Definition of Christian

[Manny]

[matteob]

Jar said it: I guess you are a Unitarian. It is a heretical viewpoint from all the main Christian churches though but there are Unitarian Churches out there. The Watchtower People are unitarians too.

[RNHC]

It was dneal who first proposed that I may be a Unitarian way back in post 31. From the explanations, I determined that I resembled a Deist the best.

[Memory]

Lively thread here. Technically I'm not sure that believing in God makes you deist. The deist movement is the blind watchmaker concept. We tend to believe that we can't say for certain whether there is or isn't a god as it's unknowable given that we are not omniscient. There may be a god, there may not, but either way, we hold ourselves accountable for our actions and do not believe in divine intervention. We recognize, however, that sum totality of the universe is greater than the sum of its parts and that there are patterns that could be attributed to a god.

As a contrast, atheists strongly believe that there is no god, and that there is sufficient evidence that god does not exist. Agnostics don't really care one way or the other if there's a god. Deists recognize the possibility but do not worship a god because we cannot say for certain whether one does or does not exist.

While most people would say that Christians must believe in the holy trinity, that has become much more lax as more and more Protestant religions crop up. Some would say that if you believe in the teachings in the New Testament, you are a Christian. Jesus could be the son of God, but he's still an ordinary human being. Others would say that you must believe that Jesus is endowed with special gifts and talents from God in order to be considered a Christian.

My background? Complicated. My parents were refugees from Vietnam. My dad was Buddhist, my mom was Roman Catholic, and a Lutheran church sponsored my family so we had 3 services we had to go to. Polytheism at its finest. I clearly remember sitting in through a sermon as a 6 year old where the pastor was talking about the golden calf. I thought about my house where we had our "alter" with a gold Buddha, my ancestors, and our family's kitchen gods, and realized that yup, I was confused. That was okay though because even then, I viewed religion as a cultural and sociological construct where different points of view were not mutually exclusive. When I was in 6th grade in my first world history class, they defined Deism and I swear, my classmates could see a lightbulb go off in my head. Finally! Something that described my personal beliefs.

I remained curious and earned a double degree in biology and religion as an undergraduate. FWIW, I often think of Shepherd Book's quote from Firefly: "It doesn't matter what you believe in, just as long as you believe."

[LeFreak]

As a contrast, atheists strongly believe that there is no god, and that there is sufficient evidence that god does not exist. Agnostics don't really care one way or the other if there's a god. Deists recognize the possibility but do not worship a god because we cannot say for certain whether one does or does not exist.

That's not how I define it myself, as an atheist.

Atheist=no belief in God or gods.

Agnostic=believes that nothing can be known beyond the material world.

So atheism is a term of belief, while agnostic is a term of knowledge.

[RNHC]

The deist movement... tend to believe that we can't say for certain whether there is or isn't a god as it's unknowable given that we are not omniscient. There may be a god, there may not, but either way, we hold ourselves accountable for our actions and do not believe in divine intervention.
.
.
Deists recognize the possibility but do not worship a god because we cannot say for certain whether one does or does not exist.

Your definition of a Deist doesn't appear to be correct. You are describing an Agnostic. My understanding is that to be a Deist, one must believe in God (or a Supreme Being). After all, the words deism and deist literally derived from Latin word, deus, for God.

[Medievalist]

The text-book answer is that a Christian, of whatever a denomination, accepts the Nicene Creed.

In practice it's a lot slippery; I can remember as a child (I'm a PK) noticing that some churches retained the reference to the Harrowing of Hell in the Creed; some omitted it. And at the churches that retained it, some members didn't say that part.

[fqgouvea]

The text-book answer is that a Christian, of whatever a denomination, accepts the Nicene Creed.

In practice it's a lot slippery; I can remember as a child (I'm a PK) noticing that some churches retained the reference to the Harrowing of Hell in the Creed; some omitted it. And at the churches that retained it, some members didn't say that part.

You're confusing the Nicene with the Apostles' Creed. No descent into hell in the Nicene.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SIR]

Full disclosure, i will freely affirm to being pro-life, republican, atheist, and homophobic*; you can tell me i'm wrong and your reasons, but i'll tell you that you're lying and making excuses.
* that said, i have a little, albeit not very much, more tolerance for people with somewhat wayward sexual proclivities, than i do for anyone associated with brainwashing, slavery, and murder.

