Reply #101: Oh brother. On the side of tolerance. I let individuals define themselves.

[beam me up scottie]

But I'm not surprised that the concept of religious tolerance is lost on you.

I've noticed that most of the atheists/agnostics on this board, when defining their idea of a "true" Christian, align themselves on the side of the fundamentalists.

It's the DU christians who insist THEIR brand of dogma makes them the REAL christians who align themselves on the side of the fundamentalists.

I'm not sure they're aware that this is an argument that has rocked Christianity since the time of the Gospels. And that among the people who strongly disagree with them is John Kerry, who , not coincidentally, is a Catholic.

Of course atheists are aware of it. That's why we use the broad definition of christian instead of the narrow biased ones used by some christians on DU.



That's called tolerance, fyi.

You should try it out sometime.

Here's a little something from religioustolerance.org to get you started:

Range of definitions of "Christian:"

There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`ân). Different people have defined a "Christian" as a person who has:

1.Heard the Gospel in a certain way, and accepted its message, or
2. Become "saved" -- i.e. they have trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior), or
3. Been baptized as an infant, or
4. Gone to church regularly, or
5. Recited and agreed with a specific church creed or creeds, or
6. Simply tried to understand and follow Jesus' teachings, or
Led a decent life.

Following these different definitions, the percentage of North American adults who are Christians currently ranges from less than 1% to about 75%.

Within a given denomination or wing of Christianity, there is usually a consensus about who is a Christian, and who is not. However, there is often little agreement among members of different faith groups on a common definition of "Christianity."

Problems arising from exclusion and inclusion:

This web site uses an inclusive definition of Christianity -- the same one that is used by public opinion polls and government census offices: Anyone who seriously, thoughtfully, sincerely, prayerfully considers themselves to be a Christian is considered a Christian for the purpose of our essays.

The alternative is religious exclusion. This involves defining some individuals or their denominations as sub-Christian, quasi-Christian or non-Christian. This approach has led to serious conflicts. In some countries, such as Bosnia and Northern Ireland, discord has resulted in mass murder and even genocide. Recent religiously based conflicts throughout the world have shown that if the political and/or economic climate is highly stressed, some believers find that it can be only a series of small transitions to go from "You are different from us," to "You are not a real Christian," to "You are sub-human," to "You have no right to live." Fortunately, there is a great reservoir of tolerance in North America that has prevented intra-Christian and inter-religious friction from degenerating into widespread violence.

Which definition of christian is correct?

This question assumes that there is one and only one correct definition of the term "Christian." However, depending upon your understanding of the nature of truth, all of the above definitions may be "true":

To conservative Protestants, a Christian is often defined according to their salvation status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with some of their foundational beliefs: that the Bible is inerrant, that salvation is by grace, and that one must be "born-again" to be saved and avoid eternal punishment in Hell.

To Roman Catholics, a Christian is often defined according to their baptism status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with their fundamental beliefs, including their understanding of the Bible, the declarations of many Church Councils, the statements of many popes, and their church's tradition.

To many in the very early Christian movement, a Christian was defined as a person who was baptized and proclaimed "Jesus is Lord." Their definition was "true" to them because it agreed with their understanding of their religious belief at a time when the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) had not yet been written and assembled.

And so on, with the remaining definitions.

Each group has their own definition of "Christian" which agrees with their own beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, church tradition, written text, evolved theology, etc. There appears to be no way to compromise on a single definition that is acceptable to all. One apparently cannot call on a higher power to resolve the problem, because there seems to be no way to assess the will of God on such matters. If there were such a method, then different definitions would have been harmonized centuries ago. People would simply have prayed to God and asked Him to define what a Christian is. Then, a consensus would exist today on the true meaning of the word "Christian."

There is no consensus on what the "correct" definition of "Christian" is. There is only a near consensus within individual faith groups.

The definition used on this web site:

We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. Included are: the Roman Catholic church; the Eastern Orthodox churches, conservative, mainline, and liberal Christian faith groups; The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons); Jehovah's Witnesses and a thousand or so other religious organizations who view themselves as Christian in North America.

Gee, I guess religioustolerance.org also "align(s) themselves on the side of the fundamentalists".:sarcasm:

Dictionary definitions:

Unfortunately, an air of religious intolerance permeates North America. Many Americans and Canadians equate "Christian" with being kind, decent or good. This implies that non-Christians lack these qualities. The purpose of dictionary definitions is to reflect the actual usage of words. Many dictionaries reflect this prejudice:

Webster's:
"1. A person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus.
2. A decent, respectable person.
3. having the qualities demonstrated and taught by Jesus Christ, as love, kindness, humility, etc.
4. Of or representing Christians or Christianity.
5. humane, decent, etc."

Other dictionaries:

Word iQ: "A follower of the faith of Christianity."

Encarta: "Any phenomenon as complex and as vital as Christianity is easier to describe historically than to define logically...the centrality of the person of Jesus Christ...is...a feature of all the historical varieties of Christian belief and practice. Christians have not agreed in their understanding and definition of what makes Christ distinctive or unique."

hyperdictionary:
a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and is a member of a Christian denomination.
following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ
(religion) relating to or characteristic of Christianity; 'Christian rites'."

TheFreeDictionary: "A monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior."

Thanks for the lecture, pnwmom, but I think this atheist will continue to use the inclusive definition of "christian".