Who defines what?

[Zzyzx]

.
A Theist who has gained my respect said:

Christianity really should be defined only by the folks who call themselves Christian.

I agree.

However, it appears as though asking ten Christians to define Christianity results in at least nine different (often strongly different) definitions (and two who were copying from each other – just kidding, just kidding). Ask what constitutes a REAL Christian and responses become even more diverse.

SO, where can we find a definition that Christians overall accept – one that I (we) can use in debate that is representative of Christianity overall? Is there one? If not, which definition shall be accepted in debate?

By the same token, shall we allow Atheists to define the term Atheist – or shall we allow Christians to (often or usually) inflict the "god-denier" definition and attempt to coerce all Non-Believers to defend that straw man?

[1213]

It is amusing and perhaps illustrative when bible believers ask me to direct them to scriptures -- as though they were unfamiliar with words attributed to Jesus such as (from a Christian website):

I asked, because then everyone can more easily see what is your teaching (or some other persons own teaching) and what is from the Bible.

For example you gave: “The disciple of Jesus Christ must be a new spiritual creature and a citizen of God’s Kingdom.� and to support that there was:

No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch would tear away from the garment, and a worse hole is made. Neither do people put new wine into old wineskins, or else the skins would burst, and the wine be spilled, and the skins ruined. No, they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."
Matthew 9:16-17

I think it doesn’t say in any way “The disciple of Jesus Christ must be a new spiritual creature and a citizen of God’s Kingdom.�. And that is why I recommend people to read by themselves what is said in the Bible, because many make baseless claims to support their own doctrines.

Also it is interesting how this is interpreted:

Whoever doesn't bear his own cross, and come after me, can't be my disciple.
Luke 14:27

Can any modern person go after Jesus, because he is not on earth anymore?

[dianaiad]

Been thinking about this:

How about we ask everybody we know who thinks he's a Christian what a Christian is...combine and examine all the definitions, and take the one, or two things they ALL have in common, and define Christianity as that?

I have a suspicion that if we do that, we will come up with, at most, two things: that the teachings of Jesus Christ are worth following and are the basis of their ethical/moral system, and they self identify as Christian.

After that, all bets are off.

Now if you are going to start arguing about what the 'true church' is, well....that's a whole 'nuther conversation.

[Vanguard]

Been thinking about this:

How about we ask everybody we know who thinks he's a Christian what a Christian is...combine and examine all the definitions, and take the one, or two things they ALL have in common, and define Christianity as that?

I have a suspicion that if we do that, we will come up with, at most, two things: that the teachings of Jesus Christ are worth following and are the basis of their ethical/moral system, and they self identify as Christian.

After that, all bets are off.

Now if you are going to start arguing about what the 'true church' is, well....that's a whole 'nuther conversation.

I have to disagree, Di. As I have stated before it must be whether the individual accepts Christ as their Savior. THAT is the one defining element that sets Christianity apart from any other faith. Liking Christ's humanitarian message as something worthy of following does not set Christianity apart from the rest of the world's religions. And oh yeah, I have CS Lewis on my side and he can beat up your dad...

[dianaiad]

Been thinking about this:

How about we ask everybody we know who thinks he's a Christian what a Christian is...combine and examine all the definitions, and take the one, or two things they ALL have in common, and define Christianity as that?

I have a suspicion that if we do that, we will come up with, at most, two things: that the teachings of Jesus Christ are worth following and are the basis of their ethical/moral system, and they self identify as Christian.

After that, all bets are off.

Now if you are going to start arguing about what the 'true church' is, well....that's a whole 'nuther conversation.

I have to disagree, Di. As I have stated before it must be whether the individual accepts Christ as their Savior. THAT is the one defining element that sets Christianity apart from any other faith. Liking Christ's humanitarian message as something worthy of following does not set Christianity apart from the rest of the world's religions. And oh yeah, I have CS Lewis on my side and he can beat up your dad...

No, actually, he can't. He's dead. CS Lewis, that is, not my Dad (who just turned 89 and can still hold his own with properly supported wet noodle whips)

Nice try, though.

While I would LIKE to agree with you on this...that a Christian should accept Jesus Christ as his Savior...there are people out there who consider themselves to be Christians who don't do that. They are 'philosophical Christians," I suppose, who simply like Jesus' message and basic rules, and think that they are good guides to living. As well, they want to identify themselves as Christians. Because there ARE these folks out there, we have to consider them, too.

If we exclude them from the classification, what ARE they?

.................and who has the right to tell them they don't belong to 'ghe club?"

