Defining the word 'Christian'

[darkstar3]

The word Christian is a noun, currently used to describe someone of a particular faith. It is a label chosen voluntarily by the people use it for themselves, and it should carry with it some sort of meaning.

That meaning, however, is in dispute, not just by the global populace in general, but by people on this board. To wit:

One DUer, who shall remain nameless, calls himself a Christian and believes that:
*- the Bible is the true, inspired word of God,
*- Jesus was the only begotten and divine Son of God, and
*- Jesus died to absolve all of mankind for our 'sins'.

Another DUer, who shall also remain nameless, calls himself (or herself) a Christian, and recently told me that:
*- the Bible was written by fallible men, and should never be taken literally,
*- Jesus may or may not have been the divine Son of God, and
*- Jesus' death had nothing to do with the 'sin' of mankind, and was instead meant as a type of message.

Now, as I understand it, the root of the word 'Christian' is 'Christ', which is Greek for 'Annointed One,' and is used as the title of Jesus of Nazareth. So it would seem that the Christian faith should center around Jesus. But as you can see, there are at least two Christians here on this board that disagree on the nature of Jesus himself, as well as the nature of Christianity's holy book, the Bible.

When someone tells me they are a paraplegic, I know that means they have lost the use of their lower limbs.

When someone tells me they are a teacher, I know that means that their primary task in this world is to impart knowledge.

When someone tells me they are a Muslim, I know that means that they believe in only one God, and that Muhammed is his prophet.

But when someone tells me they are a Christian, I no longer know what that means. I can't use the definition of the word to find out any more about who they are or what they believe. I find this troubling, because since this person has chosen to label themselves with a specific word, it must be important, but I can't figure out what that label is supposed to mean.

I am an atheist, and while many are confused as to what that really means, a dictionary search will reveal that I lack a belief in any God or gods. My chosen label tells someone about who I am.

So what I want to know is, where is the common theme? By what right can someone in this world call themselves a Christian? The word must mean something. If not, then I would be able to call myself a Christian without betraying my principles, which would allow me to fit in with the entirety of my family.

[darkstar3]

1. Up for less than 3 minutes and unrec'd already. Didn't know I'd strike a nerve... n/t

[county worker]

3. I think you are trying to touch nerves. I did not unrec by the way

I never rec or unrec. I heard a piece on NPR about different tactics that different atheists are taking. Some want to have a dialog with Christians and some want conflict.

[darkstar3]

9. All I want to do is understand.

At the moment, I can't find a common thread between Christians, and that confuses me. I don't understand how they can ALL be Christians if there is no common thread. Why wouldn't some of them pick a different label?

[DeSwiss]

69. I'm shocked!!! Absolutely shocked!!!!

You still listen to NPR?!?!?!

- Don't worry, we don't give a shit about what Christians believe. Just leave our damned rights alone and it'll be like we don't even know you exist......

[county worker]

75. Most Christians do leave your damned rights alone.

It is a minority that you have conflict with. I don't count my self among the Christians, I am a Buddhist. I have no god also.

I find that people have a lot of good qualities once you get past the things you disagree about.

[county worker]

2. There are many different churches in the Christian religion.

Most of them have somethings in common and many of them have lots of things they disagree on. Then you have the many different leaders of these churches that have their own interpretations of the faith and teach them. Then you have the followers who have their similarities and differences.

It has always been like that. If that makes you uncomfortable I'd say leave it alone. It will not change. Accept it or don't but that is a personal thing. I would not try to define it so black and white as you do.

[dhpgetsit]

4. Don't sweat it. There are lots of different ideas about what it means to be a Christian.

I think you will find the same is true of Islam and other faiths.

[dhpgetsit]

5. Apparently your idea of what it means to ne an atheist differs from mine.

IMO it means a belief that there is no God, as opposed to the Agnostic lack of belief which you seem to think it is.

[ZombieHorde]

36. Agnosticism is not about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge.

I can not truly know my toaster is not a god, but I do not believe my toaster is a god, so I am an agnostic atheist on the subject of my toaster god.

