' Defining Christianity ' How?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

' Houston, we have a problem! '

On the surface of things, Christianity is easy to define. It comes from Christ and Christ comes from the 1st century personage of Jesus.

With the proliferation of interpretation and disagreement around the circumstances of the Jesus happening...the whole thing becomes like a competitive game of stick- stacking. Invariably ,all ends down in a heap.

Define - late Middle English: from Latin definitio(n- ), from the verb definire ‘set bounds to’ (see define).

How do you set bounds to this metropolis of a religious sprawl?

I would start here and probably end very close by.

Matthew 5:16
' Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.'

Start at the table of hard graft.

Question:How would you begin to define Christianity?

[Purple Knight]

A Christian is someone who identifies as a Christian.

If they're misled, that's on the misleader. If they're faking that's between them and God. If it's all fakery then it doesn't really matter, except that people can still be twisting essentially good teachings toward their own benefit. And they can still be called out.

If you're a Christian and you really, really think they're faking, and you know you're not faking, you're probably right and you don't have to associate with them.

No one knows for sure who has it right, so if we make that part of the definition, we have a meaningless term.

Even a physicist doesn't have to have only correct theorems to be a physicist. Likewise, if we baked into the definition of physicist, the idea that he is absolutely correct about all of physics, we would have a completely useless term.

[TRANSPONDER]

A Christian is someone who identifies as a Christian.

If they're misled, that's on the misleader. If they're faking that's between them and God. If it's all fakery then it doesn't really matter, except that people can still be twisting essentially good teachings toward their own benefit. And they can still be called out.

If you're a Christian and you really, really think they're faking, and you know you're not faking, you're probably right and you don't have to associate with them.

No one knows for sure who has it right, so if we make that part of the definition, we have a meaningless term.

Even a physicist doesn't have to have only correct theorems to be a physicist. Likewise, if we baked into the definition of physicist, the idea that he is absolutely correct about all of physics, we would have a completely useless term.

Yes. This is the whole Epistemology argument, and the basis for one of the pillars (if not THE pillar) of Biblical apologetics: questioning the validity of human knowledge. We have see it so many tomes No matter how strong the evidence is, 'I don't beleive you' and that supposedlyleaves the faithclaim in place as the default argument.

Until it is understood that this is a logically (and evidentially) invalid position, we are arguing facts against conspiracy theories.

holding something to be true on Faith is we get this business of Christians telling the others they are not 'Real Christians'. Because they reason from Faith, and that (And I will bet the improbability of my not having an immortal soul on this) is based on the belief that God is downloading true information into their heads, and thus, if anyone says anything different, they are wrong. This is why even solid proof, actual reality and even what the Bible says is rejected in favour of personal Faith in their own rightness. Even when they change their minds.

[Purple Knight]

Yes. This is the whole Epistemology argument, and the basis for one of the pillars (if not THE pillar) of Biblical apologetics: questioning the validity of human knowledge. We have see it so many tomes No matter how strong the evidence is, 'I don't beleive you' and that supposedlyleaves the faithclaim in place as the default argument.

Human knowledge isn't absolute, so it's a solid basis. In areas other than faith we have ways to get closer to the truth, but in distant history or religion, we don't. We don't know who's a good person or a bad one, for example. So if somebody simply opts to reject another's claims I see that as valid. The overarching truth though, is that either of them (or neither) might be right.

the belief that God is downloading true information into their heads,

How much charity can we give this, though? If a fair god existed, I doubt he'd implant people with incorrect morality. God actually might be implanting us with false morality so we fail and he gets to punish us, and this might delight him. But a fair god wouldn't do that. So the idea that their intuitive brains have morality right, derives from the idea that there's a fair god.

[1213]

...
Even a physicist doesn't have to have only correct theorems to be a physicist. Likewise, if we baked into the definition of physicist, the idea that he is absolutely correct about all of physics, we would have a completely useless term.

But even for a physicist there is certain minimum requirements. If physicist is not correct about all, he is not a very good physicist, but if the minimum requirements are met, then he can be called a physicist.

Same is with Christians. The minimum is to remain in word of Jesus.

…The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26
Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:31-32

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. This is the whole Epistemology argument, and the basis for one of the pillars (if not THE pillar) of Biblical apologetics: questioning the validity of human knowledge. We have see it so many tomes No matter how strong the evidence is, 'I don't beleive you' and that supposedlyleaves the faithclaim in place as the default argument.

Human knowledge isn't absolute, so it's a solid basis. In areas other than faith we have ways to get closer to the truth, but in distant history or religion, we don't. We don't know who's a good person or a bad one, for example. So if somebody simply opts to reject another's claims I see that as valid. The overarching truth though, is that either of them (or neither) might be right.

This matter of epistemology is well taken. Science and logic knows that we can never be sure. This is why it is better, more logical and more honest than religion which makes faithclaims, which is bad enough even if the evidence is good, but it's worse when the claim is heldtruewhen the evidence points the other way.

the belief that God is downloading true information into their heads,

How much charity can we give this, though? If a fair god existed, I doubt he'd implant people with incorrect morality. God actually might be implantieng us with false morality so we fail and he gets to punish us, and this might delight him. But a fair god wouldn't do that. So the idea that their intuitive brains have morality right, derives from the idea that there's a fair god.