Now you and I both belong to the same belief system. We could very easily figure that we are the Christians, because we're the ones who are right about Him, and nobody else is. Why not? There are certainly enough other Christian belief systems who do that, and have decided that WE are not Christians, or the Catholics aren't, or Seventh Day Adventists aren't, or the Lutherans aren't, or....I think you get the gist.

But 'being Christian' isn't the same thing as 'being Christ's,' even though many Christians equate the two. "Being Christian' is simply a label for the belief system one claims to believe in. That can't, really, be confined to one specific set of doctrines over and above the extremely basic ones that everybody who claims to be Christian share.

As to who is Christ's....well, none of us get a vote in that. That is between the believer and Jesus Christ.

[99percentatheism]

.
A Theist who has gained my respect said:

Christianity really should be defined only by the folks who call themselves Christian.

I agree.

Christian meant originally disciple of Jesus. I think disciples of Jesus should be defined by their King, not by themselves. If you disagree with this, could you explain why Jesus should not be the one who defines his disciples?

Absolutely solid position sir. The New Testament is an easy read and defines the qualifications substantially. "You are the Messiah. The Son of the Living God." And Jesus agreed with that. That doesn't look like a grey area position to me.

But . . . that any person wants to try to redefine the reality of "being" a believer and inflict upon the the Christian definition many, many, many other qualifiers or definers, is just the sad and very real story story of mankind. Also known as "original sin."

[99percentatheism]

Been thinking about this:

How about we ask everybody we know who thinks he's a Christian what a Christian is...combine and examine all the definitions, and take the one, or two things they ALL have in common, and define Christianity as that?

I have a suspicion that if we do that, we will come up with, at most, two things: that the teachings of Jesus Christ are worth following and are the basis of their ethical/moral system, and they self identify as Christian.

After that, all bets are off.

Now if you are going to start arguing about what the 'true church' is, well....that's a whole 'nuther conversation.

Not really. The "real Church" is made up of "real Christians." But I ONLY use the word "Christian" as to its modern effect. Jesus made it clear that "we" Christians should and have to make sure we are leery of others that call themselves "Christians" because wolves in sheep's clothing is to be expected. Now, a WOLF in WOLF attire is simply not applicable because anyone can easily see what is before them.

An Atheist, for example, a neutral person to a Christian . . . is not any worry (to a Christian) because they can be more easily categorized and defined.

Not the case with the heretic, or actually, the truly evil person that covers their tracks well with Christian-like effectiveness.

And fruit comes in many tasty flavors as well as bitter.

[Danmark]

Now if you are going to start arguing about what the 'true church' is, well....that's a whole 'nuther conversation.

Not really. But I ONLY use the word "Christian" as to its modern effect. Jesus made it clear that "we" Christians should and have to make sure we are leery of others that call themselves "Christians" because wolves in sheep's clothing is to be expected. Now, a WOLF in WOLF attire is simply not applicable because anyone can easily see what is before them.

Actually, Jesus never used the word 'Christians.' Matthew 7:15 refers to 'false prophets,' not 'Christians.'
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

But the principle is correct, that those who call themselves

"we" Christians

are the ones liable to be 'false prophets.'
Those who call themselves "we Christians," but spread discord and hate while claiming the Christian mantle with

The "real Church" is made up of "real Christians"

are the ones who "inwardly are ravenous wolves." They miss the central point of Christianity, that it is about love, acceptance, and forgiveness, while inwardly they seek to judge others as unworthy and outside their "real" church.
For who are they that they judge their brothers?
“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Matthew 7.

[Divine Insight]

“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Matthew 7.

Even this verse appeals to the ego of the haters. In the end it still bolsters their ego that they can themselves manage to get the log out of their own eye and eventually be in a position to judge that there is still a speck in their brother's eye.

Christianity is ultimately all about the ego. Even when people aren't judging others the whole religion is focused on saving egos to be preserved eternally. Christians necessarily need to believe that they are their ego and it is their ego that needs to be saved and preserved. Christianity is all about ego. It's totally focused on the ego. It's even the ego that is being threaten to be eternally punished.

The God itself is depicted as an extremely personal egotistical Godhead who lusts to be glorified. The people who created this God myth were egomaniacs and the mythology is nothing other than a reflection of this. Not only were they egomaniacs, but they were sadly male-chauvinistic egomaniacs.

And look at how sad things are today. Almost 2/3 of the world are worshiping and defending this ancient ego-maniacal mythology in one form or another as though it should be revered as being the highest divine wisdom.