[darkstar3]

39. I disagree.

Atheism when defined from the Greek literally means 'no gods', and I have taken it as a label because I simply don't believe in any gods or other supernatural beings. I don't have an active belief that they CAN'T exist, I just have no reason to believe in them.

As for agnosticism, I agree with ZombieHorde, but I don't think he went far enough. There's an old quote that I can't find the source for, but that comes to my mind on this topic:
'Atheists say "I don't believe", while agnostics say "I can never know, and neither can you."'
One is about belief or the lack thereof, while the other is about hard knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive, as you may already know, since so many people call themselves 'agnostic atheists.'

[elocs]

6. Well I always thought that to be a Christian was to be Christ-like.

Could you explain exactly what it means to be a Muslim? Are there no differences in Islam from one believer to another, from one group to another, from one country to another?

[darkstar3]

8. How dishonest of you.

You and I both know that there are a myriad of differences between various Muslims, as I have pointed out in other threads in the past. But as I was trying to say in my OP, there is at least a common thread between Muslims, in the form of Allah and Muhammed. I am simply searching for the common thread that ties Christians together.

[patrice]

13. That is absurd. That "common thread", Allah + Muhammed probably unites Muslims just about as well

as Christ unites Christians. Unless and until you go assess every Muslim for his/her Allah+Muhammed-ness and the assess every Christian for his/her Christ-ness, you have no basis for this statement.

Your "logical" veneer is pretty thin.

[darkstar3]

14. You accuse me of having no basis for this statement with the word 'probably'? n/t

[patrice]

16. Unlike you, I KNOW that there is a possibility that my statement is not completely accurate.

I am NOT going to go make a flat out statement about, oh . . . . a few BILLIONS people as though it were a plane fact. I think my statement is a likely fact (and I can give you the empirical basis for that possibility - if you are interested), so unlike you, I qualify the statement as a probability.

[elocs]

19. Oh my, now I am hurt. Most questions are statements in disguise

and I don't think your OP had any true questions but simply statements of what you believe. There is no great mystery in what ties Christians together and I don't think it is honest to claim that you cannot understand that.

[patrice]

21. Bingo.

[darkstar3]

22. 'There is no great mystery in what ties Christians together'

I used to agree entirely with that phrase, but then a few DUers convinced me that Christianity is much more amorphous than I ever thought.

Attack my motivation, call me dishonest, whatever makes you feel better, but I posted this OP in an attempt to better understand how and why the label Christian is so frequently used. It genuinely confuses me that there seems to be nothing to tie these hundreds of millions of believers together, and yet they all use the same name.

[patrice]

24. A blue light must not be a light, because it is not the same as a red light, which isn't a light eit

her, because it is not the same as a green light, which isn't a light either because it is not the same as an ultra-violet light, which isn't a light either, because it is not the same as an infra-red light, which isn't a light either . . . , ergo there is no such thing as light.

[darkstar3]

26. um, what? n/t

[patrice]

27. There must not be anything such thing as music either, because not all musicians make music the same

way.

[darkstar3]

28. Now I see where you're going.

Of course you realize, ALL musicians make music.

[patrice]

29. No they don't, because music made on a piano is not made the same way and does not sound the

same as "music" made on a clarinet AND since they are not the same, there is no such thing as music.

[darkstar3]

32. False.

Anyone who has studied wave mechanics understands that music involves the creation and manipulation of complex sound waves in an attempt to create certain structures known as beats, chords, melodies, harmonies, disharmonies, and myriad other structures that can be pleasing to the human ear. Of course, any musician could tell you this too, but since most musicians play only a subset of instruments, you'd probably deny that they were able to make an argument about whether ALL musicians make music.

And while I see the path that you're on with this argument, I must admit that I'm fuzzy on what logical or argumentative destination you're trying to reach.

[patrice]

38. OF COURSE it's false, it's intended to be faulty . . .

Just like the point in your OP . . . because you PERCEIVE no similarities between Christians, there are none, and hence, by extension, no Christianity.

What you just described about music applies to the musician and I am implying that musicians are analogous to christians.

