Definition of Christian

[Morgaine]

Labelling is a way to describe who we are. Who are you? Your name is likely to have been chosen by your parents, not by you. What you are is perhaps not the same as what you want to be due to family, friends, education and society shaping you.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Humans by nature label things. In the beginning it was us and them, good to eat/not good to eat, something I eat/something that eats me.

The there was this/not this and man learned that there were many things that were not this yet each was different from the other not thises.

It really is that simple.

And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.



<

[jar]

Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Humans by nature label things. In the beginning it was us and them, good to eat/not good to eat, something I eat/something that eats me.

The there was this/not this and man learned that there were many things that were not this yet each was different from the other not thises.

It really is that simple.

And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.



<

So you assert.

[RNHC]

Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Simple curiosity. It makes absolutely zero difference whichever religionistic label is placed on me since religion plays minimal role in my life. I know enough to know that my "attitude" toward God is not unique and has been thought upon, practiced, organized, etc. etc. I am wondering what that was.

[RNHC]

And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.
<

Also good as well. It can give a sense of belonging and comfort.

[dneal]

Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Humans by nature label things. In the beginning it was us and them, good to eat/not good to eat, something I eat/something that eats me.

The there was this/not this and man learned that there were many things that were not this yet each was different from the other not thises.

It really is that simple.

And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.



<

You're confusing a label with a prejudice.

"Labeling" is assigning a term, or common meaning, for shared understanding. No ill follows from that.

[RNHC]

A deist

A Unitarian (in the original sense of the term, before Unitarian Universalism and other digressions).

What is the difference between these two? For example, is one more secular than the other?

[RNHC]

That is one way to box Christianity; into two groups, the Trinitarians and Non-Trinitarians...

... a Trinitarian belief and belief in the divinity of Jesus are essential characteristics of Christianity.

My understanding of being a Christian aligns with checkrail. As far as I know, Non-Trinitarian doesn't believe in divinity of Christ, thus, by definition, cannot be called Christian. That's why Non-Trinitarian sects such Socians and Brethrens were deemed heretical and persecuted. In that vein, Unitarians should not be called Christian as well per conventional definition.

[RNHC]

For example, the Apostles Creed does not require Jesus to be divine, only the Son of God which was a term often applied to humans.

The version I grew up with says, "...Jesus Christ, his only Son..." To me, that confers divinity to Jesus so I am not sure where you get that Apostle's Creed does not require Jesus to be divine. On the other hand, the term, "Son of God," can take different meanings depending on whether one interprets it literally or metaphorically. But that's neither here nor there since that term is not used in my version of Apostle's Creed.

[jar]

For example, the Apostles Creed does not require Jesus to be divine, only the Son of God which was a term often applied to humans.

The version I grew up with says, "...Jesus Christ, his only Son..." To me, that confers divinity to Jesus so I am not sure where you get that Apostle's Creed does not require Jesus to be divine. On the other hand, the term, "Son of God," can take different meanings depending on whether one interprets it literally or metaphorically. But that's neither here nor there since that term is not used in my version of Apostle's Creed.

The whole Apostles Creed says that Jesus was his son but does not necessarily mean divine. As you say "To me, that confers divinity to Jesus", which acknowledges that it is YOUR interpretation.

The partial quote you included was from a post dealing with the Trinity which is another can of worms. It was also simply a small part of what I posted which I include below.

Understanding of the Trinity can take many forms.

For example, the Apostles Creed does not require Jesus to be divine, only the Son of God which was a term often applied to humans.

There is also the position that Jesus was fully and only human while alive and living among us but became divine with the ascension.

Personally, I believe if Jesus was not simply human while alive and on earth then I think the message of resurrection and a life after death is greatly diminished.

[dneal]

A Unitarian (in the original sense of the term, before Unitarian Universalism and other digressions).

What is the difference between these two? For example, is one more secular than the other?

Unitarians originally were Christian denominations that didn't acknowledge the trinity doctrine (i.e.: only God was divine). Deists acknowledge a supernatural "creator" without practicing a specific religion or denomination thereof.

"Unitarian" now usually refers to "Unitarian Universalist", which is essentially "deist".

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Humans by nature label things. In the beginning it was us and them, good to eat/not good to eat, something I eat/something that eats me.

The there was this/not this and man learned that there were many things that were not this yet each was different from the other not thises.

It really is that simple.

And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.



<

You're confusing a label with a prejudice.

"Labeling" is assigning a term, or common meaning, for shared understanding. No ill follows from that.

No I wasn't. I was simply leaving out the intervening steps that so often lead from labelling to prejudice. I thought - wrongly as it turns out - that my meaning was self-evident.


I'm just not very good with words. Sorry 'bout that.

[dneal]

Whence comes this desire for labelling?

Humans by nature label things. In the beginning it was us and them, good to eat/not good to eat, something I eat/something that eats me.

The there was this/not this and man learned that there were many things that were not this yet each was different from the other not thises.

It really is that simple.

And all the world's ills followed from it - in the context of human-human interaction.



<

You're confusing a label with a prejudice.

"Labeling" is assigning a term, or common meaning, for shared understanding. No ill follows from that.

No I wasn't. I was simply leaving out the intervening steps that so often lead from labelling to prejudice. I thought - wrongly as it turns out - that my meaning was self-evident.


