OK, let's finally define Christianity

[Goblinmonger]

I have a little voice in my head that tells me most liberal progressive Christians are really deists, but that is a different story (and I mean that will all love--two of my high school classmates are Catholic priests and one has freely admitted to me that he is more in line with the deists).

Let's nail down a definition of what it means to be Christian. I don't want specific exclusions (though inclusive/exclusive definitions are good, just not nitpicky little exclusions or exclusions like "not Bush") but nice clear dogmatic lines. I want to be able to discuss Christianity on here and know we are using the same meaning of the word.

Disclaimer: I don't think it can be done, but I want to give it a try. Remember that I view R/T as the arena and am not going to go gentle on this definition stuff. I think that is only fair.

I'll give my thought first:

A Christian is somebody who believes in the god of Abraham and that Jesus Christ was the son of that god come to earth as a man.

[trotsky]

1. No, check this one out.

I'm pretty sure it's accurate because a whole bunch of Christian DUers seem to run with it.

"A Christian is someone who doesn't do bad things."

[struggle4progress]

62. "I do not the good I want but the evil I do not want" -- St Paul

This is not ineffably subtle but it involves inevitable psychological tension: since the earliest days, traditional variants of Christianity have always taught that we should strive to be perfect, that we will constantly fail in that striving, and that we should condemn neither others nor ourselves for honest failures.

[bryant69]

2. hmmmmm.

What makes it difficult is that there is an exception to every rule. I can say that in my opinion a Christian is someone that believes that salvation comes through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is in my mind the key point to Christianity, the thing that makes it work, and the thing without which there wouldn't be Christianity. The core concept.

But of course there are some faiths that don't believe that (am thinking of some Gnostic faiths, but in the back of my mind there is someone else i'm forgetting, but I can't pull it forward).

The simplest answer may be the sort of self reflective one. Christianity is the belief system of those who call themselves Christians.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Finder]

4. Your definition makes it impossible to critique or debate Christianity...

as a religion.

Christianity has so many sects with contradictory doctrines and beliefs that in reality it does not exist as a religion per se.

Some followers of said sects think their beliefs are those of "real" Christianity.

Today, Christianity is more a philosophy held by many than a religion. As the OP states, most who identify as christians--especially the leaders--are actually deists when questioned.

[bryant69]

5. Well, yeah

I guess it would depend on what the point to such debate and critique would be. I mean certainly you could take the major American religions, the ones that make up most congregations in the United States, and look at their similarities. And from that construct a sort of template of what American Christianity generally is. But all involved would have to understand that these are generalizations only, and there are Christians who might reject each and every general principle you come up with.

I would also caution about making them all Deists - I am not an expert in Deism, but as I understand it it posits a non-Personal God? The Watchmaker? He made things and then walked away and now we are on our own. While I'm sure there are many who do fit that category, I'm sure there are many who feel like they do have a personal relationship with God - that their prayers are meaningful. I don't know how best to put this.

I do know that people we like we tend to see ourselves in, such that I have to be careful when I meet an atheist, one that I feel a rapport with, not to think, deep down, "This is just a phase he or she's going through, sooner or later he or she'll come around and seek after God."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Finder]

10. Many atheists did actively seek...

and found nothing--or at least no evidence to base any belief on.

Have you as a believer considered/examined the basis of many of your beliefs?

[bryant69]

12. I never know how to answer to that question

I mean it is a little insulting isn't it? I'm 36 years old and I've been going to Church my whole life, and I never once examined my faith? But I assume you didn't mean any offense, so none taken.

Well yes I have. Repeatedly.

Let me also point out that the point to that question was that I have to be careful not to assume that Atheists will one day come to seek after God. Just as it might be a wise idea for Atheists not to assume that the religious people they know, particularly ones who seem reasonable and interesting, don't really believe in all that superstition.

Bryant

[Finder]

15. No insult intended...

but I know as a former believer much of the history I accepted as factual and as a basis for many of my beliefs were false. The theology, on the other hand, was interesting and even rational from a sociological and psychological standpoint. I still find the Jewish/Christian philosophy has many merits without the supernatural concepts held by many of the laity. Other religions do as well.

Religion can be used for good and is for the most part. When it is used within or outside government to control, oppress, cause bigotry, or cause wars it needs to be contained/neutralized as it was during the reformation, the enlightenment and many other revolutions throughout history including our own.

[bryant69]

16. I certainly aree with that last paragraph

I recommend the Godless Constitution if you haven't read it already - posted a review of it at my website. It's very good.

As for the first part - I don't belive that relgion is very good at answering, say, historical questions. Or Science questions. It answers religious questions pretty well.

Bryant

[Finder]

20. Unfortunately, many try to frame spiritual matters in historical and...

even scientific terms to gain followers. To use a religious quote, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Religious leaders who would have their followers toss reason and rationality to the wind should not be trusted.

[bryant69]

21. I would agree with that as well.

Bryant

[sam sarrha]

3. good job of defining it for yourself.. but you missed a point.. the god of

jesus is a loving forgiving father, seeking lost lambs to save.