It would certainly explain things more if God was not a nice person, and that is why Bible apologetics fails, and believers have to do excuses, denials and faithclaims. Fortunately, the simplest explanation is supported by the evidence (Bible is nonsense, archaic and wrong) means that we don't have to wrestle with that problem nor pretend the problem doesn't exist, but just put the Book back on the 'mythology' shelf where it belongs, and address the actual problems in life, without Biblical falseclaims making matters harder for us.

[Purple Knight]

This matter of epistemology is well taken. Science and logic knows that we can never be sure. This is why it is better, more logical and more honest than religion which makes faithclaims, which is bad enough even if the evidence is good, but it's worse when the claim is held true when the evidence points the other way.

Yes, I agree with this. We're better off listening to evidence than faith. But since we can't know, if we structure our definitions on knowing who is correct, then we've created a definition that we can never be sure about. In other words, a useless definition.

That's why I say anyone who identifies as a Christian is a Christian. 1213 says, be true to the word of Jesus. Now, I don't claim to be a Christian but let's pretend I did. It's obvious to me that Jesus preached masochistic pacifism. In other words, love your enemies(1), never hit back(2), and always forgive everything everyone does to you no matter how egregious(3).

1. To me love means don't do anything bad to them in addition to don't be mad at them. Do they need a swift kick in the head from me to be saved and change their ways? If I think I know that, I'm judging them. As a Christian I can't do that.
2. I do NOT buy that turn the other cheek means anything else or is some analogy for something.
3. Forgiveness doesn't just mean "oh well I forgive him but Imma take revenge anyway," it's also about what you do.

My quarrels are at least legit and we absolutely can't know whose interpretation is right. So which interpretation is the word of Jesus? If we have to figure this out to sift Christian from Not-Really-Christian, we have created a totally useless definition.

So a Christian is anyone who identifies as a Christian. I don't want to hear this not-real stuff, for any faith, unless the person making the claim of not-real-Christian is literally the Christian God.

the belief that God is downloading true information into their heads,

It would certainly explain things more if God was not a nice person,

It would. And if I were a betting man, and you tell me it's all real, based on what I know, I would bet on God not being nice at all. However, the kicker is that this is not the bet. If God is not nice or fair, but still makes the rules, he's not going to reward us for heeding him. He already has seventeen different loopholes written in, to make sure we get punished on a technicality we had no idea of. So it's useless to heed such a god. If God is fair and nice, we ought to heed him. And a fair God really would make sure we knew right from wrong before we did it. So to me, the "I know because God's downloading the truth into my brain," makes good sense.

address the actual problems in life, without Biblical falseclaims making matters harder for us.

A fair god would want us to do that.

[TRANSPONDER]

This matter of epistemology is well taken. Science and logic knows that we can never be sure. This is why it is better, more logical and more honest than religion which makes faithclaims, which is bad enough even if the evidence is good, but it's worse when the claim is held true when the evidence points the other way.

Yes, I agree with this. We're better off listening to evidence than faith. But since we can't know, if we structure our definitions on knowing who is correct, then we've created a definition that we can never be sure about. In other words, a useless definition.

That's why I say anyone who identifies as a Christian is a Christian. 1213 says, be true to the word of Jesus. Now, I don't claim to be a Christian but let's pretend I did. It's obvious to me that Jesus preached masochistic pacifism. In other words, love your enemies(1), never hit back(2), and always forgive everything everyone does to you no matter how egregious(3).

1. To me love means don't do anything bad to them in addition to don't be mad at them. Do they need a swift kick in the head from me to be saved and change their ways? If I think I know that, I'm judging them. As a Christian I can't do that.
2. I do NOT buy that turn the other cheek means anything else or is some analogy for something.
3. Forgiveness doesn't just mean "oh well I forgive him but Imma take revenge anyway," it's also about what you do.

My quarrels are at least legit and we absolutely can't know whose interpretation is right. So which interpretation is the word of Jesus? If we have to figure this out to sift Christian from Not-Really-Christian, we have created a totally useless definition.

So a Christian is anyone who identifies as a Christian. I don't want to hear this not-real stuff, for any faith, unless the person making the claim of not-real-Christian is literally the Christian God.

Yes. The thing is that the play nice message from Jesus can be presented as Gospel truth and any problems can just be evaded. '

1. To me love means don't do anything bad to them in addition to don't be mad at them. Do they need a swift kick in the head from me to be saved and change their ways? If I think I know that, I'm judging them. As a Christian I can't do that.
2. I do NOT buy that turn the other cheek means anything else or is some analogy for something.
3. Forgiveness doesn't just mean "oh well I forgive him but Imma take revenge anyway," it's also about what you do.

So why go to the Bible, anyway? If we have to do ethics and morality, let's do them right away and not first do them, then try to fiddle the Bible to fit it.

