What is the definition of a Christian?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

In this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121889820

in the "Religion" subforum I stated that, in my experience, all Christians believe in original sin and substitutionary atonement. Augustine of Hippo introduced original sin. I think that the rest of the beliefs and practices flow from those two starting premises.

Please Note: I am not saying this responder is wrong. I am saying that I would like an answer to the above question.

Cbayer has said that I am "dogmatic" and "Not all Christian churches are like that but you (meaning me) can't see that".

This person has argued with me about my definition as I have experienced it in attending many different churches, but have not answered my question. Cbayer has stated that I hate all religions. I do not hate all religions but I do have problems with some of the practices and beliefs of many, but not all, religions. I have also found consistent value systems and was told that "all belief systems have contradictions".

[MADem]

1. I thought "Christians" were people who followed Jesus, AKA the Prophet Isa.

I didn't think all that other stuff was necessarily mandated to use the term. If you are a person who agrees with the things that have been written down that Jesus/Isa is said to have uttered, you are a follower of Jesus, even if you don't have other beliefs.

So, I guess I am agreeing with cbayer that the definition could be broadened.

It's a lot like the arguments about "Who is a Jew?" or "Who is a Muslim?" or "Who is an Atheist?" The modern Jews are called phonies by the traditional ones; same deal with the bacon eating, I'll have a beer Muslims getting noise from conservative imams...you're always going to find people who take issue with people's definitions of what they say they are.

Where you stand -- and where you say you stand -- depends on where you sit! If you say you are a follower of Jesus, then you are that, even if you don't buy off on all the stuff written down in particular books.

Now, all that said, I want you to be clear and understand that you are posting in the INTERFAITH group. This is a protected group, it is all about maintaining a positive atmosphere, so you might want to modulate your tone in calling out another DUer. I think cbayer did answer your question, you just didn't like the answer.

It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Go ahead and have a look at our SOP here, and then make the call as to whether or not you want to press on with your questions and discussion.

You might want to modify your OP just a bit if that's the case.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

2. I was making

sure I did not resort to ad hominem arguments. I am well aware of that. I was careful with my wording.

I just wondered why nobody who has said there are other kinds of Christians has given me any concrete examples of creeds that don't flow from the two start from those premises.

They seem to be telling me I can believe anything and be a Christian.

I'm really waiting for a broad definition.

[MADem]

20. Well, the bottom line is, if I say I'm a ballet dancer, I'm a ballet dancer.

I may not ever dance at the Bolshoi, and I may not be able to get up on my tippie-toes, but, just as there's no test, no certificate, no "diploma" that is issued to ALL ballet dancers, that I could show that "certifies" me as a ballet dancer, there is also no "test" for Christianity, save saying--not doing anything, just saying--that you follow the teachings of Christ.

We all know that sects of most religions like to fling shit at other sects, and say they aren't following the "true faith," and use arguments like "but you don't believe this" and "you can't say 'x' and also say you're a 'y'" but the bottom line is this--where you stand depends on where you sit. If you're sitting down and declaring yourself to be a Christian, that's what you are.

Keep in mind there's no "Christian Church" that keeps records of members and direct debits their pay for the mandated percentage of their earnings. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of churches that operate under the general umbrella of Christianity, and they cover a wide swathe.

[cbayer]

3. I am gad that you have posted your question here and suspect you will get

a variety of responses. Some of them may challenge you, while others may reinforce your current beleifs.

Anyway, it should be interesting and I will stay out of it, as you and I have already discussed this pretty extensively.

[hrmjustin]

4. A Christian is a believer who believes Jesus Christ is the Jewish Messiah and is the son of God come

to bring salvation. Some denominations have differences with others on certain dogmas but the majority of Christians in this world would agree with my first sentence.

[okasha]

5. The Apostles' Creed

mentions neither original sin nor substitutionary atonement. Its only mention of sin at all is at the end, where "forgiveness of sins" is listed among other foundational beliefs.

[rug]

9. +1

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

6. I read the thread you cited in the thread header

You seem to have decided, based on your own experience, that all Christians must fit a Procrustean bed of your devising. You seem annoyed when actual Christians don't want to meet your assigned criteria.