Abraham was an idle maker in Sumeria, he made an idle of prosperity and his son, Abraham, stoled it and went to Egypt with his little cult to make their fortunes..

the god of abraham was jealous, cruel and war like..if you were a Hindu.. that would be a Demi-God, not a god..by definition. anyway...the god of Jesus was totally different he was a loving nurturing father, the god o abraham dictated that you stone to death your own family and friends if they did such horrendous things like draw water on the Sabbath.. take slaves as a wife.. that today is a sex crime called Rape. kill your children for simple mistakes..

the god of abraham and jesus are obviously NOT the same. if you took out all the other peoples comments in the new testament and didn't tell anyone where they came from.. and asked a scholar of religions.. they would say it was Buddhism, with a few pages missing. and having lived at the cross roads of the old silk road from china and india.. and buddhism was spreading for 500 years at the time it is likely he could have been influenced by conversations from people who were buddhists, people at the time took in travelers for extra cash, trade and conversation. times were tough.

[Goblinmonger]

7. So the Old Testament is not applicable to Christianity?

I think you would be in the VAST minority with that. The god in the old testament is not the "father" to whom Jesus refers?

[Brentos]

31. He did?

Did the God of Abraham really ask those thing?

Did the priestly writers add to the law of Moses at later dates? (If so, does the bible tell us this is true?)

Were the followers of Yahweh monotheistic for the most part?

Was the God of Abraham (Yahweh) also a loving nurturing God? Is there evidence of this?

what do the prophets and Jesus tell us of the truth?

Thoughts for you to research.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Traditional Christianity has two foundational beliefs

I contend that, when you take all of the creeds, Councils, and theological disputations of the last 1950 years or so and distill them down to the common elements, two principles remain:

1) Every human being, without salvation from God, stands condemned.

2) The only source of God's salvation is Jesus.

Everything else -- the nature and mechanism of salvation, the meaning of "condemned", the relationship between God and Jesus, etc. -- are matters of interpretation and tradition which define and clarify these principles.

I then contend that a system which accepts these two principles can be called Christian. Any system which does not is not Christian.

[cosmik debris]

14. Is it only belief?

Are actions not counted?

If belief is the only thing necessary, then it is impossible to tell who is Christian and who is not. I can't read minds so I will never know. And anyone who says someone else is not a Christian is pretending to read minds. Did I get that right?

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. Yes

Christianity, which the OP was looking to define, is a matter of beliefs. Application of those beliefs, either individually or corporately, is not relevant to the question of defining Christianity except when the application touches on or derives from what I assert are the two principles of Christian belief.

That isn't to say that individual or corporate actions (and inactions) can not be measured against a more general metric of moral and/or ethical behavior.

[cosmik debris]

19. I like that

Actions only tell us about a persons behavior, not their beliefs. So it is possible to be a Christian and start a war, rape children, and amass enormous wealth, even though those behaviors are not Christian behaviors.

The compartmentalization and isolation of belief from behavior certainly makes it easier to understand Christianity from the atheist point of view.

[Brentos]

25. Correct

You are absolutely correct. But, because of the separation of belief/action in many people, it should help you quickly identify the hypocritical Christians. Now, not every Christian who sins is hypocritical, as we all sin (our belief), but the hypocritical ones condemn others while doing sin themselves. It is one thing to guide and educate, but to condemn when you, yourself are condemnable (which, Christians believe, we all are, as sin is pervasive) is abhorrent. Christianity is meant to lead other to it by the actions Christians do...but unfortunately, I usually see the opposite affect based on the actions and hypo-criticalness of Christians. One thing many Christians don't seem to understand or ever even have learned, is that the laws of God are *only* intended for the people who have chosen to follow him (old testament). So, any Christian pointing to an atheist and condemning them for not following Gods law, is in the wrong. Their goal should be to show how great the world would be if we all acted like Jesus, thus attracting more people.

To paraphrase (butcher) a saying, why point out the speck of dust in someone's eye when you, yourself have a log jammed into yours.

[cosmik debris]

28. I don't see how it will help

to distinguish between hypocritical Christians and others if I can't tell who is a Christian in the first place. I guess I have to ask about the beliefs of a person before I can make the distinction. So what about people who lie about their beliefs? (just playing devil's advocate)

[Brentos]

30. It may not help.

Basing this on today's world, for the most part, you can't tell who is a Christian in the first place unless they tell you. That is a bad sign for the Christian.

What do you mean abut lie-ing about their beliefs? Claiming to be Christian while truly a follower of Islam? Making up stuff that the religion claims is true, while knowing that it isn't? Give me some specifics, I'd love to continue this discussion.

[cosmik debris]

32. Well, suppose

A person professed a belief in Christ and used the trust that he gained from his fellow believers to start a cult or some other scam. That is an example with a basis in history. How do you know when to call Bullshit on a person who says that they are a believer. And what good does it do to see the light AFTER you have swallowed the Kool-Aid or signed over you life savings?

