arguments have been formulated and exist, so it wouldn't be the case that there is "no evidence".

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Edit: I am more than happy to entertain other arguments as long as evidence is supplied. Otherwise I can sit here and make up stuff just like everyone else.

[dneal]

Edit: I am more than happy to entertain other arguments as long as evidence is supplied. Otherwise I can sit here and make up stuff just like everyone else.

I don't know what you're on about. When I use the word "rational", I'm using it in the sense of Descartes (i.e.: Rationalists and Empiricists). The Ontological argument is rational. It is not (to me) convincing or conclusive.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Mind is a type of cloud-based quantum computer that arises due to complex interactions of super-positional electrons associated with the brain. While we may lay claim to individuality, the reality is that what we call "our" mind is part of the universal mind. This, in part, explains why we often get a sense of familiarity with people or place or events that we "know" intellectually that we have never encountered. Jung posited the concept of a group or world mind. Quantum physics though was too young to help him realise just how close he had come to a truth.

While this only represents a small and simplified part of my theory, which was also later independently refined and expanded on by Dr Roger Penrose (famous British mathematical physicist), it is a robust argument that explains much of the non-physical function of our brain matter, and speaks directly to the fabric of this universe.

While there is little empirical evidence to support this theory, the rationale is sound.

Is this the kind of thing you mean?

Sorry, as a scientist the terms 'evidence' has a very specific meaning and weight. Similarly, one can conjure up any kind of argument in the absence of evidence, but the fact that there is no empirical evidence one way or another does not validate the argument.

I suspect we are talking across terms and meanings.

My bottom line: there is no empirical evidence for god or gods or any other mythical entity. There never has been. There is only the human predilection for creating a story to help explain life in the face of the unknown, give comfort and ease fears.

[dneal]

Mind is a type of cloud-based quantum computer that arises due to complex interactions of super-positional electrons associated with the brain. While we may lay claim to individuality, the reality is that what we call "our" mind is part of the universal mind. This, in part, explains why we often get a sense of familiarity with people or place or events that we "know" intellectually that we have never encountered. Jung posited the concept of a group or world mind. Quantum physics though was too young to help him realise just how close he had come to a truth.

While this only represents a small and simplified part of my theory, which was also later independently refined and expanded on by Dr Roger Penrose (famous British mathematical physicist), it is a robust argument that explains much of the non-physical function of our brain matter, and speaks directly to the fabric of this universe.

While there is little empirical evidence to support this theory, the rationale is sound.

Is this the kind of thing you mean?

Sorry, as a scientist the terms 'evidence' has a very specific meaning and weight. Similarly, one can conjure up any kind of argument in the absence of evidence, but the fact that there is no empirical evidence one way or another does not validate the argument.

I suspect we are talking across terms and meanings.

My bottom line: there is no empirical evidence for god or gods or any other mythical entity. There never has been. There is only the human predilection for creating a story to help explain life in the face of the unknown, give comfort and ease fears.

Jung's theory is rational in the classical sense, but I never thought it was very logical, well thought out, or convincing. The Argument from Design is quite clever, and intuitively persuasive to be perfectly honest. I find it the most elegant of the three. Still, I don't accept it as valid or conclusive.

I think trying to force the "scientific" definition of 'evidence' is specious. We're talking about history, theology and philosophy. It is ironic that a Ph.D. in physics, for example, holds a Doctorate in the Philosophy of physics. Rational argument, inductive logic, or simply "thinking" is how scientists connect the dots (or bits of empirical evidence) and formulate theories to test. You're inadvertently dismissing the very process used to get us to where we are now. Heraclitus' metaphysics resemble quantum physics, and he came up with it by just reasoning. We can perhaps cut him a little slack since he didn't have the body of knowledge in the 5th Century B.C. that Neil deGrasse Tyson has the benefit of.

I think religion is reassurance to our psyche as we are aware of our impending death. I also think it is a "final" answer to "why". But if you keep asking "why", even science becomes speculative or rational; and without empirical evidence.

I don't think we are talking across terms and meanings. I think you are trying to turn this into a "proof of god" argument. I think you should start your own thread, if that's what you intend; because those are a waste of time. This thread is a discussion on the Definition of Christian, not whether religion is true or false.

--edit--

p.s. As a self-proclaimed scientist, you seem to forget or ignore that one to the key tenets is that discovering you are wrong is always a possibility.

p.p.s. Quoted for posterity, since you like to change or delete your posts for some reason.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I changed my post because I wanted to refine what I was saying. Not for any nefarious purpose.

As for the 'proof of God' thing, please try to understand that when I see the question "What is the definition of a Christian?" I must ask "at what level of abstraction?". It depends on whether you are looking for a popular definition or not. Mine is as stated before, that a Christian (or anyone holding a theistic belief actually) is "Someone who believes in something for which there is no evidence". It is a basic and accurate description.

I stand by the "no evidence" part because merely thinking something to be true does not beget the fact - tying into your snipe about tenets.

That was all. If you want definitions then please set the limits on what you are asking, because it seems to me that the question that is being responded to in this thread is "How, using the terms and teachings of Christian scripture, does one define a Christian?", and that is a quite different question.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Actually, I have other views. It really depends on what I am thinking about, what the context may be, and sometimes whether I have had a satisfactory bowel movement that day. I consider myself a highly fluid thinker in that respect.

A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

What more description or definition do you want? Perhaps we could ask if the definition has changed over time? That would be a super duper question in my opinion.


As an aside though, I have met vanishingly few modern Christians who actually follow those teachings closely, alas.

[dneal]

I changed my post because I wanted to refine what I was saying. Not for any nefarious purpose.

As for the 'proof of God' thing, please try to understand that when I see the question "What is the definition of a Christian?" I must ask "at what level of abstraction?". It depends on whether you are looking for a popular definition or not. Mine is as stated before, that a Christian (or anyone holding a theistic belief actually) is "Someone who believes in something for which there is no evidence". It is a basic and accurate description.

I stand by the "no evidence" part because merely thinking something to be true does not beget the fact - tying into your snipe about tenets.

That was all. If you want definitions then please set the limits on what you are asking, because it seems to me that the question that is being responded to in this thread is "How, using the terms and teachings of Christian scripture, does one define a Christian?", and that is a quite different question.

Ok, but I disagree that there is "no evidence". There is evidence of something. No one knows what that is, ultimately. I think of Bertrand Russell's criticism of the Cosmological, or "first cause" argument. Paraphrasing, he said "if there's anything that doesn't need a cause, it might as well be the universe instead of God". I agree, from an Occam's razor principle; but at that level of abstraction and uncertainty it might as well be God too.

What that "something" is and more importantly why it is, is anyone's guess. Ask Stephen Hawking and you'll ultimately get an answer that he can't prove. Ask Pope Francis and you'll get the Catholic answer, which he can't prove. Ask the Dali Lama... well, you get the point. At some point Science is no less of an "educated guess" as religion. They both are different in how they are selective of their "evidence".

As for what I'm asking... until your post(s) we were discussing exactly how one defines a Christian. It is not quite a different question, it is the question of the thread. I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this around, since I pointed this out in my preceding post.

A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I agree.

What more description or definition do you want? Perhaps we could ask if the definition has changed over time? That would be a super duper question in my opinion.

I think jar has done very well in addressing this, and I welcome more. It's been some time since I've read anything about the early history of Christianity, and that was in passing interest. Although I'm familiar, his command of the subject is impressive.