So, from my limited perspective, i would suggest the example and message of Jesus Christ is to tolerate that which you do not love and not obsess about that which you do love. Don't limit yourself with definitions, think for yourself, and adapt and overcome. Too many so called believers of pretty much all 'religions' have had their throats slit whilst being sodomised (both literally and metaphorically, à la Pasolini's Salò) for the sake of someone elses teaching or interpretation of a teaching.

You are a true Christian if you don't want yourself, or anyone else, to be a slave or a sacrifice.

[Drubbing]

A second common but amazing belief seems to be that "The Bible™" is only one book and not an anthology of anthologies written by mostly unknown authors over uncounted periods of time edited by unknown editors and still later redacted and translated and edited yet again, often for social and political reasons instead of theological ones.

It's staggering the many people who have no understanding of the origins and many (mis)translations of the bible. Which would bring into question many of the words within, and their true origins. I see many unthinkingly reciting incarnations by rote.

To back up to the original question for a moment, it depends on your version of 'true' Christian. Is it one who take the bible literally as the word of god? If so, you would have to do as the clergy do, and carefully cherry pick the good from the hateful, the plentiful calls for genocide and infanticide, and the out of date rules that were meant for a nomadic and peasant tribe. The word of this god is questionable in my atheist view, as this all powerful and omnipotent being also seems to suffer from a needy inferiority complex of schizophrenic and psychopathic proportions. Almost humanoid, really...

Also, many evangelical versions of 'good Christians' aren't happy to leave others to be good, moral people without a magical rudder, and will not rest until everyone else is also Christian, and pay ongoing subscriptions.

Back to the mistranslations. Original documents as stated above are a cobbled together tome of many unknown authors, from different languages and points in time. Not least of which, the word Virgin has been mistranslated from the original languages which meant young woman or maiden. The world's biggest cult has sprung from such misappropriations.

Most modern bibles were taken from the King James version of 400+ years ago, which has provided us the most lyrical and poetical version; providing a common language of references that rivals Shakespeare. Most of us were either taught these, or picked them up from the vernacular. It's probably one of the reasons, along with people's willingness to suspend disbelief and/or fear of death, and the enormous power of churches, that religion is as large an entity as it is.

Many modern bibles have stripped the KJ of virtually all of its lyrical power, in order to make it easier to understand. Or to provide clearer orders. Seems to be that people find poetry a bit to hard to digest in the modern age and it's become a tool of utility. But these again, add yet more layers of mistranslation, as modern authors seek to apply their own agendas on certain parts of the text for their own needs. To aptly quote the "professional" atheist, Christopher Hitchens, the constant meddling and re-purposing is, "Further demonstration that religion is man made, with inky human fingerprints all over its supposedly inspired and unalterable texts."

[jar]

Most modern bibles were taken from the King James version of 400+ years ago, which has provided us the most lyrical and poetical version; providing a common language of references that rivals Shakespeare. Most of us were either taught these, or picked them up from the vernacular. It's probably one of the reasons, along with people's willingness to suspend disbelief and/or fear of death, and the enormous power of churches, that religion is as large an entity as it is.

It is also forgotten that the Authorized King James Version of the Bible was far more a political creation than a theological one. James I & VI was well aware that the great threat to the civilization of that period was Christianity's inability to get along between Chapters of Club Christian. Even a monarch was not secure and safe as his family history made clear. The KJV was an attempt to tone down the level of animosity between the two primary Chapters of Club Christian in the Islands, to broker an "I can Live with that" acceptance from both parties like Edwards earlier creation of the Book of Common Prayer. The secondary but near equal purpose was to provide a theological basis for the Divine Right of Kings and support his other writings on that topic.

Unfortunately for his son Charles, even that effort failed.

[Drubbing]

Most modern bibles were taken from the King James version of 400+ years ago, which has provided us the most lyrical and poetical version; providing a common language of references that rivals Shakespeare. Most of us were either taught these, or picked them up from the vernacular. It's probably one of the reasons, along with people's willingness to suspend disbelief and/or fear of death, and the enormous power of churches, that religion is as large an entity as it is.