I wonder if it is both a sin and a necessity to be judgmental?

[Brentos]

33. Okay, that makes sense...

People need to educate themselves in the Bible (whether believers or not). Read bible commentaries, historical explanations, etc. Because, unfortunately, most Christians do not do this.

Jesus never asked anyone for money. God has entrusted each of us with different talents and treasures, and we (as Christians) are supposed to use those in his service (not some communist type deal, either) as best we can. Helping out a church is one thing, having someone ask for a large percentage or all of you time/money is another. Then, you are doing the church's (cult, group, etc.) bidding, not god's. Jesus asks that we take our money and help the poor. Not funnel into some guru's coffers or into a large golden throne TV show.

This will help you call-out the BS'ers. And we all should, so that they don't scam my grandma, the immigrant, the biblically ignorant, me, etc.

I would never claim or say that they aren't Christian, as I can't see in their heart/mind, but I can call them out on not following the teachings of Christ.

As for an individual, keep prodding them to the point where they don't have answers. If they start making up stuff or just say "because" or something similar, then they may only think that they have the answers. If they are a Christian who is always striving to be better, they will try to find the answer, if not, then they won't. I'm sure you could push me far enough in many areas where I don't have the answers. I don't claim to, but I am always searching. I'm currently in a two-year cover-to-cover Bible study that explains the whole Bible, in many ways that I've found contradictory to most church teachings, but are consistent with the Bible.

And also, never take anyone's word (especially not mine). People need to do some balanced research when they here strong declaratives from believers.

to your last questions, judgmentalness seems to be inherent in most humans when they think they have the "true" or "correct" answer and the rest of the poor sheeple don't. Jesus explicitly warns against this.

[cosmik debris]

35. Well, that's food for thought

But please allow me to make this a little more personal.

My experience with self-identified Christians is that 2/3 are hateful, vicious, greedy, and despicable. But the other 1/3 are pretty nice folks that don't strike fear in the hearts of children, they never kick dogs or say bad things about people who are different from them.

So the real mystery to me is how can I tell the difference without in-depth investigation? And why should I waste my time investigating when the odds are not promising? And why should I care? If you choose to self-identify with Jerry Falwell, why should I believe that you are not another Falwell? Have you guys got a secret hand shake or something?

I have to be honest about it. When a person tells me they are Christian, my first thought is self defense. My second thought is run away! And my third thought is never go back there. So why should I take a chance on Christians? Why should I have to read the Bible in self defense as you suggested? Maybe you need a secret hand shake!

[Brentos]

37. Personal is good.

I can't change your personal experience, except to apologize for my fellow Christians. Many are hateful, vicious, greedy, and despicable, but I bet in no different numbers then the population at large. The sad part is, based on what they profess, they shouldn't be, or at least they should feel regret, apologize, and try to change for the better when they do these things.

The fact that you can't identify Christians properly is a fault of the Christians. I would say to you *not* to believe them, *not* to trust them, and *not* to follow them unless they have given you a compelling reason to (and "Because God said so" or "Because it is in the Bible" are not compelling reasons for a non-Christian). The Christians you have met have done God a bigger disservice then any non-believer could (from the POV of a believer). God doesn't expect the non-believer to do anything for Him, but he expects His believers to do works in His name which should attract the non-believer.

So, you have *no* reason to take a chance on Christians as they have failed their end of the relationship. And again, I apologize, as that is not how it should be. I would only ask that you accept that there are good Christians (who by no means are perfect) who do want to dialog with you and that feel shame and regret for their fellow Christians.

For the record, I sure don't identify with Falwell or most any televangelist or golden-throner. I will vocally say that as a Christian they offend me and my beliefs, and even the written Word of the Bible.

So, in summary, if I were you I *wouldn't* care if someone was Christian or not, just if they were a good person or not. If enough people you choose to have around you that are good, turn out to be Christians, then maybe open a dialog and see what makes them tick. If Christians come around and throw Bibles at you...run! :-)

[cosmik debris]

41. Yeah, But...

A secret hand shake wouldn't hurt!

[Brentos]

42. Ha!

You cracked me up at work! :-)

How 'bout a secret signal for Christians who feel the pain of non-Christians to give to non-Christians when they are being confronted by evangelical Christians! Sort of a sad head shake side-to-side with a knowing wink saying, let's ditch this loser and get a drink! (Well, Diet Coke for me).

[cosmik debris]

43. Atheists have one you know.

It's just like the Freemasons but with less thumb action.

[TechBear_Seattle]

34. "Actions only tell us about a persons behavior, not their beliefs"

Correct.

By way of example, look at the many holy wars that Christians have started, among themselves over doctrine (the whole point of the Council of Nicea was to stop the open warfare between followers of Athanasius and Arius,) against various "unbelievers" (the Crusades, Inquisition and the wars stemming directly from the Reformation) and against any of a number of "subhumans" (look at the deliberate genocide of Native Americans by European settlers.)