A Christian is a believer in and follower of Christ. It's really as simple as that. I am reminded of an old Jewish story: Rabbi Hillel was asked by a gentile to summarize the Torah while standing on one leg. Hillel responded, "Do not do to others what would be hateful if done to you. That is the whole of the Torah. All the rest is commentary." To paraphrase that, the whole of Christianity is believing in Jesus; all the rest is commentary.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

7. Which Christ?

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 03:33 PM - Edit history (2)

The one who preached The Sermon on the Mount?

Or the one who cussed out a fig tree when it refused to fruit out of season, away from its natural annual rhythm(Jesus must not have known anything about biology)?

Or the one who said I come not in peace, but with a sword [to set families apart]?

Or the one that said most people will go to hell?

Or the one who said Jews were condemned as sons of those killing the prophets?

Or the one who said if you are believing and baptized you will be saved, otherwise you will go to hell?

Or the one who said if you do not forsake your family, leave everything behind and follow him, you are not worthy of him?

Or the one who said the unforgivable sin was blaspheming the holy spirit, whatever that means??

There are hundreds of examples of Jesus saying cruel, absurd and inhumane things.

Which Jesus you talking about? It's ALL in the Bible that Christians revere as a "moral guide" I'm trying to be respectful but it's quite difficult for such a mixed up group of non-contemporaneous writings by many different authors, and clumsily edited to keep patriarchy and political authority intact.

My point is: What Jesus said does not make any sense at all, as a whole. A few small pieces of what he said are good, but they are not unique to Christianity. If you knew about how the bible was edited and mixed up(Constantine, council of Nicaea)and interpreted for political purposes, you wouldn't think it was a good moral guide.

Hinduism and Buddhism don't have any contradictions in them as far as morality. There is nothing The Buddha said where Buddhists say "Oh that was a hateful thing The Buddha said, so we'll ignore it or gloss it over or say it was a metaphor". Buddha is not a god either.

[okasha]

8. If you knew how the Bible was edited,

you would know it didn't happen at the Council of Nicaea.

[rug]

10. You seriously misunderstand Christian teaching.

That might explain your difficulty in finding a definition.

Your rofl smiley doen't help.

[kentauros]

11. I've always wanted to poke holes in the arguments against the Bible,

but as I've never read it all the way through, I don't "study" it like so many atheists, and don't like the majority of the "detractors" in the Religion group, I've never spoken up about this.

I sincerely do not get the argument against people cherry-picking what they like out of the Bible. All too often the septics seem to be of the opinion that you must abide by all dictates and philosophies or you're a hypocrite. This makes no sense whatsoever.

As an example I've had lately, this supposition would be like calling me a hypocrite for not agreeing with, or using, every single recipe in one of my cookbooks. We all have different tastes, literally and figuratively. Cherry-picking is just part of life.

[okasha]

12. The insistence on giving equal weight to every word

of the Bible is something common only to Christian fundamentalists and polemical atheists. Everybody else is a whole lot more relaxed about it.

[hrmjustin]

13. We celebrate the Jesus of the bible and our traditions.

Jesus is a complicated yet simple person. Jesus to Christians is salvation. Yes sometimes it is not easy to follow or understand or try. Christians will tell you that we have our own questions for the faith. Faith is not easy nor was it meant to be.

And with all due respect I suggest you re-read the SOP of this room. This room is not for others to laugh at our faith. Please remove the laughing smile.

[MADem]

21. Or the one who rode dinosaurs, while you're at it?

Look, MoL, you do seem intent on drawing a box around your preferred definition, and demanding that anyone who wants to call themselves Christian fit into it. You'll never find satisfaction with that approach, I fear.

For example, I think if you walked into one of these storefront churches that practice santeria and tried to tell those folks, who don't have any sense of the minutiae of the Bible, who might not even be able to read, some of them, and tell them that they aren't sufficiently "Christian" they'd probably want to have a word with you. And I don't think that word would be "Welcome!"