It is also forgotten that the Authorized King James Version of the Bible was far more a political creation than a theological one. James I & VI was well aware that the great threat to the civilization of that period was Christianity's inability to get along between Chapters of Club Christian. Even a monarch was not secure and safe as his family history made clear. The KJV was an attempt to tone down the level of animosity between the two primary Chapters of Club Christian in the Islands, to broker an "I can Live with that" acceptance from both parties like Edwards earlier creation of the Book of Common Prayer. The secondary but near equal purpose was to provide a theological basis for the Divine Right of Kings and support his other writings on that topic.

Unfortunately for his son Charles, even that effort failed.

Yes, well said on the historical significance. It only provides further proof bibles of all versions are the product of men, which still leaves me in awe of people's gullibility in believing these contain the words of an omnipotent being.

[jar]

Yes, well said on the historical significance. It only provides further proof bibles of all versions are the product of men, which still leaves me in awe of people's gullibility in believing these contain the words of an omnipotent being.

You're fairly new here so just some background to place what I post in context.

I am a devout Cradle Creedal Christian, do believe in God and that there was a Jesus who did teach and did rise from the dead and ascend into heaven and who will judge me after I die, I was raised in a Christian family, am a member of a recognized Christian denomination, was educated in a Christian school, helped found a new parish and build their first worship place, have been a Sunday school teacher for kids and adults and have created quite a few Christian church websites.

Now back to the topic.

That is a common human failing but not really the fault of the authors of the stories and partially the fault of those creating a "Bible" but mostly the fault of those marketing Christianity. The idea that there is such a things as "The Bible™" and that it is one book with one story and one narrative that is just about Jesus is a creation of certain chapters of Club Christian. Hebrews understood correctly that the stories in what we call the Old Testament were separate, individual stories and each had its own purpose. They understood not all were about God and absolutely none of the Old Testament tales were about Jesus.

But if you actually read those stories the God character is generally not omnipotent or omniscient or always honest or always just or always playing fair. In fact the God character in a story is the God character created by the author to carry along the actual purpose of the story.

The much newer, much more recent God character found in the Genesis 1 story is omniscient and omnipotent but also aloof, separate and not having any interaction with the things created beyond looking at them and declaring them good. But the purpose of the Gen 1 story is not the God character but rather the very important to Judaism concept of the Sacred Week and the Sabbath.

The God character in the much older story found in Genesis 2&3 is definitely not omniscient or omnipotent or honest and in fact rather bumbling and learning on the job. But it is the right character for the story that is actually a Just So story explaining why we have to farm instead of just being hunter gatherers, why child birth seemed so much more painful for humans than for the other animals, why we fear snakes or get old and die or have a society based on rules of conduct or need to make clothes instead of having a built in coat like the other animals.

Genesis 11 is yet another Just So story; this time the purpose of the story is to explain why not everyone speaks the same language.

The God in the Exodus story is a really nasty piece of work who does not keep his word and punishes people simply to show that He can punish people; going so far as to change the persons mind even after the person agrees to God's demands just to punish the person even more. That God even goes so far as to punish the story protagonist just for a minor infraction when the protagonist places his duty to protect those in his care over the commands from that God. But again, it is the right God for that story, the story about the founding of a peoples apart, the property literally of their God.

Much of the Old Testament tales are pure politics; who's gonna be in charge, the Priests or a secular King or Prince? What are the duties, rights and prerogatives of each tribe? Which tribes are allied right now?

As the tribes unified into quasi kingdoms they each developed their own Chapter of Club Hebrew and with the diaspora into many chapters of Club Hebrew, each claiming to be the TRUE Hebrew.

And that is reflect again in the stories when seen individually. The God and even the actual titles used in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 are different and from different eras and cultures. There is not one Flood story but two mutually exclusive flood story all mixed up together. The stories reflect political reality of a period; Kings versus Priests; Judah versus Israel; changing allegiances of the tribes; the attempt at restoration of Judaism when threatened by the comfort and prosperity and acceptance of the Jews in Exile and the marketing campaign to get them to physically return to Palestine.

But in much of Christianity we fail to teach kids these basics and instead resort to unthinking acceptance of dogma, proof texts, bumper sticker theology, denial of reality and we get exactly what we create. All the errors found how Christianity teaches the Old Testament are equally valid when looking at how much if not most of modern Christianity teaches the New Testament with the additional sin of taking things totally out of context and then actually misrepresent what the passage meant.