For another example, the amassing of enormous wealth was the entire point of Columbus' voyages; "Gold, glory and God" was the stated goal. A deeply religious man, Columbus had no qualms about enslaving the Caribes and working them to death to take gold and other valuables for the glory of Their Catholic Magesties.

The actions of these people in the last 2000 years can be judged according to the standards of their day and by the standards of today, but there is no way they can be judged as "christian" or "unchristian," not in any meaningful way.

[cosmik debris]

36. That's fine with me

But posts number 9 and 17 say you have to behave like a Christian too. Just because I like your definition better doesn't make them wrong.

Do you have any thoughts on those posts?

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. I think I've covered that

One can set up any number of standards of behavior based firmly on Christian Scriptures. Often times, those standards of behavior will have points which are diametrically opposite to other standards of behavior which are equally based on Christian Scriptures.

Take the issue of slavery. There is nothing in the Bible which prohibits the owning of another person. Indeed, both Hebrew and Greek Scriptures are chock full of references indicating that slavery is perfectly acceptable. And yet, the vast majority of Christians in the developped world would react with shock and outrage if they learned that their Christian neighbor owned slaves.

Then there is the issue of polygamy. In the Hebrew Scriptures, most of the patriarchs and kings held up as examples of Godliness had more than one wife. In the Greek Scriptures, only deacons and bishops are required to have one wife; there is no similar restriction on believers in general. One could argue that the prohibition against polygamy is unchristian; one could also argue that all believers are priests and thus are limited to only one spouse. A similar argument could be made against the Catholic and Orthodox churches, as Scriptures very clearly state that deacons and bishops must have one wife and thus priestly celebacy is unchristian. Which of these disparate opinions are christian, and which are not?

In the end, there is no way to judge behaviors as "christian" or "unchristian," as any behavior can be justified or condemned in light of Christian Scriptures (and probably has been.) The closest one can get is to say, "My understanding of Christianity makes that unchristian behavior as far as I'm concerned." But there is no logical step from that to "No Christian would engage in such behavior."

[cosmik debris]

40. Indeed!

Judging by works is a subjective evaluation while judging by belief is absolute. And belief is not a shaded value.

[Zhade]

61. You got it EXACTLY right.

This is why Christians who say "b*s* is not one of us" may be wrong - they don't know either way, because as you say they cannot read his mind to determine his beliefs.

From where I sit, he's a Christian who uses his beliefs to kill, torture, lie, cheat and steal.

Not all Christians are like that, though.

[cosmik debris]

8. Some use belief and others use actions

to define Christianity. From the outside looking in, how can I tell who is a Christian and who isn't?

[demwing]

9. Technically, A Christian is one who follows Christ

Do onto others, turn the other cheek, love your enemy, love God, don't judge, etc.

Everything dealing with Jesus' divinity, and the concept that makind is saved only through the sacrifice on the cross is Paulism.

Jesus nver taught anything remotely close to Paulism.

[Goblinmonger]

11. Two Questions

1. So you don't have to believe that Jesus was divine to be a Christian?
2. A specific list of tenets would be needed. What about the nasty parts?

[demwing]

44. Two Answers :)

Q. So you don't have to believe that Jesus was divine to be a Christian?

That really depends on who you ask. Ask a member of a denomination that accepts Jesus as God, and the answer will be "Yes, you must accept Jesus as God..."

Ask outside of those denominations and you'll get a different answer. This is why I began my original statement with "technically...," because technically, a Christian IS a follower of Christ. And again, Jesus never taught that he was divine.

2. A specific list of tenets would be needed. What about the nasty parts?

Lol. What are the "nasty" parts?

[cosmik debris]

13. That implies that it is only your actions that make a Christian.

Is there no requirement for belief?

[demwing]

45. That is one of the questions that Christianity scholars

like to discuss.

Does redemption through Christianity come from faith, works, or a combo plate?

Paul taught that faith alone is required. In the book of James it is taught that faith without works is dead.

But faith in what? Faith that Jesus is God? Faith that God IS God? Faith that God loves you? What exactly is faith? Is it belief in that which can not be proven? Is it simply trust in God?

Those are the questions which Christians struggle to answer.

In a way, Chrisianity is becomming like Hinduism. There is no single definition for either, and the spiritual aspects of the belief system are/have been replaced by a social/political structure.

[cosmik debris]

49. But Paul never even met Jesus

And sometimes I wonder what he might have said if he did meet Jesus.

But the best thing I know about faith is that eventually a person must decide for themselves what it is that they have faith in. That seems to be where they pick up their labels. If you don't like your label, you have to re-evaluate that faith thing. I think that's a good thing.

[demwing]

51. No he did not, at least not in the flesh.

Paul claims he saw Jesus on the road to Damascuss, but those who were with him didn't see a thing. And then Paul, who had previously been a Christian hunter for the government, suddenly converts, and claims a new knowledge of the mysteries of Chritianity, beyond that of the intimate and personal associates of Jesus.