[darkstar3]

41. But it's not analagous.

Why? Because it's easy to scientifically and logically locate the common thread between musicians, while it is practically impossible to find the common thread between Christians. Meshuga hit a possible common thread down the page, but you don't even have to leave the Christian faith to find people who will say that the thread Meshuga talked about doesn't tie them to Unitarian Christians.

And you're putting words in my mouth, or on my keyboard, or whatever. I don't have a secret ulterior motive to try and prove that Christianity doesn't exist since there are no similarities. You came up with that perceived attack all on your own. If you are insecure in your faith, I suggest prayer, fasting, and lots of visits to church. It never helped me, but it seems to help my family through their doubting times. Whether it helps you or not, your insecurity is no reason to attack me for a motive you pulled out of your ass.

[patrice]

49. The basis for what is known as Knowledge, empirical rationalism, says that it is possible to

systematically test all of the qualities of "Christianity" in a representative samples of that population and you'll end up with a frequency distribution that will be a portrait of those traits in that population. It also says that you will find a few Christians with certain Christian traits that are very strong/consistent, a few Christians with certain Christian traits that are very weak/inconsistent, and most Christians with certain Christian traits that are moderately strong/weak consistent/inconsistent, combinations ranging around a 50:50 median.

You're an atheist who doesn't think that all things are subject to rationalism? How is it possible for you to say that there is no God then? That's a little odd isn't it?

[darkstar3]

50. Hey look,

you managed to combine statistics and ad hom, how original...

As for your statistical assertion, not all polling data follows a normal distribution or 'bell curve'. In fact, some polling data is just random. So while it's 'possible' to do what you suggest, given that you have personally disagreed with the only common thread, or median, that has been suggested in this thread, probability suggests that the polling data in this case would indeed be too random to lead to any meaningful conclusions.

And now that we've discussed applied mathematics with regard to Christianity, I have a question specifically for you: Why do you continue to attack me when I attempt only honest discussion? Are you SO insecure in your faith that you must insult anyone and everyone who asks questions, or is that you simply despise atheists so much that you feel the need to attack them as frequently as possible?

[patrice]

52. The randomness disappears if the sample is representative enough & large enough, and

the traits are valid enough and the instruments reliable enough.

There are no absolutes and that includes randomness.

Attack? You are the one telling me that I, and by extension others, am/are not Christian, because I do not say the words you have chosen for that, while at the same time claiming that you don't get Christianity. You are right; you ARE confused - or - duplicitous. Attack also = words like "insecure" and "despise".

No, I'm just engaging in a bit of rhetorical exercise. I can just as easily argue the opposite side and I'm fine with atheists, as long as they admit that atheism is a matter of faith too.

[darkstar3]

53. Randomness occurs in nature, and only in nature.

Since Christianity occurs in nature, randomness is a possibility.

'You are the one telling me that I, and by extension others, am/are not Christian...'
Where did you get that idea? Is there any point in this thread where I have said that anyone is not a Christian? Or did you pull that out of your ass?

'as long as they admit that atheism is a matter of faith too.'
Faith in what, exactly? If I say 'I doubt it' when someone tells me that there is a god, how does that make mine a statement of faith?

[patrice]

56. There you go with the absolutes again. You know that's rather religious of you, don't you?

Rationalists do not speak of that of which there is no empirical evidence, without qualification.

[patrice]

57. Okay, "disappear" was the wrong word. Make that "its significance changes" if . . .

[patrice]

62. Faith in the abscence of "God". Faith that there is no "God". nt

[rd_kent]

74. You are right, there is no mystery in what ties christians together. Its called ignorance.

[Duke Newcombe]

84. Will you be in town all week? n/t

[dhpgetsit]

54. To me the main thing that seperates Chistianity from other Judeo-Christian religions

is the emphasis on redemption and forgiveness. So even though I am somewhere between agnostic and atheist, I still consider myself a Christian, as a follower of Christ.

[darkstar3]

59. Redemption and forgiveness

were two things that I always thought were part of Christianity as well. However, a fellow DUer, whom I can't name, disabused me of this notion by telling me about the non-universally accepted doctrine of Substitutionary Attonement, and aside from that, Unitarian Christians don't believe that redemption is necessary since we all go to the same place. (At least, that's my understanding of the UC faith.)

