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?

[99percentatheism]

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.'

His is a kingdom of those that make it or don't make it. Per Him. No matter what you want to call "His" people. Repentance, and not demands for excuses to sin, are certainly aspects of getting the nod or not from Jesus as The Way.

[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.'

His is a kingdom of those that make it or don't make it. Per Him. No matter what you want to call "His" people. Repentance, and not demands for excuses to sin, are certainly aspects of getting the nod or not from Jesus as The Way.

This response ignores the arguments presented. Do you have a rebuttal for what was actually said?
1. The reference to speaking English is a non sequitur.
2. Jesus never referred to 'Christians' or 'Christianity.'
3. Where did Jesus refer to 'his people' with any reference they were 'Christians?'

[Elijah John]

.
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?

Moderator Warning
This part is condescending, sarcastically uncivil and borders on personal attack, insinuating the other poster is being obtuse.

You should know better than this by now:

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

Duh "


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[99percentatheism]

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.'

His is a kingdom of those that make it or don't make it. Per Him. No matter what you want to call "His" people. Repentance, and not demands for excuses to sin, are certainly aspects of getting the nod or not from Jesus as The Way.

This response ignores the arguments presented. Do you have a rebuttal for what was actually said?

Let's see? Um, yes.

1. The reference to speaking English is a non sequitur.

It is a Biblical and historical fact.

2. Jesus never referred to 'Christians' or 'Christianity.'

Yup. OK.

3. Where did Jesus refer to 'his people' with any reference they were 'Christians?'

He didn't. He didn't speak English. Though I'm betting, as God, He could have. It's just that His followers wouldn't have understood the language. Yet. "They" (His followers) were first called "Christians" at Antioch.

But a rose by any other name . . .

[Divine Insight]

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.'

That's exactly right. Jesus was preaching Judaism, and he even confirmed that the greatest law is that a person must love God with all their heart, mind, and soul. He did not ask anyone to worship him.

He even renounced it when people did praise him.

Luke.18:18-19 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Yet today we see Christians claiming that Jesus was perfect and totally free of any and all sin. But Jesus himself rebuked that very notion.

Jesus was not asking anyone to worship him.

So Christianity is a total distortion of what Jesus taught anyway. Jesus was a Jew and he was trying to teach Judaism as he felt it should be, including calling the orthodox Jewish priests hypocrites and renouncing specific commandments and directives of the Old Testament itself. In fact, this is totally acceptable to do as a Jew. Jews are free to take their own interpretations of the ancient texts, unlike the Pharisees who were obviously the literal fundamentalists of Judaism.

Jesus never intended to start a new religion featuring him as the star demigod that everyone must worship over and above the Father God. It's crystal clear that this was not the intent of Jesus.

But it's also clear that this was the intent of the "Christians" who wrote the New Testament Gossips. They are the ones who created a brand new religion that focuses on placing Jesus BEFORE the God of Abraham. The greatest blaspheme of all, even according to Jesus.

Christianity is about as anti-Jesus as a religion can be.

[Danmark]

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.'

His is a kingdom of those that make it or don't make it. Per Him. No matter what you want to call "His" people. Repentance, and not demands for excuses to sin, are certainly aspects of getting the nod or not from Jesus as The Way.

This response ignores the arguments presented. Do you have a rebuttal for what was actually said?

Let's see? Um, yes.

1. The reference to speaking English is a non sequitur.

It is a Biblical and historical fact.

2. Jesus never referred to 'Christians' or 'Christianity.'

Yup. OK.

3. Where did Jesus refer to 'his people' with any reference they were 'Christians?'

He didn't. He didn't speak English. Though I'm betting, as God, He could have. It's just that His followers wouldn't have understood the language. Yet. "They" (His followers) were first called "Christians" at Antioch.

