A definition

ScioVeritas · Post by **ScioVeritas** » Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:33 pm

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?

Korah · Post by **Korah** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:39 am

[Replying to post 68 by Haven]
Ironic, don't you admit?
For YOU to be saying that?
Yes, I'm all for keeping debates on topic, without perennial side-tracking each and every topic somehow into LGBT issues. (See, I can be politically correct, even tho Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, and Larry the Cable Guy say I don't have to be.)
I'm not saying that you personally are one I'm upset with. I don't keep tabs, I don't even have a good memory. (Alzheimers hit me at age 13, 60 years ago.) But it happens all the time, and someone(s) been doing it.

sf · Post by sf » Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:36 pm

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

I was refuting a statement that said "'God don't like him no gay homosexuals' is Biblical."

sf · Post by sf » Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:28 pm

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

If it isn't decided by God/the Bible, then the people / government of a society decides.

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

This is a recent development in the US. According to the introduction to the Sodomy laws in the United States article on Wikipedia:

Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were historically universal. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes as well, sometimes even acts between married persons.

Through the 20th century, the gradual liberalization of American sexual morals led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri (statewide), North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia).

At the beginning of the same article's history section:

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy. Jefferson intended this to be a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time. It was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, however, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.

Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor.

sf · Post by sf » Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:41 pm

arian wrote:Yes, I remember that over the years you and some other like-minded have really pushed some Christians over the edge to make them say thing they shouldn't of so they could be banned, or made them quit, and not only Christians, but even atheists because they shown sings of weakening, or noticed that they were taking a second look at their non-belief.

This IS a problem with the atmosphere on this forum. Before I started posting, I looked at what people were being banned for. Most of them appeared to be having coherent discussions/debates, but they got so frustrated that they can't stand it anymore and start saying things they shouldn't. THAT is why there are so few Christians on this forum. I'm so frustrated with how the debates go here, that I regularly consider leaving. And no, it isn't because my stance is not defendable. Nor is it because I am questioned on my statements. It's the way that the questions/challenges are asked.

wiploc · Post by **wiploc** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:57 pm

Korah wrote: [Replying to post 65 by wiploc]
Funny, wiploc,
But I do consider myself to have a sense of humor. I'm (the only?) one who reported your #58 as improper as much as anything because you were (successful at?) cutting off discussion (and still have, far as I can tell) on defining what is a Christian.

I hope I didn't cut off discussion. I certainly didn't try to. I can't imagine how sharing my viewpoint could have cut of discussion.

Yes, I appreciated the all-too-true irony in your definition, which might better (for me anyway) have been phrased, "A true Christian is one who accuses others of not being true Christians."

The only change I would make would be to add the bolded part: "A true Christian is one who accuses other true Christians of not being true Christians."

I think I could cogitate on whether we should take that version seriously, not just as a bitter jibe.

If you're trying to impute bitterness to me, you're off base.

Now that you have "confessed" how personally true your original "definition" was, I repent of having put you to the test. I hope it did not hurt to tell that.

No problem.

Yes, Christians can be terrible people.

I don't believe my post said anything like that.

Quite often non-Christians act like better Christians, we could say.

I wouldn't say that.

My confession (I hope it doesn't put me farther along the road to banishment).

We're fine as far as I'm concerned.

I was irritated that my long post just preceding yours was getting ignored because you had stuck a stake into the heart of the discussion.

I didn't try to do that. I don't believe that I did do that. I believe that my post was fair comment, and that I made a point that needed making.

I take my ideas seriously, perhaps too seriously, and I apologize again if I have caused you any pain.

None at all. But thanks. I apologize if I did in fact someone derail your discussion.

(If you're like me, of course, you were delighted to have the opportunity to get revenge on all the "Christians" who had hurt you.)

I don't know what you're talking about. Are you saying my post was bitter and vengeful? I can't imagine how you got that impression.

The OP asks what is the definition of Christian. I pointed out that there is no privileged answer. We can look at the various and contradictory things self-identified Christians mean by the word. We can look at the various and contradictory things the bible says you have to do to be saved. What we can't do is find one answer that is somehow correct, and compared to which other answers are somehow wrong.

The bible is shot thru with errors and contradictions, so any attempt to harmonize it by reconstructive interpretation will be personal and subjective. No such attempt can be objectively "the right answer."

That's my answer to the OP. I don't see how it can be construed as bitter or vengeful. I don't see why it should quell discussion rather than stimulating it.

Post by **otseng** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:02 pm

arian wrote: But then again, if you really don't give a shit about the Bible, God, the writers of the Bible, or what it says in there, then what in hell are you doing on a Christian Debating forum? I mean it's not something you actually need, .. that's obvious. So What???