[dhpgetsit]

72. Since I don't necessarily believe in an afterlife

I believe in applying forgiveness and redemption to our daily lives, as Jesus did.

[JerseygirlCT]

79. I don't think either of those things makes forgiveness and

redemption any less important to the Christian faith.

Redemption does not need to come only through a substitutionary sacrifice. Christ's example and death is still completely redemptive, even if one does not accept substitutionary attonement (as many Christians, and even churches, do not). We are redeemed by the grace of God - by God's love for us. We are also called to show that same love to our fellow human beings.

Redemption and forgiveness are not about a get-in-free pass to heaven at all.

[patrice]

nouns name/identify. adjectives describe.

The word "Christian" can be either a noun or an adjective, depending upon how it is used.

[baldguy]

7. Feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the naked, comfort the sick

Matthew 25:35-36

[darkstar3]

10. I like your definition.

I think it would be highly desirable if more people followed that verse. But this isn't a common thread, even if we wish it were.

[JerseygirlCT]

44. Yes

The teachings of Jesus, the Christ.

That's the center of the faith. The rest is theology, and full of differing views, IMO, open to individual discernment.

I think there are those who are comfortable taking teachings exactly as they are usually understood within their particular Christian tradition. And then there are those who are not, but are also content that some things are just mysteries, and are likely to remain so.

But what's supposed to identify Christians isn't strict adherence to one dogma or another, it's supposed to be how they treat one another.

[Mike Nelson]

11. Many of the most vocal "Christians"...

...are, actually, Satanists, when you consider their deeds.

[darkstar3]

12. So by what right do they call themselves Christian?

Where did they get the idea to take that label?

[Mike Nelson]

23. I think some get caught up in organized Churches...

... and others find wolves in sheepish clothing.

[darkstar3]

25. Well, there's a good point. n/t

[MineralMan]

15. I let each person decide whether or not he or she is

a Christian. There is no common definition, other than some sort of acceptance that Jesus is the path to eternal life. Beyond that, it's all dogma of one sort or another. So, if a person can make the statement that he/she believes Jesus is the path to salvation, then I have no problem with them calling her/himself a Christian. In fact, the statement is contained in the label. Beyond that, the label is meaningless.

For me, as an atheist, it is a distinction of little value. I judge people based on their behavior, not based on a label. I have known Christians who were the kindest and most honorable of people. I have known Christians who would stab you in the back and walk away chuckling.

I could say the same for any group of people who profess one thing or another.

It is not the label that defines the person. It is actions that provide the only possible definition.

So, anyone may call themselves a Christian, as far as I am concerned. That and $4 will buy you a nice cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[LuvNewcastle]

17. There were a lot of early Christians

who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Paul and other church fathers spent a lot of time in their writings speaking out against those who did not believe in a divine Jesus. There were many gospels out there which were followed by the various sects of Christianity, but many did not agree with one another. When the men who assembled the New Testament came together, they looked for similarity in message, and they threw out books that didn't agree with the message they were trying to convey. Then, when the church became the official religion of the Roman Empire (trademarked, if you will), the church began silencing 'heretics' in order to achieve uniformity. The 'heretics' were just as much Christians as the Catholics were, they were just conspired against by events. Today there are some who believe as the early heretics did and they have as much claim to the word "Christian" as any denomination.

[madrchsod]

18. ....your own personal jesus.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcNiD0Z3MU

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48JFIv9LZ2w&feature=related

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3G2BQVrcOs&feature=related


it is between you and him and no one else. that`s what it`s all about....

[darkstar3]

20. That's a great song

'it is between you and him and no one else.'
Would that were universally held true. We'd have less faith-based influence in government.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. Actually, I have to disagree with that

It reminds me of the whole fundamentalist "Jesus as my best buddy" thing.

I don't think it can be about you and him and no one else. Because it's all about the someone elses. How we care for them, how we seek to recognize God's love in them and for them.