I tried to assist the analysis by pointing out that 'speaking English' is irrelevant to why Jesus never used the word 'Christian.' "He didn't speak English" is a red herring regarding the question.
The Greek equivalent would have been 'Christós' (Χ�ιστός), a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term 'mashiach.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian
Or in Aramaic: משיח�‎. All of these refer to 'the anointed one.' The main point is that Jesus never referred to himself as God.

[Realworldjack]

.
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?

I have not had time to read all the responses, so I apologize if what I bring out has already been discussed! You say,

However, it appears as though asking ten Christians to define Christianity results in at least nine different (often strongly different) definitions

I am afraid you may be correct here. I once listen to a Christian radio program, which employed a reporter who interviewed different Christians attending a Christian conference. The reporter, asked these Christians to define the Gospel. The responses were extremely varied, while many struggled to even come up with a definition. None of the definitions fit into what I believe the Gospel to be. One of the last persons interviewed stated, "I believe the Gospel means different things to different people." He went on to say, that he believed, "this was the beauty of the Gospel." Sadly, after listening to all the responses, I believe he was correct, the definition of the Gospel, is left up to each individual Christian!

With this being the case, I would like to make a suggestion. Instead of asking individual Christians, to define the Gospel, or to determine who is, and is not a real Christian, why not look at the statements of Faith, and, or the creeds, and confessions, of each denomination? If you were to do this, I believe you would discover there would not be, "at least nine different (often strongly different) definitions." If you were to do this, I believe you would discover, there are only minor differences in doctrine, however, the way of salvation would remain mostly the same. I have given this example before, but the denomination I was raised in taught, the sleep of the dead, and conditional immortality, while Baptist, would disagree, therefore, both denominations agree on the way of salvation, and the Gospel, while they have disagreements over the nonessentials. I believe if you were to do this, you would find, most denominations agree on the meaning of the Gospel, and what it means to be a Christian.

The question then becomes, "why are there so many Christians with so many different beliefs, about the Gospel, and what it means to be a Christian? I am convinced, this is the fault of the Church itself. I could go into great detail however, allow me to just say, I believe most Churches are overly concerned with adding numbers to the role, without concern for whether or not the individual actually understands, what they say they believe. In other words, they are willing to compromise the Gospel they proclaim, for the sake of numbers on the role! With this being the case, as we look at all the ills in our society the Church seems so opposed to, I am convinced the only one there is to blame, is the Church itself!!!!!

[Zzyzx]

.

Sadly, after listening to all the responses, I believe he was correct, the definition of the Gospel, is left up to each individual Christian!

With this being the case, I would like to make a suggestion. Instead of asking individual Christians, to define the Gospel, or to determine who is, and is not a real Christian, why not look at the statements of Faith, and, or the creeds, and confessions, of each denomination?

Since there are something like 30,000 different Christian denominations in the US, is it reasonable to ask anyone to examine statements of faith, creeds and confessions of all those denominations?

It seems particularly nonsensical to ask a Non-Believer to do so when s/he just asks for Christians to define their own label.

I have given this example before, but the denomination I was raised in taught, the sleep of the dead, and conditional immortality, while Baptist, would disagree, therefore, both denominations agree on the way of salvation, and the Gospel, while they have disagreements over the nonessentials. I believe if you were to do this, you would find, most denominations agree on the meaning of the Gospel, and what it means to be a Christian.

Some Christian denominations differ on such "non-essentials" as the "resurrection", the divinity of Jesus, the trinity concept, etc. How can those be reconciled?

The question then becomes, "why are there so many Christians with so many different beliefs, about the Gospel, and what it means to be a Christian? I am convinced, this is the fault of the Church itself. I could go into great detail however, allow me to just say, I believe most Churches are overly concerned with adding numbers to the role, without concern for whether or not the individual actually understands, what they say they believe.

I do not disagree that much fault lies with organized religion and what individual churches teach (or do not teach) their members. Churches compete for members, influence, status and income -- which may be reflected in what they present to parishioners.