I didn't think my post would of been given a second chance, but here I am debating it further.

Moderator Final Warning

Yes, we gave you just a warning on your last post, but you can't push your luck by continuing with the personal comments.

Please, do not make any comments of a personal nature in future posts.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

ScioVeritas · Post by **ScioVeritas** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:15 pm

wiploc wrote:
The OP asks what is the definition of Christian. I pointed out that there is no privileged answer. We can look at the various and contradictory things self-identified Christians mean by the word. We can look at the various and contradictory things the bible says you have to do to be saved. What we can't do is find one answer that is somehow correct, and compared to which other answers are somehow wrong.

I will agree that within Christianity there are different definitions applied to the word "Christian" and that was the original purpose of my OP - to show that without an objective definition then use of the term becomes meaningless. However I disagree that the Bible contradicts itself in terms of what you have to do to be saved - can you point out these perceived contradictions?

In general most people will equate being a "Christian" with being "saved" and while originally I would have agreed with that assessment (based on my definition of what it means to be a Christian*), I don't think that the over generalized meaning of the word "Christian" can continue to be associated with being "saved".

* My definition of what it means to be a Christian is a person who believes that Jesus is God in the flesh and acts accordingly. The usage of the term "true Christian" I think stems from the fact that there are people who profess to believe in Jesus but don't act accordingly, i.e. they don't do what He says to do. And it's those instances where I would question the belief of the person since belief is an action not just mental assent.

An analogy being there are two people in a house that's on fire. The first person says that he believes the house is on fire because he can smell the smoke and feel the warmth. The second person doesn't have time to talk to you because they're outside across the street calling 911. The first person used the word "belief" but it would be more accurate to describe it as mental assent. The second person actually believes the house is on fire and so their actions reflect that. When the letter that James wrote speaks about living vs dead faith it is the same type of idea. A person who truly believes will have evidence of their belief through their actions - and a person who says they believe but doesn't act on that belief is a person who's belief can (I think rightly) be called into question.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:51 pm

The idea that the definition of 'Christian' can be limited to a single one is prob'ly about a million to one or more. How would one calculate it? I'd start with the number of denominations, sects, divisions of any kind and multiply that by some factor to account for the number of individuals within each division that disagree with each other. Peter and Paul didn't agree, even with themselves if you believe they wrote each of the books traditionally attributed to each other.

There certainly will never be agreement on one of the core issues, the nature of the relationship between God and Jesus. Even orthodoxy cannot describe it without the inherently contradictory, non biblical doctrine of the trinity.

wiploc · Post by **wiploc** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:52 pm

ScioVeritas wrote: I will agree that within Christianity there are different definitions applied to the word "Christian" and that was the original purpose of my OP - to show that without an objective definition then use of the term becomes meaningless.

A word can be fuzzy and rimless without being meaningless. We may not be able to agree on whether Mormons and Catholics are Christians, but I'm pretty sure we all agree that I am not a Christian.

However I disagree that the Bible contradicts itself in terms of what you have to do to be saved - can you point out these perceived contradictions?

I'll have to get back to you on this. I've got company coming, so be patient. And remind me if I haven't responded in ten days or so. I'll have to find a source; I don't remember where I read about the contradictions.

In general most people will equate being a "Christian" with being "saved"

Since I believe there are no gods, I believe nobody is "saved." So that definition is worthless to me.

An analogy being there are two people in a house that's on fire.

This is the point at which the analogy breaks down. You have posited a fact, that the house is on fire. Christians deal entirely in conjecture: "You have to be baptized." "It's important to believe there are three gods, not one." "No, there's only one god and he's three." "And it is impossible to see him." "Right, but also possible."

There are no facts, nothing to test the claims against.

The first person says that he believes the house is on fire because he can smell the smoke and feel the warmth. The second person doesn't have time to talk to you because they're outside across the street calling 911. The first person used the word "belief" but it would be more accurate to describe it as mental assent. The second person actually believes the house is on fire and so their actions reflect that.

Maybe the first person's actions are more reasonable given the magical nature of the fire?

If you're going to be taking things literally, then it wouldn't make sense to be waiting for Jesus now when his second coming was promised for 2000 years ago.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:14 pm

From Post 78:

wiploc wrote: A word can be fuzzy and rimless without being meaningless. We may not be able to agree on whether Mormons and Catholics are Christians, but I'm pretty sure we all agree that I am not a Christian.

Good luck with that. I got lied on for telling a lie I didn't tell.

Conclusions?

When the liar's in charge, well there we go.