Quite apart from the topic of defining Christians (as an atheist I take a Christian as one who says they or them are) but onto the matter of validating the Bible as a guide to good morals, to me it is just a detour with religion trying to suck one in as well. Anyway, I would even less go to the Bible for a def of Christian. Let them argue who is and who is not.

the belief that God is downloading true information into their heads,

It would certainly explain things more if God was not a nice person,

It would. And if I were a betting man, and you tell me it's all real, based on what I know, I would bet on God not being nice at all. However, the kicker is that this is not the bet. If God is not nice or fair, but still makes the rules, he's not going to reward us for heeding him. He already has seventeen different loopholes written in, to make sure we get punished on a technicality we had no idea of. So it's useless to heed such a god. If God is fair and nice, we ought to heed him. And a fair God really would make sure we knew right from wrong before we did it. So to me, the "I know because God's downloading the truth into my brain," makes good sense.

I find it hard to follow you quite often It's like I am reading a string of reasons not to credit the god claim - an intervening one, anyway, and then we get the odd idea that 'God is downloading truth into our brains" which I think is what GodFaith is, and the curious suggestion that this makes sense. I would almost think you are being ironic about someone who thinks that way - but you don't. Well, you are wherever you are on the Path of Realisation

address the actual problems in life, without Biblical falseclaims making matters harder for us.

A fair god would want us to do that.

Same thing again. Essentially it sounds like "a god is leaving it like a god wasn't there at all'. And supposing that is done for good reasons. But already a host of implications are hollering at me that it isn't fair at all and what this is is near secularism with a residual 'god' claim hanging on for sentimental reasons. Close? Cigar?

[Purple Knight]

So why go to the Bible, anyway? If we have to do ethics and morality, let's do them right away and not first do them, then try to fiddle the Bible to fit it.

I agree.

I find it hard to follow you quite often It's like I am reading a string of reasons not to credit the god claim - an intervening one, anyway, and then we get the odd idea that 'God is downloading truth into our brains" which I think is what GodFaith is, and the curious suggestion that this makes sense.

The downloading morality into their brains makes perfect sense if you believe there's a fair god. He would download correct moral information into peoples' brains so nobody can lie. He wouldn't, if he had the power to decree morality, write, "It is immoral to do the hokey-pokey near a one-legged black dog," and then rub his hands together in sadistic glee knowing he'll catch somebody who didn't know. And given that people do lie and withhold information, the only way to be sure people got it, was to make sure they understood it inherently.

I have no idea whether god exists or not but I'd want to heed him if he was fair, and ignore him if he was an unashamed sadist.

[TRANSPONDER]

So why go to the Bible, anyway? If we have to do ethics and morality, let's do them right away and not first do them, then try to fiddle the Bible to fit it.

I agree.

I find it hard to follow you quite often It's like I am reading a string of reasons not to credit the god claim - an intervening one, anyway, and then we get the odd idea that 'God is downloading truth into our brains" which I think is what GodFaith is, and the curious suggestion that this makes sense.

The downloading morality into their brains makes perfect sense if you believe there's a fair god. He would download correct moral information into peoples' brains so nobody can lie. He wouldn't, if he had the power to decree morality, write, "It is immoral to do the hokey-pokey near a one-legged black dog," and then rub his hands together in sadistic glee knowing he'll catch somebody who didn't know. And given that people do lie and withhold information, the only way to be sure people got it, was to make sure they understood it inherently.

I have no idea whether god exists or not but I'd want to heed him if he was fair, and ignore him if he was an unashamed sadist.

Yes, but it isn't good enough, is it? You know the excuse 'God doesn't want robots'. But if downloading morality into our heads isn't making Robots, why would downloading an effective morality everyone agrees on (let alone observe) make us any more robotic? ]]It is of course an excuse for why God's work isn't better. Some say God can't make his reality too obvious; others blame Satan. It is all excuses for an inadequate argument.

One i find far more satisfactory is the natural evolution argument, and is supported of course by examples of rudimentary animal behavior, good and bad. Humans have has to devise a working system to deal with a complex society.

In short, Biology and evolution, logic and science, has a better explanation of morals than a god, whichever one the apologist is rooting for..

[Mae von H]

Hello Mae von H

You say - "Christianity at its core is a relationship. So it’s like answering the question as to how really loves their spouse. If you start to name the measure being deeds, they can be faked, done with no love. If you name a ceremony, the same."

-------
I probably, fundamentally, disagree with you (not a problem). You could use a lot of scripture in both OT, and NT, to support your suggestion. I do not see it that way. Work is, love made manifest, in my book.
It is the Ledger.

Matthew 21
'28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.'

Thanks

If you decide to think of Christianity as a kind of club, then, of course, works are primary. Love and relationships secondary, The Catholic church is an example of a works first and foremost institution. The Protestants protested for a reason.

Jesus will tell many who come to him full of works that he didn’t know them. No relationship. So if one is following Jesus, not merely joining a club, then that relationship is first and foremost.