And don't get me started on canons and creeds and utter nonsense and carny palm the pea dishonesty like the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

[adhoc]

Full disclosure, i will freely affirm to being pro-life, republican, atheist, and homophobic*; you can tell me i'm wrong and your reasons, but i'll tell you that you're lying and making excuses.
* that said, i have a little, albeit not very much, more tolerance for people with somewhat wayward sexual proclivities, than i do for anyone associated with brainwashing, slavery, and murder.

Damn, living in GB must be hell for you then.

[SIR]

Full disclosure, i will freely affirm to being pro-life, republican, atheist, and homophobic*; you can tell me i'm wrong and your reasons, but i'll tell you that you're lying and making excuses.
* that said, i have a little, albeit not very much, more tolerance for people with somewhat wayward sexual proclivities, than i do for anyone associated with brainwashing, slavery, and murder.

Damn, living in GB must be hell for you then.

I have a sense of humour and enjoy a challenge, failing that i can fall back on the irony of others' hypocritical conceit and judgmentalism.

[adhoc]

Full disclosure, i will freely affirm to being pro-life, republican, atheist, and homophobic*; you can tell me i'm wrong and your reasons, but i'll tell you that you're lying and making excuses.
* that said, i have a little, albeit not very much, more tolerance for people with somewhat wayward sexual proclivities, than i do for anyone associated with brainwashing, slavery, and murder.

Damn, living in GB must be hell for you then.

I have a sense of humour and enjoy a challenge, failing that i can fall back on the irony of others' hypocritical conceit and judgmentalism.

I’m not sure if I’m too young or too old to be able to come to peace with it.

[Drubbing]

Yes, well said on the historical significance. It only provides further proof bibles of all versions are the product of men, which still leaves me in awe of people's gullibility in believing these contain the words of an omnipotent being.

You're fairly new here so just some background to place what I post in context.

I am a devout Cradle Creedal Christian, do believe in God and that there was a Jesus who did teach and did rise from the dead and ascend into heaven and who will judge me after I die, I was raised in a Christian family, am a member of a recognized Christian denomination, was educated in a Christian school, helped found a new parish and build their first worship place, have been a Sunday school teacher for kids and adults and have created quite a few Christian church websites.

I'm be new here, but not to the discussion of religion. I need to believe in things that make sense, not in accepting faith based arguments that require adherence for their own sake, for fear of retribution before or after death. I'm quite capable of being a good person without being told how it's done. For your context, I'm Catholic school raised from kindergarten to high school and I rejected all of it whilst still a child - even though I wasn't fully cognisant of this at the time. It seemed to be an antiquated theatre, with defined traditions and customs, but far too many contradictions to hold water when thought about.

All of which are experiences covered in your interesting post, which refers to god as a fictional character. Yes, god's character does change with bible chapters and versions. That's because men wrote the books. Some later versions were written for social and political reasons. Which makes a fallacy of the book being his words.

[jar]

[QUOTE=Drubbing;234580]

I'm be new here, but not to the discussion of religion. I need to believe in things that make sense, not in accepting faith based arguments that require adherence for their own sake, for fear of retribution before or after death. I'm quite capable of being a good person without being told how it's done. For your context, I'm Catholic school raised from kindergarten to high school and I rejected all of it whilst still a child - even though I wasn't fully cognisant of this at the time. It seemed to be an antiquated theatre, with defined traditions and customs, but far too many contradictions to hold water when thought about.

All of which are experiences covered in your interesting post, which refers to god as a fictional character. Yes, god's character does change with bible chapters and versions. That's because men wrote the books. Some later versions were written for social and political reasons. Which makes a fallacy of the book being his words.

And your tale reflects the topic extremely well. Had Christianity been present to you as a child in a different fashion; had the stories been placed in context related to the era and mythos of the period when they were created; had the concept of GOD as a creator been discriminated from God(mixed case) the character in a particular story or god(lower case) the creation of different humans trying to come to terms with the unknown and unexplained realities would your experience have been different?

The topic "Definition of a Christian" has as many answers as there are respondents. And "What is Christianity" may be even more variable. But both resolve to a question of what a person was taught and was the person was taught HOW to think or WHAT to think.

[Fermata]

I know too many people that have had life changing moments, call it Damascene events if you like, not to have a rock solid belief and Faith.

And I thank God every day for that.

[jar]

I know too many people that have had life changing moments, call it Damascene events if you like, not to have a rock solid belief and Faith.

And I thank God every day for that.

Exactly. Muhammad and the Buddha are two such examples.