It was not taught that Christ was god, not before Paul. And it is this teaching that changed the very nature of Christianity. If someone wanted to subvert a movement, they could not have picked a better method.

Paul/Saul doesn't pass the smell test to me.

[bloom]

17. I basically agree with that

While there is stuff in the Gospels that give people the idea that Jesus is the only way - not all Christians believe that.

If the definers want a definition that covers all Christians - they would have to go with - >

"A Christian is one who follows Christ" - "Do onto others, turn the other cheek, love your enemy, love God, don't judge, etc."


Those are the only things that Christians are supposed to agree with - from my experiences with different types of denominations.


AFAIC - Christians do NOT even have to believe that "God" is a being. They could consider "him/her" to be symbolic. They could consider Jesus to be symbolic. People who study early Christianity realize how corrupted it was, anyway.


Of course you would have people who would disagree. But there is nothing new with that.

[greendog]

22. Christianity was "defined" in 325AD at Nicene.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father ,
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. The problem with your definition

There are a great many acknowledged Christians who do not follow Nicene Christianity. The Coptic Church and Syrian Orthodox (if memory serves) reject the statement "of one Being with the Father" (in Greek, "homoousios") and instead hold that the Son is of similar being with the Father ("homoiousios.") Western Christianity, Catholic and Protestant both, hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (in Latin, "filioque") and not from the Father alone.

Who, then are the Christians?

[JerseygirlCT]

70. I think that may define some parts of the *religion* (institution)

(Not all abide by that creed), but it doesn't necessarily define the faith.

[Brentos]

23. Hope this helps

First, you are right, it may not be possible, just as defining atheism seems not quite possible here. There are many interpretations.

Christianity is now a large umbrella word covering many types of Christians.

One could argue that a "true" Christian is one who follows the teachings and beliefs of Christ. In that definition, a Christian would believe that the God of Abraham is the same loving God that is incarnate in Jesus the Christ. A Christian would then have faith and belief in the teachings of Christ and act in accordance, for faith without works is dead. So, you should be able to tell a Christian by their acts (but trust me, you rarely seem to, which is an issue with the people of the faith, not the faith itself). God appointed his people to be a beacon of light to the world, and gave them (not others) guidance and laws to separate them from the rest of the world as a light attracts those from the dark. Mankind has always, and continues to corrupt the teachings and works, as we are selfish beings, but we should continue to strive for the ideals set by God and Jesus (not David and priestly redactors).

From that, many types, or sub-types of Christian have emerged, some by word, some by deed. They are all Christians, as that is how they have identified themselves, just as there are at least three definitions of atheist here that I have seen. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes debate tough, as neither party may agree even with the basic premise/definition of the other party.

My personal belief as a Christian is that the Bible is the revealed story that God wants us to read. It is a dialog between mankind and deity (parts are written by man, parts dictated by God, for a better understanding of which is which, carefully read the prophets and Jesus, and contrast them with the David/Solomon era). It is a story that a lifetime of study will not fully comprehend, but the more we are in the Word, the better our understanding. But, I guess I am deist a bit in that I think God is mostly hands-off in the world between Jesus and the second coming (ie no miracles, but still can act as a personal beacon if looked for).

[cosmik debris]

26. Defining atheism is easy

I have posted this many times and I have never seen it disputed.

The only attribute common to all atheists is that theist disagree with us.

The only statement to which all atheists agree is "I do not believe."

Can you boil Christianity down to a statement like:

The attributes common to all Christians are ...?

The beliefs common to all Christians are...?

[Brentos]

29. Sure.

The attributes common to all Christians are a belief in Christ

The beliefs common to all Christians (or at least should be) are those of Christ (I'm not going to reprint his saying here).

But, you can get into lots of debate from there, just as you can with replacing Christian with Republican or Democrat.

Now, a better discussion may be what attributes *should* Christians have if they truly are followers of Christ, and compare them to their actual attributes. Big difference, there.

[bryant69]

46. Yes but asking that last question

is code for "bad people aren't Christians" which is another way of saying that "Bad peopel must be something other than Christian." See Trotsky's post up at the top of the page.

Bryant

[Brentos]

55. I don't buy that framework. No code was intended.

The idea is that Christians should be more Christ-like. If you consider that good, then they should be good people. You can have non-Christians be as good as, or even better by some measures then a Christian. I don't see how one precludes the other. But then, what are we defining as "good"? If "good" is defined as acting like Christ, then those who follow Christ (theoretically to the best of their ability) would be the most "good" based on that definition. If you are defining "good" in a different secular sense, then non-Christians would more likely be most "good". The opposite holds true for "bad".

I don't see how the following questions assume that non-Christians are bad:

How should Christians act?

What is good?

Nor do I see how Christian/non Christian good/bad are mutually exclusive, all four combinations can be true.

[bryant69]

57. Wether you buy it or not, it's there.

It's why some atheists get upset when DU Christians proclaim that President Bush is not a Christian - they see that as an insensitive and ignorant thing to say.