This whole phenomenon is truly unbelievable. They even passionately argue against all that is reasonable and rational in an effort to support these mythologies to the bitter end at all cost. And 90 percent of the time they using these religions as an excuse to hate others in the name of this supposedly jealous egotistical godhead.

It's a shame that humanity got itself in such a pathetic situation. The only truly bright spot are the secularists who are currently speaking out against this nonsense. When we finally get pass this (if we ever do) these period in history will be looked back upon as "The second Dark Age" before humanity truly became enlightened beyond the ego.

Hopefully when we reach that stage of enlightenment we'll realize that this was what many of the Eastern mystical philosophies had been saying all along. They warned against the ego and these kinds of egotistical religions from the get go. They view spirituality in an entirely different light that cannot be used to hate anyone in the name of an egotistical Gods or Demigod.

There may or may not be any truth to the spiritual aspect of the mystical philosophies, but at least they don't suck people down into quicksand swamp of hating each other in the name of egotistical Gods or Demigod.

These Abrahamic mythologies have got to be put to rest on the shelf of totally fiction absurdities. They aren't even healthy or positive fiction. We can write far healthier fictional stories than these. Stories that can uplift people in positive ways instead of causing them to become egotistical enemies of each other in the name of jealous egotistical Gods or Demigods.

I can't believe how negative these religions are and how many people actually support this kind of negativity in the name of divine wisdom.

And look at what we're talking about this in this thread:

Who defines what?

Clearly the Bible defines nothing without extreme ambiguity. That's a well known and proven fact. It's proven by the bible thumping believers themselves as they thump the bible at each other.

The obviously truth is that there is no truth in the Bible. It nothing but totally ambiguous mumbo jumbo that even the Christians themselves cannot make heads or tales of. Christendom is proof positive that Christianity had no intrinsic value.

[Danmark]

Even this verse appeals to the ego of the haters.
....
The obviously truth is that there is no truth in the Bible. It nothing but totally ambiguous mumbo jumbo that even the Christians themselves cannot make heads or tales of. Christendom is proof positive that Christianity had no intrinsic value.

I don't blame the Bible for ego and pride of those that most loudly thump their chests and claim they are the real Christians. Jesus preached against this attitude over and over, but the self righteous will always find a way to ignore his teachings and proclaim themselves righteous judges while they wear their sheep's clothing.

Consider:
9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed[a] thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.�

If there is a 'true' Christian he would have the humility to never make such a claim. Instead he would quietly pray "Be merciful to me, a sinner!"

[Divine Insight]

Even this verse appeals to the ego of the haters.
....
The obviously truth is that there is no truth in the Bible. It nothing but totally ambiguous mumbo jumbo that even the Christians themselves cannot make heads or tales of. Christendom is proof positive that Christianity had no intrinsic value.

I don't blame the Bible for ego and pride of those that most loudly thump their chests and claim they are the real Christians. Jesus preached against this attitude over and over, but the self righteous will always find a way to ignore his teachings and proclaim themselves righteous judges while they wear their sheep's clothing.

Consider:
9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed[a] thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.�

If there is a 'true' Christian he would have the humility to never make such a claim. Instead he would quietly pray "Be merciful to me, a sinner!"

I agree. And many of these teachings are actually expressing views that Buddha had offered much earlier. Even the part where Jesus tells people to get the log out of their own eye before trying to help their brothers remove the speck from their eye was no intended by Jesus to be taken egotistically. But clearly that's how far too many Christians seem to take it. Too many of them seem to be more focused on arrogantly pointing out the specks in their bother's eyes then they are in sincerely helping to remove them. In fact, instead of wisely revealing where their might be misunderstanding they tend to use this as a means of accusing their brothers of being fools or whatever.

I think we need to understand that Jesus, for the most part, was actually trying to teach his disciples how to help other people. I don't think he meant these teachings to be taught to the general public. Self-appointed "Disciples of Jesus" are not truly his disciples at all. They never met the man.

I actually joined that user group on this forum way back when I first joined. Not because I feel that I'm a "Disciple of Jesus" in the Christian sense, but since I view Jesus as basically teaching the wisdom of Buddha I feel that I can qualify as being a "Disciple of Jesus" in the same way that I am a "Disciple of Buddha".

Neither of which requires that I go around pointing out flaws in other people. :roll"

I suppose I should remove myself from that user group since no one understand Jesus from this perspective anyway. I would not want to be a "Disciple of Jesus" in the Christian meaning of the term. IMHO Christianity is an abomination to Jesus. Or at least to the things he was rumored to have taught.