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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 29 by Danmark]

Well I think clearly the issue here though even in the new testament you get drastically contradicting philosophies lined up right next to each other through centuries of revisions on top of revisions. Not to mention the drastically different view points of all of the countless "original" authors involved.

So the bible appeals to everyone even the judgers and the non judgers the prophets and the non prophets.

As far as I am concerned christian in the modern sense. Is anyone who believes in any of themyriad of philosophies portrayed in the new testament including the book of Mormon and excluding Islam.

I mean seriously look at this doosy:

Luke:16:9

9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

vs

Luke 12:33

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.


I mean seriously one promotes

narcissistic greed( wealth, and friends for yourself).

vs

Altruism at all costs.

So whether your forgiving not forgiving greedy giving what have you the bible has something to offer you.

[Zzyzx]

.
If Christians / Theists demand the right to define Atheist, I (Non-Theists) should be empowered to define Christian.

Are you ready for this?

[DanieltheDragon]

.
If Christians / Theists demand the right to define Atheist, I (Non-Theists) should be empowered to define Christian.

Are you ready for this?

I don't really get anyone individuals demand to define anything. How words are used is what essentially defines them. What makes it into dictionaries is the collective use of the term. Sort of how like tweet became a verb to describe a short electronic message vs the sound a bird makes.

Chris·tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings

Chris·ti·an·i·ty
ˌkrisCHēˈanitē/
noun
the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.


Now what we as individuals can't do though is to pigeon hole someone in our definition of a word.

A lot of people like to define atheists as one who denies the existence of god. Even though there are other definitions. They foist this definition upon others. That is really a deceptive and disgusting habit. Likewise I am not going to be in the business of defining christian to other people.

If the above definition does not apply to you I am ok with that. Tell me how you define it and we will use that for the discourse.

[99percentatheism]

.
If Christians / Theists demand the right to define Atheist, I (Non-Theists) should be empowered to define Christian.

Are you ready for this?

Who are you talking to?

There seems just a myriad of anti's in one strain or another interacting with each other percentage wise.

If, you are going to define a Christian, or better yet, what a Christian should be and what they should follow, please use the New Testament. Starting with the Gospels.

And I likewise will use the from nothingness to nothingness of everything to define who and what an atheist is.

Seems fair.

[99percentatheism]

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.'

True enough. I have mentioned that myself on many occasions. Jesus didn't speak English. Not even the people groups that were living in the British Aisles at the time of Jesus were speaking English.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

But clearly that is indicating those that would act and say they were followers for dishonest reasons right?

But the principle is correct, that those who call themselves

"we" Christians

are the ones liable to be 'false prophets.'

That seems quite correct. But it also means that the ONLY ones that can be Christians are the ones that act like it "for real." Jesus is adamant that there are real followers that He has. And "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand . . ." is a good place to find them dwelling. The non-repenters would be a good category to find the false people.

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."

I'm sure that the Sanhedrin members that helped Jesus get executed thought He was a hater. I'm sure those that want an excuse for continuing in their sins make the same hate charge against the Christians that repent and preach "repent of sins."

Still ringing out to this day in fact. Same charges all in a row huh?

They miss the central point of Christianity, that it is about love, acceptance, and forgiveness,

I'm sorry what was that? "Forgiveness?"

Of sins you mean.

. . . while inwardly they seek to judge others as unworthy and outside their "real" church.

That does not fit with the actions of preaching repentance. THAT is in all reality a welcoming declaration. But just not for those that want to demand to stay in their sins AND, AND call themselves Christians.

For who are they that they judge their brothers?

The mentally fit. Sound of mind, body and spirit. In proper sequence.

“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.

And there's the formula laid out.

Per the Way, the Truth and the Life.

The ONLY one per Jesus.

[Danmark]

.
If Christians / Theists demand the right to define Atheist, I (Non-Theists) should be empowered to define Christian.

Are you ready for this?

Who are you talking to?

There seems just a myriad of anti's in one strain or another interacting with each other percentage wise.

If, you are going to define a Christian, or better yet, what a Christian should be and what they should follow, please use the New Testament. Starting with the Gospels.

And I likewise will use the from nothingness to nothingness of everything to define who and what an atheist is.

Seems fair.

Please show me where in the 'Gospels' of the New Testament the word 'Christian' appears.

Anti theists and non theists do not necessarily agree with the proposition 'from nothingness to nothingness of everything.' Please document and prove that atheists or non theists stand for the proposition "from nothingness to nothingness of everything," or retract your definition.