In other words, they are willing to compromise the Gospel they proclaim, for the sake of numbers on the role! With this being the case, as we look at all the ills in our society the Church seems so opposed to, I am convinced the only one there is to blame, is the Church itself!!!!!

Might you have any solution to offer the churches or Christianity?

[Elijah John]

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.'

That's exactly right. Jesus was preaching Judaism, and he even confirmed that the greatest law is that a person must love God with all their heart, mind, and soul. He did not ask anyone to worship him.

He even renounced it when people did praise him.

Luke.18:18-19 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Yet today we see Christians claiming that Jesus was perfect and totally free of any and all sin. But Jesus himself rebuked that very notion.

Jesus was not asking anyone to worship him.

So Christianity is a total distortion of what Jesus taught anyway. Jesus was a Jew and he was trying to teach Judaism as he felt it should be, including calling the orthodox Jewish priests hypocrites and renouncing specific commandments and directives of the Old Testament itself. In fact, this is totally acceptable to do as a Jew. Jews are free to take their own interpretations of the ancient texts, unlike the Pharisees who were obviously the literal fundamentalists of Judaism.

Jesus never intended to start a new religion featuring him as the star demigod that everyone must worship over and above the Father God. It's crystal clear that this was not the intent of Jesus.

But it's also clear that this was the intent of the "Christians" who wrote the New Testament Gossips. They are the ones who created a brand new religion that focuses on placing Jesus BEFORE the God of Abraham. The greatest blaspheme of all, even according to Jesus.

Christianity is about as anti-Jesus as a religion can be.

I think this is an excellent post, succinct and well stated. I agree with most of the content, except for your assertion that the Pharisees were the Fudamentalists of Jesus day. That may be true of most of the Pharisees AS PORTRAYED IN THE NT, but it is my understanding that the Pharisees in reality were a liberalizing, reforming movement within Judaism, who actually shared much with Jesus POV, including the belief in resurrection of the dead.

[AdHoc]

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.'

That's exactly right. Jesus was preaching Judaism, and he even confirmed that the greatest law is that a person must love God with all their heart, mind, and soul. He did not ask anyone to worship him.

He even renounced it when people did praise him.

Luke.18:18-19 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Yet today we see Christians claiming that Jesus was perfect and totally free of any and all sin. But Jesus himself rebuked that very notion.

Jesus was not asking anyone to worship him.

So Christianity is a total distortion of what Jesus taught anyway. Jesus was a Jew and he was trying to teach Judaism as he felt it should be, including calling the orthodox Jewish priests hypocrites and renouncing specific commandments and directives of the Old Testament itself. In fact, this is totally acceptable to do as a Jew. Jews are free to take their own interpretations of the ancient texts, unlike the Pharisees who were obviously the literal fundamentalists of Judaism.

Jesus never intended to start a new religion featuring him as the star demigod that everyone must worship over and above the Father God. It's crystal clear that this was not the intent of Jesus.

But it's also clear that this was the intent of the "Christians" who wrote the New Testament Gossips. They are the ones who created a brand new religion that focuses on placing Jesus BEFORE the God of Abraham. The greatest blaspheme of all, even according to Jesus.

Christianity is about as anti-Jesus as a religion can be.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'd like to know how you would reconcile that belief with these scriptures:

John 8:57-59 “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.� So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?� Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.� Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

Apparently Christ Himself was guilty of blasphemy according to the Pharasees.

Rev 21:5-8 And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.� And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.� Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. “He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And in the Old Testament...

Isaiah 44:6-8 6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:

‘I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
‘Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.’�

Now I understand that in this forum we aren't assuming the bible is true but this is merely an argument that the belief that Jesus Christ is God can be made using the OT, the gospels and prophecy.

To your point that Jesus said He wasn't good I disagree. He said only God is good. If Jesus is God there's no contradiction.

As I write this I realize that you have just showed me something that I have never seen before... It happens a lot but this is significant.