The idea that a private relationship with God is all that matters seems to me to signify that the whole thing's gone right off the tracks, you know?

[Meshuga]

30. Obviously there are different forms of christianity

Bishop Shelby Spong is a clergyman of the Christian faith. So is Pat Robertson. If you look at it carefully they follow different religions in practice but they are both Christians since they both follow different forms of Christianity.

My perception is that most Christians here follow the religion that focus on "Jesus as an ethical teacher" while a handful of DUers give focus to the "salvation through accepting Jesus as the lord and savior."

[patrice]

31. I will admit that many Christians have mistaken the messenger for the message which is that there is

one commandment and if you don't know what that commandment is you don't know enough about Christianity to be having this discussion and if you do know what that commandment is, I find your OP to be pretty suspect.

[Meshuga]

33. Relax

What would the OP be trying to do? It is perfectly okay to discuss this and see what different people think or for some to be confused. I honestly can't see the harm. I learned a lot about Christians here from posting my own misconceptions and catching flak for it. But what matters is what you learn from the exchange. ;-)

[darkstar3]

34. I know EXACTLY what commandment you're talking about,

but Jesus actually said that TWO commandments were most important, not just one. Can you name them?

And just because I know what Jesus said, that doesn't mean that it is a common thread of Christianity. I once worked with a self-styled Christian who attended church every Sunday and berated me for my atheism, but he would rather spit on a homeless man than give him a blanket, and when I confronted him with Jesus' words, he said, and I quote 'that man is not my neighbor.'

And so he rejects your apparent favorite teaching of the faith, but still gets to call himself a Christian. I want to know how that works. What other common thread is he able to latch onto to legitimize his label and claim solidarity with the rest of the Christians on the planet?

[Meshuga]

35. Because they accept Jesus in one way or another?

What other common thread is he able to latch onto to legitimize his label and claim solidarity with the rest of the Christians on the planet?"

Perhaps because both accept Jesus in one way or another? I mean, both sides of the spectrum of Christianity follow a "Jesus based" set of teachings. One focus on him being the gateway to personal salvation. The other see his teachings as a guide. So there is a link but I wonder if both would feel uncomfortable in each other's church.

[darkstar3]

37. Thank you.

'Tis a tenuous and gossamer thread, but it does qualify. I do have to wonder, though, if the 'way, truth, and light' Christians would agree.

Bias warning: I was raised in a Pentecostal religion that taught us how other Christians weren't really Christian because they didn't accept the proper definition of Jesus and worship him appropriately, so that could very well be the start of my conundrum.

[Meshuga]

45. I had the same perception

Since I was taught (as an outsider) that faith in Jesus as a diety was a requirement to be a Christian. But I see that there are different approaches to the religion.

[patrice]

40. I am a Christian and I have no idea what "accept Jesus" means.

I know what he taught and I recognize it as Living Truth.

[darkstar3]

42. And we see that the gossamer thread is rejected by those who are supposed to share it.

See the source of my confusion?

[patrice]

48. There you go again. All musicians must play exactly the same notes in exactly the same arrangement

, preferably on the same instruments, and if they don't, they aren't musicians. That's the same thing as saying "All Christians have to 'accept Jesus' or they aren't Christians."

For some of us, there is no question about whether **I** accept anything or not. Truth IS Truth. Saying I must accept some truth in order for it to be true is like saying I have to accept that the sun rises in order for the sun to rise.

...................................

You are trying to use words as though they are identical with that to which they/words ONLY refer. Words are only squiggles on a page and they are only systematic events in our vocal apparatus; they are not the things/events themselves to which they ONLY refer. "Accepting Jesus" is not identical with, those words are NOT the SAME thing as, Christianity. Those words "Accept Jesus" only REFER to ongoing real world phenomena that ARE Christianity. Just like the word "black" is NOT Blackness, it only refers to something that we have come to label with five letters, b, l, a, c, and k, which form a phoneme that over time has become associated with something out there in the world that we know as blackness. The way you are treating "accept Jesus" is just like saying b - l - a - c - and k ARE the phenomenal quality known as blackness.