I'm just not very good with words. Sorry 'bout that.

No problem, but it's an important distinction. Similarly, it's true that eating leads to obesity; but that shouldn't cause us to stop eating altogether...

[RNHC]

The whole Apostles Creed says that Jesus was his son but does not necessarily mean divine. As you say "To me, that confers divinity to Jesus", which acknowledges that it is YOUR interpretation.

The partial quote you included was from a post dealing with the Trinity which is another can of worms...

Point taken. Childhood lessons do leave lasting impressions even if I no longer believe in them.

[RNHC]

Unitarians originally were Christian denominations that didn't acknowledge the trinity doctrine (i.e.: only God was divine). Deists acknowledge a supernatural "creator" without practicing a specific religion or denomination thereof.

"Unitarian" now usually refers to "Unitarian Universalist", which is essentially "deist".

I am thinking I resemble the Deist the most. Thomas Jefferson and many of our Founding Fathers were purported to be Deists so I guess I'm in good company although I thought Deism was extinct. So closest modern equivalent would be Unitarian Universalist? That's interesting. I didn't know there was a distinction between Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist.

[RNHC]

Wait wait I think I know this one, it's Arianism isn't it?

I had to look this up. Apparently Arianism is another one of many that falls under Non-Trinitarianism.

[RNHC]

If your belief in God remains inspired by the life of Christ but with divinity abstracted, then broadly Unitarian would possibly be the answer.

I guess my questioning started when I realized that moral teachings of Christ were not that different from what other major religions espoused - be good, do unto others as they would do unto you, etc. I was fascinated to learn that Confucianism and Buddhism (which I think is philosophy, not religion) taught astoundingly similar morals or how to live one's life which led me to believe that there are certain universal core values, morals that transcend race, culture, and age. And that religion was simply a covering or cloth of that universal "truth."

[moynihan]

Interesting. What i observe is that people who tend to believe in a god(s) and that belief is related to Jesus tend to self identify as "Christians".
As a person viewing "Christianity" from the outside, i do categorize it as i do other religions. I define it as any group/doctrine that accepts/includes the key decisions of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD/ce. That would be what is contained in the original Nicaean Creed. I find this useful for my own purposes/study, since it was the time and place that it defined itself, so to speak.
This also provides a nice line separating it from the other Abrahamic religions; the two monotheist ones, (Judaism and Islam), and the much later rekindling of elements of Arianism in the 16th century (see the section Arianism resurfaces after the Reformation, 16th century on this page ), that exists to this day in a number of the later Arian-Protestant religions (Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.).

[dneal]

Unitarians originally were Christian denominations that didn't acknowledge the trinity doctrine (i.e.: only God was divine). Deists acknowledge a supernatural "creator" without practicing a specific religion or denomination thereof.

"Unitarian" now usually refers to "Unitarian Universalist", which is essentially "deist".

I am thinking I resemble the Deist the most. Thomas Jefferson and many of our Founding Fathers were purported to be Deists so I guess I'm in good company although I thought Deism was extinct. So closest modern equivalent would be Unitarian Universalist? That's interesting. I didn't know there was a distinction between Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist.

I don't think Deism is extinct, but its not like you're going to find any "Deist Church" around the next block or anywhere in history since rejection of organized religion seems to be a key tenant.

Unitarianism was originally a Christian doctrine, as was Universalism. The American Unitarian Association and Universalist Church merged, and the resulting Unitarian Universalism has become so theologically/philosophically liberal that it doesn't really mean anything other than some nebulous sort of spiritualism.

Emerson (a Unitarian minister at one time) displays the "God or Nature" (a concept originally described by Spinoza) line of thinking in his essays - which is a very deist way of thinking. Confusing, I know...

[dneal]

If your belief in God remains inspired by the life of Christ but with divinity abstracted, then broadly Unitarian would possibly be the answer.

I guess my questioning started when I realized that moral teachings of Christ were not that different from what other major religions espoused - be good, do unto others as they would do unto you, etc. I was fascinated to learn that Confucianism and Buddhism (which I think is philosophy, not religion) taught astoundingly similar morals or how to live one's life which led me to believe that there are certain universal core values, morals that transcend race, culture, and age. And that religion was simply a covering or cloth of that universal "truth."

Read "Jesus Lived in India".

Interesting. What i observe is that people who tend to believe in a god and that belief is related to Jesus tend to self identify as "Christians".
As a person viewing "Christianity" from the outside, i do categorize it as i do other religions. I define it as any group/doctrine that accepts/includes the key decisions of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD/ce. That would be what is contained in the original Nicaean Creed. I find this useful for my own purposes/study, since it was the time and place that it defined itself, so to speak.
This also provides a nice line separating it from the other Abrahamic religions; earlier monotheism (Judiasm) and the later monotheism (Islam), and the much later rekindling of elements of Arianism in the 16th century (see the section Arianism resurfaces after the Reformation, 16th century on this page ), that exists to this day in a number of the later Abrahamic-Protestant religions (Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.).

Look up what's now grouped as "the mystery cults" for a glimpse of early christianity that resembles nothing like we see today. Gnosticism is a specific example. Modern Christianity is what remains after all the other groups were declared heretics and either converted or were killed.