What do you mean by Christian

[liamconnor]

This was a recent post

Reading ‘the other side’

One can gain some insight into ‘Christian thinking’ reading Quora ‘Christian Corner’. The questions asked and answers given are illuminating.

Note that the underlined phrase is not Roman Catholic thinking, or Baptist, or (more importantly!!) "the Christianity represented by our members here on DCR"!

No, the implication is that all Christians think the same thing, and the same way.

Q4D: What do those here on this site who challenge Christianity mean by "Christian"; is it a legitimate definition: defend or challenge that definition?


(an aside: I won't be bashful; I think this is one of the most important questions to be asked on this site, and should be asked, and answered, frequently. Participants need to define their terms).

[John Bauer]

I think atheists using such a broad term as "Christian" is every bit as ambiguous and unhelpful as Christians who use the even broader term "atheist."

One thing that can really support clear and open discussion is the participants agreeing to define their terms. So instead of a "Christian" and an "atheist" discussing some issue, it is rather a "Presbyterian" and a "materialist." (It also goes a long way toward safeguarding against straw-man arguments.)

[Tcg]

Q4D: What do those here on this site who challenge Christianity mean by "Christian"; is it a legitimate definition: defend or challenge that definition?

I leave it up to those who claim to be a Christian. Whatever definition they use is fine by me. All such definitions are legitimate.

In the same way, if one identifies as a non-theist, atheist, agnostic, skeptic, etc., that's fine as well. It's not my place to tell them what label they should use or what the label they are using means. All that matters is what they mean by it. The same is true with Christians. All that matters is what they mean when they self-apply that label.

I visited the Quora ‘Christian Corner’ page and it seems to me that the participants identify as Christians. Given that, we are most certainly gaining insight into 'Christian thinking.' I see no reason to assume, as you have, that the poster you quoted intends that to mean all Christians think the same thing. It's simply a sample of what some Christians think.


Tcg

[Zzyzx]

.
My response in the previously mentioned thread:

.

Christian Thinking?

Is that to suggest Christian Thinking in an oxymoron? Or that the terms should not appear in the same sentence?

Surely that is so broad it is meaningless.

I have encountered some Christians who appear to think rather well.

Which Christians?

Those who self-identify as Christians. For those unfamiliar with the concept, people are entitled to claim whatever religion they wish.

People posting questions and answers at “The Christian Corner� are identifying themselves as Christians. Their thinking, therefore, is Christian thinking. Comprende?

Don’t be embarrassed by what is posted to that site. No need to attempt to distance one’s self from the ‘advice’ offered there. They are just Christians trying their best.

I have met proclaimed atheists who disbelieve in God because they disbelieve in the reality of anything other than their own minds. Is that "atheistic thinking"?

Thank you for attempting to contribute to the thread. That was your intent, wasn’t it – to contribute to the thread? Or was it something else?

What bottom line definition of "Christian" do you mean?

Christians often ask me to define their term – since they cannot define it themselves. However, providing Christians with definitions of Christianity is ‘beyond my job description’.

Instead of helping them, I tell them to accept a person’s self-identification. Many want to argue against doing so.

A quick identification tool I use in debate to identify Christians (that works quite often) is to look for word play, definition mongering, translation games, and/or diversionary tactics.

It is not uncommon for 'Christians' to attempt some sort of exclusivity for their own preferred version of Christianity (particularly here in debate) by excluding any who make foolish statements in the name of Christianity. Some examples of such statements are quoted by SallyF in the other thread -- and more will likely follow.

[Difflugia]

Q4D: What do those here on this site who challenge Christianity mean by "Christian"; is it a legitimate definition: defend or challenge that definition?

"Christian" without modification just means that Jesus Christ somehow figures into one's theology, with the specific exclusion of Islam. I often assume other beliefs alongside that one just because they're common (particular attitudes about the Bible, the deity of Jesus, and so forth), but I don't consider them part of the definition. If I intend to only include a particular set of beliefs, I use modifiers.

Describing a particular Christianity as "orthodox" with a lowercase "o" means that it affirms the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed without having to redefine too many terms. Orthodox Christianities are trinitarian, believe in the virgin birth, that Jesus is yet to return, and that at least some people will be resurrected to life after death.

Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, and Coptic Christians are all Christian and orthodox.

Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, but not orthodox.

Most Gnostic churches that we know about were Christian, but not orthodox.

The Mandaeans are Gnostic, but not Christian.

[Divine Insight]

Q4D: What do those here on this site who challenge Christianity mean by "Christian"; is it a legitimate definition: defend or challenge that definition?