Bryant

[bloom]

47. "The only statement to which all atheists agree is "I do not believe."

No. You have NOT been paying attention. That is precisely the thing that starts wars around here. Saying that atheism has anything to do with belief.

For example (notice that several sub-threads were deleted):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2398683#2404377

[bryant69]

48. Atheists can be just as touchy as Christians

When it comes to the importance of correctly stating their opinion.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

50. I don't get your point

Are you saying that there is another statement to which all atheist agree? Or are you saying that all atheists don't agree with the a statement "I do not believe"?

[bloom]

52. I am saying

that there are quite a few atheists around here who take offense to the idea that they "Believe" or "Do Not Believe" anything. They think. That is the usual argument. They also don't want to be viewed as being in a negative position as if belief (in God) is the default position.

If you read through that thread (there have been many others - but that one seemed to cover a lot of territory) you might see what I'm talking about.

[cosmik debris]

53. Are you an atheist?

Do you disagree with the statement "I do not believe."

I won't read 350 posts just to try to figure out your point.

Can you produce any atheists that disagree with the statement "I do not believe."

Can you direct me to a post by an atheist who said that they disagree with the statement "I do not believe."

Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

[bloom]

54. I don't care...

(I am an atheist) if atheists say "I don't believe in God" or "I lack a belief in God" or "I know there is no God". I'm just mentioning that this is an argument for some people.

Here are snips from the thread where people are trying to define/clarify this. (This thread mostly deals with the idea that atheism is not a belief system - but some people don't like the use of "belief" attached to atheism at all.)




I lack belief in God, but I don't believe there is no God.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2398683#2398731

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2398683#2398731

Atheism is not a belief; it is the lack of one.

It is merely a lack of belief in others' asserted gods.

Strong atheists alone assert that there are no gods, as if evidence has been found to prove their nonexistence. Most atheists do NOT take this stance, and simply conclude - based on the overwhelming lack of objective, verifiable evidence outside believers' minds - that there's no point in believing in things for which no such evidence exists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2398683#2398731

Believers describe everything in terms of belief

We have no belief.

We simply have no reason to believe.

Get it?

Atheism is a belief like not having herpes is a disease.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2398683#2398731

Atheism is not a "belief system" but a thought system

While religionists believe there is a god, ghosts, unicorns, devils and angels, Atheists THINK these thing do not exist because no-one has yet to offer any verifiable physical evidence for them.

Thinking vs believing, that's the difference.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2398683#2398731

___________________________

From a different thread (this might be clearer):

"They believe there is no God"

is an incorrect statement. The proper statement is "They acknowledge openly that they have seen no evidence of god or gods."

There really is no "there" there. No belief, just a lack thereof.

Most atheists put themselves into the "not religious" closet, but there are other folks there, as well, believers who are uncomfortable with organization, liturgy, dogma. They range from unafilliated Christians, Jews, Muslims and a dozen other faiths to atheists who just don't want any trouble from religious militants.

My mother was in the "don't know and don't care" category of agnosticism. I'm generally out of the closet as an "I haven't seen gods or fairies or leprechauns or any of the other spooks, so show me already" type of atheist.

Nobody has ever shown me any of them. Oh, they wax terribly poetic at time, but poetry is not proof.

Now bring on the flames from the believers who can't imagine anyone who lacks belief, although they can imagine all sorts of people who lack other things.

Atheism is a belief like not playing football is a sport.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=92192

[cosmik debris]

56. You are contradicting an argument I did not make

I never mentioned god I only said "I do not believe."

There was NO MENTION of god.

You are adding stuff, changing verbs and taking great pains to distort my statements so that you can prove me wrong.

You say you are an atheist. Do you agree or disagree with the statement "I do not believe." Again, please note that there is no mention of god in that statement.

[bloom]

58. ok - so

Are you saying that you don't believe anything? or anybody. What exactly does "I do not believe" mean? - because I don't think it means anything.

[cosmik debris]

59. I stand by my statement

And you certainly have not proved me wrong.

peace.

[bloom]

60. "The only statement to which all atheists agree is "I do not believe."

I don't agree and I'm an atheist.

Because as I said - the statement is too unclear. I believe some people, I don't believe others. You have to say what you are talking about before I can agree or disagree with what it is that I believe or do not believe. I think that you are assuming that people know you are talking about God. I'm not making any assumptions. I do not agree with "I do not believe... that the majority of scientists agree that there is global warming caused by humans. Etc.

That makes you wrong. Sorry.

[cosmik debris]

63. So after all the bogus arguments and made up crap

You finally decided to answer the question I asked in post #50. So you win, but you managed to destroy your credibility along the way.

peace

[beam me up scottie]

64. Ha! bloom did that a long time ago.

She "believes" and still claims to be an atheist.

She's posted many threads in an attempt to redefine atheism (the latest being belief in a goddess, another was pantheism).

She consistently disagrees with everything most atheists agree on (like saying they don't believe).


