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?

[Divine Insight]

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:

I personally have no need to reconcile my belief with every single verbatim word of scripture. The reason is very simple. I can, and have, shown many extreme contradictions between various claims being made in the scriptures. Therefore I hold that it's not even possible for one person (i.e. Jesus) to have held all of the conflicting and contradicting claims being attributed to him simultaneously by these scriptures.

Once I have realized that Jesus necessarily could not have been anything more than a mere mortal man just like the rest of us I no longer have an need to hold up every single word of the Gospels as the "Infallible Word of God". Instead, I recognized that quite a bit of the Gospels are far more likely to be nothing more than superstitious claims being made in his name.

Jesus himself would be his own greatest anti-theist if he actually said everything that is attributed to him in the Gospels verbatim.

The Gospels claim that to merely disbelieve in Jesus results in automatic condemnation. But Jesus rebuked this at least twice within these very same Gospels. To they can't both be true.

When the disbelievers were crucifying Jesus he cried out "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Well, that flies directly in the fact of the claim that Jesus preached that to merely disbelieve in him is grounds for automatic condemnation.

I mean after all, here we have a story that clearly tells us that you can beat Jesus to a pulp, mock him, laugh at him, spit in his face, nail him to a pole, stab him with a spear and not believe a word his says, and he'll STILL forgive you.

Yet these Gospels claim that to merely no believe in Jesus is grounds for condemnation.

This is clearly a mythology that makes no sense.

If this Jesus actually was a real demigod and these stories are true, then surely if he would forgive people for physically beating him and crucifying him in a horrific manner he's not going to hold our petty failings against us.

Think about. Do you think this Jesus would condemn people for merely not believing in him when he was so prepared to forgive people who were actively crucifying him.

Just think about how absurd this religion truly is. If Jesus would forgive the non-believers who crucified him I'm sure he's not going to be upset with little ol' me simply because I don't believe these absurdly ridiculous stories.

The claims of these Gospels clearly cannot be true. The Gospels contradict their very own claims. They have Jesus holding up totally opposite and contradicting values. He can't be that way unless he's some kind of two-faced untrustworthy hypocrite.

So it's far wiser to just dismiss the whole shebang as nothing but a superstitious rumor.

So I don't need to justify every jot and tittle of the New Testament because those jots and tittles betray themselves.

[AdHoc]

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:

I personally have no need to reconcile my belief with every single verbatim word of scripture. The reason is very simple. I can, and have, shown many extreme contradictions between various claims being made in the scriptures. Therefore I hold that it's not even possible for one person (i.e. Jesus) to have held all of the conflicting and contradicting claims being attributed to him simultaneously by these scriptures.

Once I have realized that Jesus necessarily could not have been anything more than a mere mortal man just like the rest of us I no longer have an need to hold up every single word of the Gospels as the "Infallible Word of God". Instead, I recognized that quite a bit of the Gospels are far more likely to be nothing more than superstitious claims being made in his name.

Jesus himself would be his own greatest anti-theist if he actually said everything that is attributed to him in the Gospels verbatim.

The Gospels claim that to merely disbelieve in Jesus results in automatic condemnation. But Jesus rebuked this at least twice within these very same Gospels. To they can't both be true.

When the disbelievers were crucifying Jesus he cried out "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Well, that flies directly in the fact of the claim that Jesus preached that to merely disbelieve in him is grounds for automatic condemnation.

I mean after all, here we have a story that clearly tells us that you can beat Jesus to a pulp, mock him, laugh at him, spit in his face, nail him to a pole, stab him with a spear and not believe a word his says, and he'll STILL forgive you.

Yet these Gospels claim that to merely no believe in Jesus is grounds for condemnation.

This is clearly a mythology that makes no sense.

If this Jesus actually was a real demigod and these stories are true, then surely if he would forgive people for physically beating him and crucifying him in a horrific manner he's not going to hold our petty failings against us.

Think about. Do you think this Jesus would condemn people for merely not believing in him when he was so prepared to forgive people who were actively crucifying him.

Just think about how absurd this religion truly is. If Jesus would forgive the non-believers who crucified him I'm sure he's not going to be upset with little ol' me simply because I don't believe these absurdly ridiculous stories.

Jesus has forgiven everyone and yes it is absurd. If you believe the bible is true, all you have to is accept His forgiveness.

The claims of these Gospels clearly cannot be true. The Gospels contradict their very own claims. They have Jesus holding up totally opposite and contradicting values. He can't be that way unless he's some kind of two-faced untrustworthy hypocrite.

So it's far wiser to just dismiss the whole shebang as nothing but a superstitious rumor.

So I don't need to justify every jot and tittle of the New Testament because those jots and tittles betray themselves.

Well I certainly wasn't expecting you to justify them but maybe try to look at them from two perspectives. Almost like a null hypothesis.