A definition

[ScioVeritas]

The word " Christian" is thrown around a lot and I'm wondering how people here define it?

Specifically, the question for debate is : what makes someone a Christian? Also where/what does your definition come from?

[sf]

My position is that if someone's an "abomination" to a god that created humans, well there we go, they ain't human. Reasonable and logical conclusions ought'n be discarded in favor of 'em that can't do any of it.

To declare that you are an "abomination to God" is, I contend, far more insulting, far more egregious than any insult I might ever offer about your momma, God love 'er, and she has her own gravitational field.

Such an accusation denies your humanity. It denies your very existence as a human. It's the slanderous accusation of folks proud of their bigotry. It's the accusation of those who can't show they speak truth!

"God don't like him no gay homosexuals" is Biblical. To deny such is to engage in semantical, self-definitional apologetics. I refuse to accept that my fellow human beings ain't. I refuse to accept that you're an "abomination" 'cause there you are, prettier'n a hundred dollars worth of roses, and you're a-kissin' on you another hot chick. You ain't no "abomination". You're the stuff of dreams!

The "homosexual person" is not an abomination, the act is, e.g. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

[Zzyzx]

.

The "homosexual person" is not an abomination, the act is, e.g. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Since the Bible cannot be cited as proof of truth or as authoritative, WHY exactly is homosexuality "an abomination?" By whom is that decided?

US law does not consider homosexuality to be illegal (though Islamic law evidently does).

Who sits in judgment?

[Haven]

The "homosexual person" is not an abomination, the act is, e.g. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

As a queer person, I see no difference between that verse and "god hates [anti-gay slur]." It's hate speech, plain and simple, and it's truly disgusting.

[Zzyzx]

.

The "homosexual person" is not an abomination, the act is, e.g. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

As a queer person, I see no difference between that verse and "god hates [anti-gay slur]." It's hate speech, plain and simple, and it's truly disgusting.

As a confirmed heterosexual I find ALL bigoted anti-homosexual statements disgusting -- whether quoted from ancient bigots or not. I question the judgment of people who make or quote such statements.

Hiding behind religion does not make bigotry or discrimination acceptable. Claiming biblical sanction is not rational and is disallowed by Forum Rules and Guidelines.

[DefenderofTruth]

US law? Thats a good topic... Not only are we a state separated from the church, but it wouldn't even be compatible with a Holy God, either. You can't make lying a crime, we don't make hating someone a crime.

Let rights be rights, let me have the freedom to disagree.

[Zzyzx]

.

US law? Thats a good topic...

As citizens of the US we are bound by its laws – even if we disagree with some of them.

Not only are we a state separated from the church,

Fortunately the Constitution separates the government from the church and establishes a representative republic rather than a theocracy.

but it wouldn't even be compatible with a Holy God, either.

Which of the thousands of proposed gods can be shown to be "holy"?

You can't make lying a crime,

Lying IS a crime under certain circumstances – including perjury in sworn testimony in court, lying to law enforcement personnel, lying to defraud.

we don't make hating someone a crime.

The emotion of hate is not itself criminal; however, many actions based on hate are crimes.

Let rights be rights, let me have the freedom to disagree.

We are free to disagree – but not to force our opinions on others (as is often the case in theocracies).

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 55 by Zzyzx]

but it wouldn't even be compatible with a Holy God, either.

Which of the thousands of proposed gods can be shown to be "holy"?

Well to answer that we would need to look at the word “Holy�, we would need to seek to understand what the word “Holy� actually meant. It has a literal definition in Hebrews which is “Set Apart� and “Sacred�.

What it means, “Holy�, is something that is set apart, and sacred… This is why we believe that righteousness comes from God. Because God came from the heavens, we don’t look to the world for what we find to be “right�, because the world is full of sin. It is full of rape, do you blame god for someone who rapes another person? Its full of war, and famine, hate, murder, etc.

The very definition of “Holy� or a “Holy God� is that, that which is set apart from what the world is, what sin is, what lawlessness is. God came from outside of us…

You even donated me money… You donated me money for how I defined “the religious vs spirituality�… You donated me money for how i defined idea of someone who is “religious� vs who is “spiritual�…

That definition came from God, not me. I said that which is religious is from something outside of us. This is what is believed that God is. He is a force that came from outside of us, and represents that which is “Holy�, something apart from us.. (and spirituality is more of a idea of something coming from within us, siting Galatians 5)

This is what “Holy� literally means.. I can give you back the 100 coins if you wish?

but just reason with me friend.