Many if not most non theists believe in the existence of the universe and this wonderful world we live in, the planet we call "Earth." This is certainly not a proclamation of "nothingness." Please defend your claim about your definition of "atheism" or retract it.

[99percentatheism]

.
If Christians / Theists demand the right to define Atheist, I (Non-Theists) should be empowered to define Christian.

Are you ready for this?

Who are you talking to?

There seems just a myriad of anti's in one strain or another interacting with each other percentage wise.

If, you are going to define a Christian, or better yet, what a Christian should be and what they should follow, please use the New Testament. Starting with the Gospels.

And I likewise will use the from nothingness to nothingness of everything to define who and what an atheist is.

Seems fair.

Please show me where in the 'Gospels' of the New Testament the word 'Christian' appears.

Anti theists and non theists do not necessarily agree with the proposition 'from nothingness to nothingness of everything.' Please document and prove that atheists or non theists stand for the proposition "from nothingness to nothingness of everything," or retract your definition.

Many if not most non theists believe in the existence of the universe and this wonderful world we live in, the planet we call "Earth." This is certainly not a proclamation of "nothingness." Please defend your claim about your definition of "atheism" or retract it.

In your zeal to sling a response at me you must have not read:

Quote:
Actually, Jesus never used the word 'Christians.' Matthew 7:15 refers to 'false prophets,' not 'Christians.'


True enough. I have mentioned that myself on many occasions. Jesus didn't speak English. Not even the people groups that were living in the British Aisles at the time of Jesus were speaking English.

I freely admit that the word "Christian" is not in the Gospels.

Duh

Also:

And I likewise will use the from nothingness to nothingness of everything to define who and what an atheist is.

That is my quote. "I" can use any personal definition "I" so choose to define atheists in my opinion. If you don't like it that is your position to hold. I certainly don't like the way many people portray Christians here at this site but that is just my cross to bear.

Many if not most non theists believe in the existence of the universe and this wonderful world we live in, the planet we call "Earth." This is certainly not a proclamation of "nothingness." Please defend your claim about your definition of "atheism" or retract it.

What WAS the universe before it came into existence?

The earth is a something. Yet, it was "made" from nothing. Or are you saying that an unguided universe can create things??? If so, from what and how does an unguided um, er, uh, whatever, make things like the earth?

Where is the um, thing before the universe existed going?

From nothing to nothing right?

Please explain how I am missing the reality of it all? My math seems quite correct. I am not all that concerned if it bothers you to face my assertion. If you demand that it doesn't fit you, OK. You are entitled to your opinion right?

[Zzyzx]

.

What WAS the universe before it came into existence?

No one knows. Many claim that a favorite "god" poofed it into existence. Others claim that it poofed some other way. All is conjecture.

The "god group" tends to claim to KNOW how it happened after studying theology. The "non-god group" usually acknowledges that their ideas are theories based upon scientific study -- not verifiable knowledge.

[Danmark]

True enough. I have mentioned that myself on many occasions. Jesus didn't speak English. Not even the people groups that were living in the British Aisles at the time of Jesus were speaking English.

What does 'speaking English' have to do with the 'Christian' religion?
Jesus was a Jew and he spoke about false Jewish prophets. The point is that Jesus never proclaimed there was a new religion called 'Christianity.' You may be able to make an argument that Paul created this new religion, but not that Jesus did. According to the Gospels Jesus spoke about 'the Kingdom of God' and about 'false prophets,' but he said nothing about who is or is not a 'Christian.'

[Vanguard]

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?

They're good people who agree with Christ's humanitarian message. What's wrong with that classification? On a personal level, they're welcome to call themselves Christian or whatever they want. But then we begin to have a problem with maintaining any kind of integrity for the word Christian. If it is solely up to individuals to determine then I may as well call myself Christian because I too like to wear Jesus sandals...

As for us Mormons, again, I say because we accept Christ's Atonement for all mankind's sins, we are therefore Christian. Perhaps heretical Christians to many in the Christian world because of additional doctrines but Christian nonetheless.

CS Lewis made this point in Mere Christianity as follows - "Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the Christian will have been spoiled of any really useful purpose it might have served.

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that reaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian."

Admittedly, I may have overstated CS's agreement with my position though I believe mine is a natural and logical result of his. It's about retaining the meaning of words. And where I draw that line for the term Christian make the most sense, IMO.