I don't challenge "Christianity" nor do I even see it as being a meaningful term precisely for the reasons that it is ill-defined and clearly the people who use the term are in grave disagreement with each other on what the term should mean.

What I challenge is the "Christian Dogma" (i.e. the 66 books of the "Christian Canon"). In that respect it really doesn't matter how someone might define the term "Christianity". It's a meaningless term if not defined by the Biblical Canon.

(an aside: I won't be bashful; I think this is one of the most important questions to be asked on this site, and should be asked, and answered, frequently. Participants need to define their terms).

I agree. And my answer is simple. The term "Christianity" is a meaningless term that has no well-defined meaning. Even the theists who use the term cannot agree on what it should mean or what it should represent.

So it's simply a meaningless term and a meaningless concept.

If you want to debate the 66 books of Christian theology, (NOTE: This INCLUDES the entire Old Testament, as well as the New Testament). Then I'll be more than happy to address the validity of that Canon.

If you want to argue about what the term "Christianity" might mean, you'd probably be better off seeking out other so-called "Christians". I'm sure they would be more than happy to argue with you over what "Christianity" should mean.

[Diagoras]

Q4D: What do those here on this site who challenge Christianity mean by "Christian"; is it a legitimate definition: defend or challenge that definition

As others have stated, ‘Christian’ is a very broad and ill-defined term. One could claim it’s at least within the ‘monotheistic’ subset of ‘religious’, and in a ‘follows the teachings of Jesus’ subset of ‘monotheistic’ religious people. The guidelines for this forum make it clear that self-identification as Christian is sufficient to be treated as one, which is sensible.

It’s legitimate in the sense that it is at least a handy starting point for someone to express their worldview in broad terms. But as we all know, someone saying “I’m a Christian� doesn’t tell you whether they are a Young Earth Creationist, a lapsed Catholic or a Jehovahs Witness. Further elaboration would be required if ‘Christianity’ was central to the debate being had. In other words, it’s a generalisation, and those always need to be handled carefully. “All Europeans...�, for example, doesn’t necessarily tell you much about a Swiss person.

You do have a good point though: we all need to be careful to avoid over-generalising.

[Zzyzx]

.
People join this Forum identifying themselves as 'Christian'. They talk of 'Christian values' and 'Christian benevolence', 'Christian teachings', 'Christian beliefs'.

They have been asked many times to define the term. There is NO general agreement among 'Christians'.

They ask Atheists to define the term -- and complain if they do not.

There are tens of thousands of Christian splinter groups -- with a wide disagreement concerning what constitutes REAL Christianity.

When challenged in debate, many retreat to defending their personal version of 'Christianity'.

They seem thoroughly confused (at best)

[JJ50]

The term Christianity covers a multitude of meaning, from the sublime to the ridiculous. Moderate Christians who have a live and let live approach to the faith are often decent people. It is the extremists who bang on about people burning in hell who are highly unpleasant and a pain in the neck, especially as they have no evidence to support their nonsense.

[Divine Insight]

The term Christianity covers a multitude of meaning, from the sublime to the ridiculous. Moderate Christians who have a live and let live approach to the faith are often decent people.

The problem is that these are people who actually reject what the Biblical Canon has to say and pretend that they can create a religion that, while having nothing to do with what the Bible actually say, they pretend that it's still somehow based on the Bible.

So while such moderate people may be decent, they don't have a coherent theology. Their theology is based mostly on wishful thinking and rejection of what their own Holy Texts actually have to say.

It is the extremists who bang on about people burning in hell who are highly unpleasant and a pain in the neck, especially as they have no evidence to support their nonsense.

These are the people who actually demand that the Bible is true and it is the infallible word of God. Ironically the people you mentioned above reject this notion entirely. And why do they do this? Because they actually don't like what the Bible has to say.

By the way, if you don't like the extremists who bang on about people burning in hell then I don't see how you can like Jesus very much as he was certainly the latter type of person according to the Gospels.

In fact, Jesus himself is the one who is attributed with bringing the concept of "Everlasting Punishment"" into this religion. You may argue that this isn't the same as talking about people burning in hell. But surely the concept of people being punished eternally is just as disgusting?

In fact Mark even has Jesus being the extremist you just described above:

Mark 9:
[43] And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[45] And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[46] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[47] And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
[48] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Where do you think the Christian extremists get this garbage? They get it directly from the mouth of Jesus.

You claim that they have no evidence to support their nonsense, but there it is in Mark Chapter 9.

So apparently Jesus is the extremist you appear to be complaining about.