Your experiences define what "Christian" means to YOU. So, too, do the experiences of others define what it means to them. There is no "Boss of All The Christians" who lays down the law and tells people what they're required to believe in order to call themselves members of the JC Club.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

14. Why do you need to be "saved" in the first place?

What does it mean to be "saved" from what, and WHY is it necessary?

I really don't understand that concept either.

[hrmjustin]

15. Well it came from the idea that since we know right from wrong we chose to rebel against God

and Jesus was sent to save humanity. And it has been interpreted that by his death and rising again we are saved from the absence of God by either hell or nothingness after death.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

16. Yep, original sin and substitionary atonement.

Adam and Eve sinned and all that.

Ridiculous. Most people have enough things to worry about that they might have done wrong, assuming they have a conscience, without a minister authority figure hitting them with a criminal rap they don't deserve. It was added by St. Augustine of Hippo to Christian doctrine.

You do know that lots of ancient gods died for our sins and were resurrected? Osiris, Mithra, Apollo?

[hrmjustin]

17. I don't believe in Adam and Eve but yes it is the idea that people from the time we first were on

the scene have rebelled against God.

As Christians we are called to examine ourselves and admit our shortcomings and try to do better. We fall short of that.

Yes I am well aware of stories of other God's that are very similar to the story of Jesus.

[okasha]

28. Actually, gods that are "very similar to the story of Jesus"

are pretty rare. Most of the deities that share the dying-and-rising narrative are explicitly vegetation gods. They don't die to redeem sinners; they die and are renewed with the cycle of the seasons and the harvest. Usually the death takes place in the fall and the revival in spring.

The similarities claimed by such academic frauds as S. Acharya (sp?) are figments of the hucksters' own imagination, peddled to the gullible. Just for an example, she claimed several years ago that "Horus was crucified between two thieves." Now, the fact is that there is not one single word in Egyptian literature that substantiates her assertion. After many years of being called on her bs, she now claims that oh, no, she never really meant "crucified" as in pinned to a cross to die--she meant "portrayed standing with his arms extended holding an ankh." The other alleged parallels fail just as badly.

[okasha]

18. Actually,

neither Osiris, Mithra{s} nor Apollo "died for our sins and was resurrected." Mithra{s} and Apollo did not die at all. Osiris was murdered by his jealous brother Set and revived only long enough to sire Horus.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. This is probably not the best place to call a belief "ridiculous"...

since a large part of the purpose of this group is to find common ground among beliefs, not insult them.

Howsumever, being as how you asked, original sin is generally believed, by most Christians, the sin that Adam committed and which now infects all of humanity, leading to the necessity of salvation through Christ.

Concepts like predestination, the questions of intrinsic or extrinsic evil, even the question of whether or not good can exist without evil to balance it, have been argued since the beginnings of Christianity. Many "heresies" from these early discussions and interpretations of known scripture (unknown is just how much of it was destroyed by early bishops councils) were stomped out in the early days, although that was largely the Romans while the Eastern church, often kept a more open mind about things.

Today, Catholics and yer major Protestant sects generally carry on that basic belief, but there's always Quakers, Anabaptists, and others to kinda get off the track.

Now, if that still doesn't answer your question, please take it back to the Religion group where they have much more fun tearing these ideas apart.

[MADem]

22. I agree--nothing wrong with hashing out differences of opinion, but it's best if

one approaches these discussions in this "positive" group from a "compare and contrast" perspective as opposed to "I'm right--you're wrong."

[MADem]

23. You're not "the decider," though, MoL.

I've said something about your approach to conversation in this group, and I am going to reinforce what I said, again. You really don't need to be calling the conversations and ideas of others "ridiculous."

Please weigh your words carefully while you're in here. Read your posts twice before you hit that POST button, with an eye towards how your comments will be received by members of this protected group. Don't go insulting the beliefs and ideas of others--stick to describing YOUR views and attitudes, without mocking or judging others, and you'll be OK.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

24. I'm not saying these are bad people.

Belief in two opposing things, where both cannot be true, is cognitive dissonance. Supposedly it would bother the person who has it. Seems to not bother millions.

Without original sin & substitutionary atonement, just what is Jesus "saving" us from?