IMNSHO, anyone who is trying on different deities and beliefs for size should really relinquish their claim to atheism, instead of trying to drag the rest of us along in his/her "quest" for truthiness.

[bloom]

72. I didn't make up anything.

I'll admit that I didn't understand the implication of your statement to begin with - I was not "adding stuff, changing verbs and taking great pains to distort my statements so that you can prove me wrong."


Actually - the argument that you have taken up makes sense than I thought. At least - the argument that I thought you were making seemed somewhat understandable.

Your argument is just like people who make assumptions about what God means (the actual thread topic) - or narrowly defining what religion means. You are taking ONE - or just part of the definition of "believe" and making that the only definition. If you take other parts - you are saying the equivalent of "I do not think".


v.tr.
To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
To credit with veracity: I believe you.
To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v.intr.
To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.
idioms:
believe (one's) ears

To trust what one has heard.
believe (one's) eyes
To trust what one has seen.

http://www.answers.com/topic/believe

_____________

I have noticed the word "know" used in religious stuff - just as easily as the word "believe". So the word does not change anything. To say that you know/to say that you believe - the only difference comes in when you are talking about what you are talking about. Ie. What do you know?

I think all of this is just silly semantics where people are trying to make words mean things differently than what most people think that they mean. And there is some oneupsmanship in the insistence by those who insist they "know" - and suggesting that others are inferior in their thinking.

If you made a statement like "I do not believe in anything supernatural" - at least people would know what you are talking about.

[cosmik debris]

78. On the contrary,

I used the verb “agree” as in “all atheists agree”. You couldn’t argue against that so you decided to substitute the verb “take offense”.

You added “God” to my statement because you were unable to dispute the original statement. But by adding “God” to the statement it gave you ammunition to advance your cause.

I believe that both of these qualify as distortions of my argument. You made them up out of thin air and without basis in fact.

I don’t believe that there is any point in arguing semantics or definitions. The reason I limited the statement “I do not believe.” Is because that was the only way to include all atheists (except you). I was trying to craft an inclusive statement of understanding. I failed to anticipate that petulant debaters would intentionally distort the position and attack my semantics.

So, allow me to repeat my statement from post #63: “you win”

In the future I will not say that all atheist agree to the statement “I do not believe.”

[bryant69]

24. By the way - I hope you notice how I'm not taking offense

at an attempt to understand and discus Christianity by non-Christians.

I don't find this offensive at all actually.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

65. That's because none of the definitions exclude you or redefine your belief

Ask the same question over at freeperville and see how long you remain unoffended.

Most DU atheists try to use the broader definitions of christian/muslim/jew/atheist etc. unlike SOME christians who constantly try to redefine atheism either because they are incapable of understanding the conceptg, or because they are using the definition(s) to support their own beliefs.

IMO, it's usually the christians who try to redefine their religion in order to exclude other christians.

[bryant69]

66. Yeah I've sure never seen a post around here

which had as it's point that Christians are Gullible morons. DU Atheists would never stoop that low.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

68. So your problem is reading comprehension, not religious intolerance?

I post:

Most DU atheists try to use the broader definitions of christian/muslim/jew/atheist etc. unlike SOME christians who constantly try to redefine atheism either because they are incapable of understanding the conceptg, or because they are using the definition(s) to support their own beliefs.

IMO, it's usually the christians who try to redefine their religion in order to exclude other christians.

And instead of refuting my point, you come back with:

Yeah I've sure never seen a post around here

which had as it's point that Christians are Gullible morons. DU Atheists would never stoop that low.

Do you ever wonder what that loud whooshing sound over your head is?

[bryant69]

71. Perhaps I missed your point

I think it was "DU Atheists Good, Some DU Christians Bad" But perhaps I misunderstood.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

73. Whooooooooooooosh!

Keep digging.

[beam me up scottie]

74. Just like you missed the point (repeatedly) in this thread?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3377661#3377686


You seem to have a chronic case of misunderstanding.

[bryant69]

75. Over a year ago that one was

I suppose it would be embarrasing if I hadn't learned anything since then.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

76. Pray tell,

What did you learn?

[bryant69]

81. Well I learned that it is offensive to some Atheists to

state "Atheists Believe" and I have learned that it is likewise offensive to say that "President Bush isn't a Christian"

I don't quite buy the logic behind that second one, but when it comes to offense it's sometimes more charitable to accept that something is offensive and not say or do it, whether you accept it or not

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

82. You mean like comparing religious belief to fairy tales or mental illness?

Something the majority of atheists in this forum pledged not to do specifically because it was so offensive.

Too bad some of the christians in here can't be as accommodating when it comes to letting atheists define their atheism.

[bryant69]

83. Heres some more amusing faux naivite

I said that regardless of whether it made sense to me or not (and it doesn't, entirely) I will try to refrain from saying "President Bush isn't a Christian" in the future. What beyond do you demand?

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

84. I demand nothing.

Individual posters must make their own decisions whether or not to respect others.

And frankly, while your original attempts to "understand" atheists were really very entertaining, the repeats are beginning to bore me.