Try a little thought experiment: Think of Christianity being completely the same as it is, everything happened and happening, the things people did, just like Christianity did/does, but in a universe without words or language. What would Christianity be without there ever having been any such thing as words and language? What would Christianity be without a, c, c, e, p, t, J, e, s, u, and s?

[darkstar3]

51. Keep harping on the same point I've answered

and you just won't get anywhere.

As for your discussion of language, I have a quote from Babylon 5 for you:

Words have meaning, and names have power. The universe began with a word, you know? But which came first? The word, or the thought behind the word? You can't create language without thought, and you can't conceive a thought without language.'

Words have meaning, and names have power. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[patrice]

55. For a rationalist, you sure do talk in a lot of absolutes.

I did not say that words do not have meaning, but that meanings are not exactly and precisely equivalent with events in the phenomenal world, meaning only refers more or less precisely to the phenomenal world and the meanings of any given word can be various, because they always have depended upon convention which changes over time.

I also didn't say that they don't have power, but they may or may not have the power that you think they have.

Meaning and power are relative to context. Just saying a thing does not make it so, no matter how much you think it does.

Don't you think that quote pretty well shows that you aren't over religion?

[darkstar3]

58. And you continue to attack...

You make fun of the idea that I am a 'rationalist' (a word you pulled, not me) who uses absolutes, when I only do so in an attempt to simplify our discussion and make it easier for people to understand and respond.

You put words in my mouth repeatedly because you feel that I am somehow attacking you and your fellow Christians, even though you have nothing in the OP to base that on.

You have tried repeatedly to divorce language from thought in an attempt to show that meanings can be fluid, even though, as I showed in my OP, most other words in the English language don't suffer from such strange separation problems.

You take what you consider clever side-swipes at my ability to understand language and my lack of religion.

In short, you have relied on ad hom through much of this discussion, and I am through responding to you. I'd thank you for a lively debate, but mostly all you did was attack me for reasons you pulled out of your own ass.

Good day.

[kwassa]

60. when a lot of people respond to you the same way ...

Maybe it isn't about them.

[darkstar3]

61. Oh, so now you follow me around to spew your ad hom?

Welcome to ignore, since you have absolutely nothing of worth to say.

[patrice]

63. Funny that you don't see how true this is of what you are doing.

Apparently, you can't handle the thrust and pary.

No loss.

[Meshuga]

43. Which is fine

But there is at least one Christian who posts here once in a while who believes that he can only achieve eternal salvation by accepting Jesus as his true savior. And these types are not hard to find. A co-worker of mine was feeling relief because his father in law finally accepted Jesus as his savior before dying of cancer. So is his mind, my co-worker was feeling better because now the father in law was probably enjoying heaven as opposed to burning in hell for eternity.

I'm not expert of Christianity but different passages seem to allow different ways of interpretation and consequently different ways of being a Christian.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. Well, anyone can call themselves a Christian

it's really not like one must have an updated ID card.

Christianity more correctly, ought to be an obligation one takes on, not evidence of a club one has joined.

[laconicsax]

64. The label is really the only common theme.

My post on this from a year ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=189256

I asked what defines a Christian and got a bunch of contradictory answers.

[darkstar3]

65. Hey Laconic

So far I agree with your subject line, but that still confuses and frustrates me considering that just about every other word in the English language (all that I can think of) can be pinned down to some basic definition.

I also notice that your thread is remarkably empty of flamewars. How'd you pull that off?

[rrneck]

66. People who have faith

in and draw inspirarion from the life story of some guy named Jesus. What they do with that faith creates all of those confusing differences.

Edited for screwed up fingers.

[darkstar3]

67. Another perfect definition I once agreed with.

But having faith in someone who has long since left this world implies some sort of divinity, at least in my understanding. Since a Christian on this board recently put forth the idea that Jesus is/was not divine, that shoots my old definition in the foot.

So while I like your definition, it is not one commonly held by all Christians.

But you've hit here on what I guess can be called my biggest current problem: I've ALWAYS taken 'faith in Jesus ' as the central tenet of the Christian faith. Having very recently been educated on my wrongness, I search now for a more appropriate central tenet or common theme that all Christians can agree with, and wonder why it's so hard to find.