People with consciences usually know when they do something wrong. If they don't, someone may point it out to them, and then they realize it, if they agree with the person that pointed it out. And then apologize to the person they wronged.

[MADem]

25. I am simply asking you to choose your words carefully.

See, in this very post I'm responding to, you're making the assumption that "everyone" believes that Jesus is "saving" us from something.

That's just not true for every person who calls themselves a Christian. Some people don't buy off on the "saving" business, and some people don't buy off on the Virgin Mary, and some people don't think the Pope is infallible, etc. etc. and so forth.

Here's a crowd that diverges from the "liturgical" model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

It's impossible for you to declare that a "Christian" believes this or that or the other thing, because the odds are good there are Christians out there that don't believe this, that, or the other.

It's just how some of them roll.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

26. I am choosing my words carefully.

Can you tell me of a specific mainstream Protestant denomination that doesn't think we need to be saved from something by Jesus? I'd like an answer to that question.

The only non Trinitarians I know are UUs and they are not Christians. The Unitarians used to be Christians in the abolitionist movement. Now they are a non-creedal religion.

[MADem]

27. The Mormons. But see, there you go again!

Who are you to say that Unitarian Universalists are not Christians? See here: http://uuchristian.org/

And here: http://www.uua.org/beliefs/welcome/christianity/151242.shtml

Again, you're crafting a definition, and it's plain from the links that your definition does not hold sway.

My point is, in this forum, you can only speak for yourself. You can't tell other people what they believe. If you want to have that kind of back-and-forth, you'd probably do well to see if you can rekindle a discussion back in the religion forum, which is unprotected, and is better suited to challenges vis a vis faiths, beliefs, lack of beliefs, etc.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

29. I've been a UU for decades.

I subscribe to these UU principles. However, when you join, you sign a membership register. You do not have to swear that you believe anything in a creed. This is unlike any other denomination that I have experience with.

FROM UUA WEBSITE:
There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:
•The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
•Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
•Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
•A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
•The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
•The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
•Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Unitarian Universalism (UU) draws from many sources:
•Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
•Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
•Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
•Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
•Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
•Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

These principles and sources of faith are the backbone of our religious community.
END QUOTE FROM UUA website==============

I've been a UU since 1979 (First Unitarian Church of San Antonio was the first UU congregation I belonged to) and have never met anyone in a UU church or fellowship who identified themselves as Christian. Everyone identified as pagan, atheist, agnostic or humanist or questioning.

Christian UUs are out there but I've never met one. UU churches and fellowships are generally for people who left Christianity and want a community to belong to, socialize with and discuss ideas in without the Jesus obsession.

The editorial you pointed to by a UU Christian points out that the author says he sees Jesus not as divine or a "magical being" nor as a resurrected being, but as a role model. He also points out that many UUs are not wanting to be reminded of Jesus.

[MADem]

30. Your comments support my point.

Note, particularly, your last paragraph--those Christians call themselves Christians, and they don't base that title on any "rules" that other sects use. They follow the teachings of Jesus, and by doing that, they call themselves Christians. I have a cousin who is one of those.

When it comes to religion, people are what they say they are, pretty much. That's why a guy with a colander on his head can get his license photo taken with his "religious garb."

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

31. You have to admire the sheer chutzpah

Last edited Sat Aug 17, 2013, 08:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Of someone who says "I am not a member of this religion, but I can determine who is a member and who is not, determined by some arbitrary criteria I have set up".

When I said "A Christian is one who believes in Christ," you asked me "Which Christ?" I would reply, "Which one do you want?" We Christians have been arguing this one for literally centuries. No, as I said, a Christian is one who believes in Christ, not one who accepts two specific theological opinions.

You seem to think that "original sin" refers to a specific act of disobedience by two mythical persons. At least as far back as Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, original sin was seen as a basic flaw in human nature -- see the Summa Theologica, I-II, q 82 art 4. Similarly, Christians have been arguing about the meaning and nature of "atonement" for nearly two millennia. Do you want me to expand on either of those points?

[okasha]

32. No, you don't.

You can recognize it for the hostile shit-stirring it is.