[Evoman]

39. My definition of christians is simple.

A person who proffeses to worship Christ. Believing in christ is obviously not good enough, because Satanists (some satanists) believe in god and christ, but don't worship him.

If anyone disagrees with my definition, I could care less. I don't have the time nor energy to distinguish among the different churches or beliefs or sects or whatever. Getting into arguements about "true christians" is ridiculous....even the TERM "true christians" is judgemental, and by your own definition, excludes you from your own group.

To be honest, I don't distinguish at all between religions anyways, not really. If someone tells me their religious, I could care less what they call the non-sense they believe. From my point of view, its just babble. Its like someone penis size a)I don't care to know your penis size, b) I prefer you keep it your pants and not talk about it and c)Your penis size does not determine wether your a good or bad person. It is just irrelevant. If people keep trying to convince me of their character or tires to sell me something by going on and on about being Christojewimulsimbuhdditaoshindu, then I start wondering about their motives.

[immoderate]

67. You can't finally decide the definition of Christianity.

In English (and other languages as well) words have multiple meanings.

Dictionaries, which are journals of how words are used, are not proscriptive, they don't make the rules. My handy Mirriam Webster gives the definition you cite and then it also says: "commendably decent or generous" as a definition of Christianity.

So it doesn't matter what we say. We might as well be trying to decide the true meaning of "strike." Does it belong to baseball, bowling, labor, pugilism, prospecting, lightening, or matches? Will the real strike please stand up? :)

--IMM

[JerseygirlCT]

69. I'm with you on the can't really be done thing

Even your definition might not be broad enough, since for some Jesus' divinity isn't as crucial as his teachings.

I'm more content to allow people to self-identify. After all, a great deal of what passes for "true Christianity" sure misses the mark in my book. And I'm certain my beliefs would cause horror in some of their circles.

It's less a club to join than a challenge to take on, if that makes sense. Calling yourself Christian isn't quite meaningful -- actions speak far louder. And labels just don't do it in that context.

[Goblinmonger]

77. But self-identification isn't enough for discussion here

I am fine with that standard. But whenever we discuss christians here, many christians don't let people self-identify and I hear cries of "X is not a true Christian." I just want a solid definition so it doesn't feel like I have to chase the goalposts around the field whenever I am in a discussion.

[JerseygirlCT]

80. LOL, I understand. But the thing is, I'd have more problem with

those so eager to define Christianity (always in an exclusionist fashion, as you say: "X is not a true Christian", etc.).

I think there are a number of things about which people would love solid definitions... it's just that this may fall under the can't always get what you want category, you know?

I won't respond to posts about whether Bush is a "true Christian" for example. I don't really think that's a useful exercise, and it's almost always one that will come back to bite those willing to point fingers.

Do I believe he's sincere in his beliefs? I'm not sure I believe he's capable of sincerity. But that's a different angle on it, and not about whether he holds the correct theology, you know?

Same with anyone else eager to mark people as "in" or "out" of the Christianity club. It's not a label so much as a task, a challenge that one takes on. Some more fervently than others. But I think it's not for me to judge.

[SPKrazy]

79. I'm Much Less Concerned With Definitions These Days

to quote an Indigo Girls song

"the less I seek my source from some definitive, the closer I am to fine"

dogma, rules, etc. are unimportant to me.

I may be more of a Muslim than a Christian for all I know.

I have beliefs in a higher being. I socialize with Liberal Christians because they are available, and fun to be with.

My beliefs are fairly private things for me- although I'm willing to share them with someone if they ask me to.

So, the less I try to define my beliefs, the closer I am to fine, peaceful.

[Dorian Gray]

85. Personally,

I think a Christian in good standing (in any denomination) would believe in the Nicene Creed. I believe that it is the solid foundation of Christianity throughout the ages. If you don't believe in the tenets of the Creed, you probably are drifting from traditional Christian belief:


We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father ,
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[thingfisher]

86. A Christian is somebody who

believes in the god of Abraham and that Jesus Christ was the son of that god come to earth as a man. ...so far so good but incomplete... and died on the cross shedding His blood for the redemption of mankind.

The concept of substitutionary sacrifice is a thread that runs throughout the OT and which is also found in pagan religion (even including human sacrifice). The whole system of Old Testament laws are based on blood sacrifice from pigeons to rams and bullocks for various sins. The purpose was to remind the Jews (to whom the Laws applied)of their inability to approach their God in their unredeemed state which culminated yearly on the day of atonement.

The sacrifice of Christ on the cross, Christians believe, was the perfect sacrifice that was meant to redeem all men and reestablish contact with the creator God who offered Himself as a ransom for many.

The whole business only makes sense within the context of scripture, which is why so many people have dificulty in understanding Christianity in the first place. I think anyone can see the really uniqueness of Jesus in this regard. It is why Christians say that Jesus is the only way, because He was the designated and chosen sacrifice that alone could make proper atonement according to God's standards as set forth on the Bible.