WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN?

[TheRootOfDavid]

What is a Christian?

[TRANSPONDER]

I thought for a while before deciding to at least post something.

Because, in the past and on my Other board, the accusation was made that atheists want to designate what is or is not a Christian. This was a ludicrous and laughable accusation (mud-sling ploy) because atheists are willing to accept anyone who claims to be a Christian as a Christian and possibly debate whatever dogma they follow. It was always other Christians who tried to define, by belief or Dogma, whether the other poster was a Real Christian or not. Indeed the Mods had to forbid any Christian saying another Christian was not Really a Christian under pain of banishment.

And what, to this Atheist spokesbod and habitual use of the term 'We' to denote my myriad followers and fanbase, is a Christian? It is noting to do with trinity doctrine or how much importance Jesus attached to the Mosaic law, but just belief in Christ.. The messiah and savior, and adhering to mainstream doctrine (give or take the Trinity - atheists don't care about that) that Jesus was made or begotten, we don't care which, to contain God's spirit (at conception or baptism, I do care about that discussion and heresy) and Jesus was effectively God in a human pigskin trundly even though communication seems to have been on a need to know basis. But absolutely Jesus has to have died and come to life again.

I won't get into whether the spirit of God united with the Father and the resurrected New Incorruptible Body of Christ with New Incorruptible wounds put in for identification purposes sits alongside God, in human form with Muhammad serving coffee, as the old joke goes. I'll leave that to future denial - sessions; but so long as one believes in Jesus' resurrection and claims to take Jesus as a guide and mentor, they is a Christian in my book.

[TheRootOfDavid]

so long as one believes in Jesus' resurrection and claims to take Jesus as a guide and mentor, they is a Christian in my book.

Why are you a Christian?

[TRANSPONDER]

so long as one believes in Jesus' resurrection and claims to take Jesus as a guide and mentor, they is a Christian in my book.

Why are you a Christian?

Let's say the old argument that Christianity is better historically based than any other religion.

[TheRootOfDavid]

so long as one believes in Jesus' resurrection and claims to take Jesus as a guide and mentor, they is a Christian in my book.

Why are you a Christian?

Let's say the old argument that Christianity is better historically based than any other religion.

Is Jesus, your God?

[TRANSPONDER]

so long as one believes in Jesus' resurrection and claims to take Jesus as a guide and mentor, they is a Christian in my book.

Why are you a Christian?

Let's say the old argument that Christianity is better historically based than any other religion.

Is Jesus, your God?

I will not deceive you I am atheist and have been in Bible apologetics debate (or discussion, anyway) since 1980.

[oldbadger]

I thought for a while before deciding to at least post something.

Because, in the past and on my Other board, the accusation was made that atheists want to designate what is or is not a Christian. This was a ludicrous and laughable accusation (mud-sling ploy) because atheists are willing to accept anyone who claims to be a Christian as a Christian and possibly debate whatever dogma they follow.

Exactly. We could open that up to all atheists, agnostics and other religions, I think.

The difficulty for many Christians would be that they will refuse to identify other concregations, churches and creeds as 'Christian'.

For example, I wonder how many would identify Christian Spiritualists, Jehovahs Witnesses, Christian Theocrats or Christian Theonomists as Christian?

I've heard the accusation too many times 'They are not Christians!'

[TRANSPONDER]

I thought for a while before deciding to at least post something.

Because, in the past and on my Other board, the accusation was made that atheists want to designate what is or is not a Christian. This was a ludicrous and laughable accusation (mud-sling ploy) because atheists are willing to accept anyone who claims to be a Christian as a Christian and possibly debate whatever dogma they follow.

Exactly. We could open that up to all atheists, agnostics and other religions, I think.

The difficulty for many Christians would be that they will refuse to identify other concregations, churches and creeds as 'Christian'.

For example, I wonder how many would identify Christian Spiritualists, Jehovahs Witnesses, Christian Theocrats or Christian Theonomists as Christian?

I've heard the accusation too many times 'They are not Christians!'

It does happen and on the Other board they had to be told to stop doing it on the Christian forum. And of course this too often has become a shooting war and not just polemic. The reformation wars, Hussite, Thirty years and British civil wars were along religious lines though politics was the other side of that coin, too. And it's part of the need to understand our evolved instincts (oh,yes ) that drive us to have any hope of ceasing to treat war and religion as something that is either unavoidable or necessary and even good for us.

The atheist civil war of course is over the Great Question and can't be avoided and is necessary - to eliminate from the face of the earth those blasphemers and heretics that want to call us "Brights" South Park exposed that dirty little secret but of course did not understand the reason - not that it is illogical (they assumed) but because it was dishonest. Atheist polemicists cannot afford EVER to be dishonest as our name already stinketh forever, in US society, anyway. We can afford no more Bad Rap. Of which of course, there is a lot about.

Anyway...back to Christians and their input on what is and what is (possibly) not a Christian.

[oldbadger]

It does happen and on the Other board they had to be told to stop doing it on the Christian forum. And of course this too often has become a shooting war and not just polemic.

That other board is almost reasonable one, imo.
I visit a Christian forum which only identifies one creed and any other Christians are banned from posting on Christian-only sections.

The reformation wars, Hussite, Thirty years and British civil wars were along religious lines though politics was the other side of that coin, too.

Among some US Christian churches (and possibly elsewhere) they spin politics and faith in to one, for example they believe that all democrats will burn in hell, and yet others want to form theocracies with biblical las and punishments.
A Christian congregation at Mar-a-Lago interpret The Kingdom of Heaven as just that, a Kingdom, and would like to raise up a former President to King.
Politics and religion.......quite a muddle.

The atheist civil war of course is over the Great Question and can't be avoided and is necessary - to eliminate from the face of the earth those blasphemers and heretics that want to call us "Brights" South Park exposed that dirty little secret but of course did not understand the reason - not that it is illogical (they assumed) but because it was dishonest.

I've never heard of Brights.

Anyway...back to Christians and their input on what is and what is (possibly) not a Christian.

Yes. You might get more response if the question would be 'Christians, who are the imposters?!'

[TRANSPONDER]

Dennett I recall, proposed changing the name of Atheist to 'Brights' which was supposed to do the same job as (it was supposed) making the word 'Gay' unusable in any other sense, and the idea of atheism doing it made me sick when I thought of it and it was the first step on the slippery slide of deception.

I'm glad Boeing resisted the temptation to call the Max something else in hopes to fool the travellers. That could have blown up in their faces in a spectacular way. Their better plan was stick with the old name and rehabilitate it. Similarly, I think it was the changing of attitudes about gays that benefited them, not changing the name. So I think the only honest route for atheism is to change the perception (uphill task in the US I admit) rather than change the name and hope it will sound better. In a way, this is already done, as in saying 'agnostic' or 'not religious'. So Brights was a suggestion worth considering, I suppose, but thankfully, seems to have disappeared, so the atheist ceasefire seems to be holding.