Defining "Christianity"

[kweerwolf]

Some friends and I were discussing the new Anne Rice book on Jesus' childhood over dinner last night and the subject came up of how does one define who is and isn't a Christian. Now I'm curious how other people feel about this.

Does being a Christian mean following the teachings of Christ (as in believing Jesus was a great and wise teacher)? Or does it require also believing in mytical concepts such as Jesus being God incarnate?

My own perspective is one of a humanist/universalist in that I believe there are truths in all the world's great religions, but I don't necessarily believe in the mystical/miraculous elements. I tend to boil Christianity down to the Sermon on the Mount and parables and teachings and accept Cristianity as one more valid path, but several people at the dinner said they could never consider themselves Christians because they could not but the concept of Christ's divinity, regardless of the wisdom in what he taught.

[Jokerman]

1. Good Luck.

I think you'll find almost as many answers to that as there are members of this forum.

I personally feel that if someone says that they are a christian, I'm obligated to take their word for it. That doesn't mean that they're a "good christian" or even a good person but its not my place to determine the validity of their claim.

[Orrex]

4. Don't sell yourself short!

its not my place to determine the validity of their claim .

Perhaps you can't look into their souls and discern how "Christian" they are, but you can judge their behavior and determine how well it coincides with your notions of "Christian" behavior, if that term has any meaning for you.

For me, the term is all but meaningless on its own, but I am certainly able to assess a person's behavior in terms of my own concepts of propriety.

In the end, that's all that any of us can do, whether or not we believe in some metaphysical foundation for one's behavior.

[Jokerman]

6. That's the problem

My notions of "christian behavior" are pretty much the same as my notions of human behavior. In other words, I see the same range of good, bad and ugly behavior in all groups of people regardless of religious belief or affiliation.

[patrice]

2. There are "saints" who never had any of those Mystical/Miraculous/

Born-Again/Other-Worldly experiences at all, ever, but they lived their lives in service to others, without the rewards of Mysticism and were recognized by "the Church" as Saints in the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Church, amongst true Christians. Saints of this type were referred to as "arid" in their biographic records.

[patrice]

3. Some arguments aren't much more than Language chasing its own

Tail.

[cloud_chaser1]

5. How about these guys in prison?

America's prions are crammed with inmates who sport tattooed crosses and pictures of Jesus on their arms, chests, backs, etc. They wear gold crosses around their necks and they all claim to have found Jesus behind bars.

Are they Christians or just guys hoping that a religious persona will result in a shorter stay in the big house? They claim to be born again, but they are also members of jailhouse gangs that deal in activities that are hardly in a christian tradition.

Are they Christians because they really are, because they SAY they are or are they try to put one over on all of us?

[undergroundpanther]

7. I think

"Christian" has nothing tod o with a persons ethics, character or moral wisdom or capacity for empathy.no more that P.hD or whatever title or name self given or given by someone else.Christian does not define as "automatically a decent human being"

All christian means to me is you are a person that believes in a particular god from a radical jewish sect and his son was a man god figure that rose from a grave that said nice stuff and terrible stuff in a popular book , like any other cult(take cult as pejorative or not. I meant it both ways) leader at the time..

[Igel]

8. I don't think it's my business, but I'll chime in.

I accept acquaintances' and strangers' claims on the face of it: they say they're Xian, fine, whatever. I have the same attitude if they say they're part Cree or Inuit. No skin off my nose.

If I'm going to hang around them, I'm concerned about their behavior in an absolute sense. I don't care if they're Xian or not.

But I'm more tolerant if they're trying to be Christlike in the same 'direction' that I'm trying to. For me, the 'fruits' born by a Xian can't be judged given a simple factual description; the fruits are changes from the person's status quo towards being Christlike.

The less our 'directions' coincide, the less willing I am to judge their behavior to be acceptable for some purposes.