[rrneck]

70. Make one of your own (if you want)

To my mind the problem with any religion is consensus. Too many people believing in the same thing ossifies the practice of faith and it becomes more about protecting the doctrine (and the stuff that supports it) rather than the practice itself.

Maybe there should be exactly as many religions as there are people.

[troubledamerican]

68. Christian-ISM = Tribalism. (Jesus wasn't a tribalist).

[DeSwiss]

71. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian....

...is only lying to themselves. Because most people don't know what the term means. The rest generally don't know what their god said or did because they almost never read their own bibles!!! So they have no idea what they believe because they haven't studied anything that didn't come from a single, tainted source: the self-interested mouth of a preacher. Most of whom are merely "likable" charlatans.

I'm constantly amazed (although I shouldn't be anymore), on how religionists accept the thinnest resources for information about their religion and which more often come from dubious sources, and yet they'll predicate their entire existence upon its substance. Ephemeral, as that substance may be. Hardly any of them know of the jaded history of that book they carry around like a totem. It's not only full of stories and fables that belong to others, from religions far older than their beliefs are, but its also chocked full of lies and a lot of testosterone-driven, Patriarchal Bullshit, made-up whole-cloth. And bloody. But witches and wizards? Unicorns? Dragons? Give me a break.

Yet these are very often the same people who want the government to insure that their cars are safe and the brakes always work; so we demand that engineers be certified and licensed. They want to make certain that airplanes won't just drop from the sky, so that the pilots who fly them must be trained, and retrained, retrained again, over and over just in case they have to land their plane in the Hudson River. And they'll demand that their doctors be educated, accredited and licensed and that they know what the hell to do with that knife.

So they'll trust science and reason when their asses are on the line. Here they want concrete proof, book, chapter and verse and they demand that only science, rational thinking and reason be utilized in the mundane everyday aspects of their lives. Because they know that their lives depend upon it. But ironically, on the ONLY issue that should matter, the one that addresses eternity and their immortal souls -- on that issue they'll take any 'ol flimsy, crappy little piece of information and turn into to a sacred tome, without any foreknowledge, validation nor attribution of its source(s). Please.

In fact, I'd like for any Christian to tell me what happens in heaven? And how they found out. That's what this is all about, isn't it? Do they know what heaven is? What's it like there? Will they have a house no MANSION just like Jebus says they would? Will they be satisfied if it turns out to be just a dorm room with a nasty roommate who doesn't bathe often enough? Do they know that they'll be all alone in heaven with no friends and no relatives? That there won't be any wives and no husbands in heaven? No children? Your favorite aunt won't know you there. And besides she could end up in hell. And what if god does send your best friend to hell for all eternity? Your son? Your daughter? Are you cool with that? So what's a typical day like in heaven? What's the temperature going to be like there? What do you eat? Everything? Nothing? Will I have/need a car in heaven, or does heaven have great public transportation? See what I mean?

- Its all BULLSHIT.




on edit: spelling

[TreasonousBastard]

73. I read through this thread last night and let it go, but then...

I see it again today and I'm a little pissed.

Why should I care about whether or not you're confused if I should mention that I'm a Christian. If you really, really cared to know what particular variety (and there are many) I am, you could easily ask. Identity with a church is a pretty good indicator where on the very long scale of Christiantiy one is. Southern Baptists are readily distinguished from Roman Catholics, Amish or Coptics. Even Methodists and Presbyterians have their differences, although they don't matter at all to anyone but a Methodist or Prebyterian.

Besides, Christianity in Western culture might as well be considered a cultural trait as well as religious. If I were in the Mongolian desert, Christian would differentiate me from Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu, and let people know where my overall cultural background is coming from. Nobody would care much about my views on transubstantiation, virgin birth, or the divinity of Christ.