Let rights be rights, let me have the freedom to disagree.

We are free to disagree – but not to force our opinions on others (as is often the case in theocracies).

I agree, we shouldn’t force our beliefs on others… Christians believe that if you disagree with our beliefs, and do not wish to hear of the faith. That we should kick the dust off our shoes and speak with the next people who are willing to hear what we say.

US law is not compatible with Christianity, you can have the rights the US lets you have. I strongly believe that.

[Korah]

I don't study Christianity based out of anyone of them. What i do study is the scriptures for myself. Which is what we should be looking to do for anyone of us that are christians.

Seeking to understand what scripture says can also lead to dis-belief when one discovers (or admits) that those ancient stories don't make sense, don't reflect the real world, contain errors / contradictions / inconsistencies, are not supported by anything other than themselves, do not stand up to scrutiny, etc.

Here is a question for you. You say in the face of all this scrutiny, then why would a Christian ever believe? Do they ignore the scrutiny, or does their beliefs has answers?
for instance "not supported by anything other than themselves".. do you think a christian would agree with that? And more importantly, is that a true statement?

Z has a good point (or more importantly, maybe we can get this thread back on track instead of yet another derail into irrelevant homosexuality).
Yes, if we (I) study Scripture as the definition of a Christian, what about a here-to-fore "Christian" who develops questions regarding Scripture itself, like what of the OT can be accepted or how much of Paul is still authoritative instead of just relevant to the culture of his time? Or the opposite tack--what about the "seeker" or questioner who looks at the "claims" of Christ and starts taking "Christianity" seriously--to the extent he can believe certain parts of the gospels, let's say. Whether from the "not-still-all" the Scriptures and the other pole of "starting-to-believe-from-scratch", in which case are we recognizing a "Christian", if either?

My definition of "Christian" would include both these "Scripture-minus" scenarios, and from modern Evangelical preaching this would seem necessary. To take the televangelists seriously, it's believing in Jesus that counts (variously defined as confessing Jesus as Son of God, as personal savior, or a crucified and risen from the dead). Yes, they typically expect you to "buy" the whole Bible, but that seems clearly supererogatory the "believe and be saved" pitch. It's strictly a matter of convention (of the last 200 years) that has settled on the Tanakh-plus-NT as the Holy Book--all Bibles previously included the Apocrypha. The latest translations for natives happily start out with Mark or John or I John.
The demand to accept the "whole Bible" turns out to be paradoxically the Roman Catholic innovation of Protestantism in the Council of Trent to mandate as a matter of Church doctrine that one must accept plenary inspiration (of 72 books) and verbal inerrancy. Thus for me personally my period of conversion to Roman Catholicism (adult baptism 1969 to exit in 1992) was my only time to meet DoT's assumption that being Christian means believing all the Scriptures. So I was not a Christian during the 1960's when I worked up gradually from agnosticism through Arianism to liberal Protestantism nor after 1992 when I had to conclude that Judges 17 to 21 did not belong in the Bible (that the Deuteronomist had properly deleted but eventually got over-ruled)?

[wiploc]

A Christian is one who points at another Christian, and says, "You're not a real Christian."

[ttruscott]

The "homosexual person" is not an abomination, the act is, e.g. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

As a queer person, I see no difference between that verse and "god hates [anti-gay slur]." It's hate speech, plain and simple, and it's truly disgusting.

Prov 6:16 There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Should the hate speech police be called to burn all bibles because GOD hates all these actions by people? No one set of sinners is so special.

We must also not forget that the pagan rites of first fruits were very sexualized with the temples earning money with temple prostitutes, and orgiastic services built upon straight and gay sex. The condemnation of tattoos was because they were a pagan symbol for their gods...some of the condemnation of sexual practices of all kinds was also due to it being used in pagan ritual.

Anyway, there is no sin that cannot be forgiven except the free will choice to reject YHWH as your GOD and husband and especially to reject HIS promise of salvation to be found in HIS Son. GOD's elect on earth who are promised heaven are gay, liars, arrogant, willing to shed innocent blood, etc etc, so HIS hate must be for the sin, not the person who will be forgiven and spend eternity with HIM, no?

Peace, Ted