[darkstar3]

76. Words have meaning.

And in order for communication to be effective, the meanings that we choose for words must be consistent. As I showed in my OP, most words in the English language are consistent, but I'm having a hard time finding the consistency in the meaning of the word Christian. I'm not looking for Dogmas and I'm not trying to force anyone into believing any one particular set of Christian ideals. I'm simply curious as to why hundreds of millions of people around the world have chosen to identify themselves with this specific label. Shouldn't they have some commonality or solidarity with the other people of the world who voluntarily share the exact same label?

Also, why does simple curiosity piss you off?

[TreasonousBastard]

77. Every word in the English language is defined in part by context...

and asking for some specific dictionary defnition is for a logic course, not social discourse.

And, truth be told, I was more pissed at myself for being bothered by this triviality.

[darkstar3]

81. Ah, dismissal, we meet again.

'asking for some specific dictionary defnition is for a logic course, not social discourse.'
Not for social discourse, huh? This is a board about religion and theology, two things that most people's mothers told them they shouldn't talk about in public. If we're going to broach such topics not meant for social discourse here, why is my simple question about those topics not fit for the same board?

And asking for a dictionary definition from the people who self-identify with the word I'm trying to define is a damn sight better than just picking my own definition out of the air and applying it willy-nilly to every self-described Christian on this board.

[arKansasJHawk]

78. They'll Never Answer

Because there is NO ANSWER.

This question is closely related to the recent trend in western Christianity that has defined the concept of "God" completely out of existence.

Many modern "Christians" are, quite honestly, trying to turn Jesus into Buddha. They imagine a spiritual universe that somehow exists without anything resembling a real "God." They talk about a universal spirit, or force, or love as if those terms have any kind of concrete meaning. They have abandoned historical Christianity because their minds recognize how ludicrous the Bible is, and yet they ache to connect to something both spiritual and familiar. And thus is born the Christ that IS NOT CHRIST.

They pick and choose whatever bits of a previously infallible holy book they want to be "true," and try to build some kind of religion around the worship of nebulous concepts. Instead of embracing intellectual honesty, they manufacture a belief system out of scattered bits of real religions and pretend that they're somehow superior to those ignorant fundamentalists.

This whole movement that venerates Jesus as "just some dude who said some cool stuff" is more repulsive and ignorant to me than the wackaloons who think every word in the Bible is absolute truth. Because if Jesus is not the divine son of God, then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU WORSHIPPING HIM?

If you find the "Christian" beliefs of people like Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson so fucking abhorrent, WHY DO YOU CHOOSE TO SELF-IDENTIFY WITH THEM?

It's this simple: If someone had invented a religion 2000 years ago that taught that we should be nice to each other, and that it's not cool to be mean to poor people, but also said that people with red hair should be stoned to death, I WOULD NEVER SELF-IDENTIFY MYSELF with that religion. If those people called themselves "Boopites," I'd sure as shit NEVER CALL MYSELF a "Boopite."

But Christians, for whatever reason, don't have that problem. They're happy to be associated with the historical crimes of Christian churches of every denomination, because, somehow, the "Christian" in question is always a "real" Christian, and those people who believe that other stuff are not "real" Christians, despite the fact that NO DEFINITION EXISTS for what a "real" Christian is.

Oh, and they can be counted on to get really fucking mad if you ask them to provide such a definition. Because, in the end, these people aren't stupid. They're just deluded, and they REALLY resent it when anyone challenges their delusions. Witness this thread.

[Taverner]

80. Christian = One who tries to be like Christ

Even if you think Christ is a Mythical figure (as I do)

Which means you could have Atheist Christians

[iris27]

82. This atheist's attempt at definition.

All Christians:
1) believe Jesus was a good guy
2) think the Bible is, at least in some parts, a good guide for morality
3) choose to identify as Christian

At least, I've never met any self-ID'd Christian who didn't satisfy all of the above. But as Taverner said, by this def., you could have atheist Christians, much like there are 'cultural' Jews.

But there are a lot of Christians out in the world who would add conditions X, Y, and Z to the list above, and claim that anyone who doesn't meet them is not really Christian and thus HOW DARE I lump "those people" in with THEIR Christianity?

[Duke Newcombe]

83. Will your life the the poorer for not having the answer to this?

[rd_kent]

85. Christian=hypocrite

There is the definition.