What is your opinion on this definition for the noun "Christian?"

[ZombieHorde]

We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe that they follow Yeshua of Nazareth's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ's) teachings as they understand them to be.

I got this definition from religioustolerance.org: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrdefnresp.htm

I like it, and I have used it for years. Though it seems a little longer than I remember it, the spirit is still the same.

I think this definition for Christian is the most objective definition I have encountered.

[cbayer]

1. Not bad, although I think the "devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously,

and prayerfully" part is very stringent. The second line, which uses the word "honestly" and "understand them to be", is better and much more inclusive.

[Angry Dragon]

2. and at the same time it allows for all different

kinds of followers
even the ones that believe that it is okay
to discriminate against others
to treat women with contempt
to feel they can tell others how to live

Edit:
Perhaps it would be better to actually list the things one has to do and believe to be able to call themselves a Christian

[ZombieHorde]

3. What method would be used to determine which of the things attributed to

Jesus Christ were literal, metaphorical, or no longer apply?

The current method is one's own politics, but different people have different politics.

[Thats my opinion]

4. There is a scholarly discipline dedicated to this question.

It is far better than either pop opinions or opinions formed by some apriori set of creedal statements--such as"The Bible is the unerring word of God."

[ZombieHorde]

5. What if those scholars claimed something you didn't agree with?

Would you stop calling yourself a Christian, or would you still use the term to describe yourself?

What if there was disagreement among the scholars?

In my opinion, the majority of people who disagreed with the official list would probably consider the list biased or dumb.

[Thats my opinion]

8. Scholars disagree all the time. Just as any literary critics or scientists do.

If you don't believe that, just read ANY scientific journal. I don't quit believing in science because their scholars and researchers come up with a great variety of "facts."

The best religious arguments are within the fraternity.

[ZombieHorde]

12. That makes my point: an official list for what is and is not Christian, is basically impossible.

In my opinion, the definition created by religioustolerance.org is the most objective.

[Angry Dragon]

6. So then everything in the Bible is literal

[Thats my opinion]

9. I said the opposite nt

[Angry Dragon]

10. Then I need you to expand on that

edit: added word 'you'

[dmallind]

20. Very little of which is known or cared about by most Christians

I emjoy theology. I really do. I'm a dilettante obviously, but I understand what you mean here certainly. What I think folks like yourself gloss over too much though is that even my level of interest and study, let alone yours, is matched by a tiny fraction of believers. Christology, higher criticism, textual analysis, Q reconstruction and sapiential eschatology are not just closed books to 99% of believers but banned and burned books too.

It would be wonderful if all believers knew how to identify primary sources, or even cared about them, but they don't. Such things are rarely mentioned at churches, especially the charismatic warehouse megachurches that are growing while other congregations wither. We - not just atheists either - have to deal with religions and adherents as they exist and as they think, not as they should think.

I don't know why it is that theologians are so prone to present their highly specialized knowledge as the understanding of Christianity that outsiders must address and respond to. Steven Hawking doesn't pretend that we need to deal with idiots who think CERN will end the world by presenting them with PhD-level dissertations on 11 dimensional M theory. Why do we need to respond to morons who think the world is 6000 years old and atheists are eagerly awaited by a red-skinned guy with a pitchfork by addressing refined points of why the Prodigal Son has a 70 or 75% probability of being an authentic saying? Very few people care, fewer still understand, and a handful (certainly not including me) are qualified to judge. The rest of is have to handle the loonies on their level.

[Angry Dragon]

7. Are you saying that god's words sometimes go out of style??

That god is open to interpretation??

[Thats my opinion]

11. Sorry,

You are playing a rhetorical trick.

The Bible is the way people understood God, coming up out of human experience. The usual use of "God's word" is that it came down from up here somewhere.

Muslims believe that the revelation is the exact words of Allah. Christians have never--until the rise of fundamentalism-- had that notion. In my church we ended the reading of the Bible with the words, "this is the testimony of the people of God."

[Angry Dragon]

13. Thank you for the answer

however my question was directed to Zombie

[ZombieHorde]

15. "this is the testimony of the people of God."

That is pretty interesting to me. The Catholic churches I attended never said anything that self aware.

[ZombieHorde]

16. Wait, did you mean to reply to me?

If so, I am saying the interpretation is different for different people, and the interpretation seems to be based on politics.

[Angry Dragon]

17. Yes I was replying to you

It just seems that if an interpretation of a god is based on politics then does that god really exist then??
The Christian religion is based on belief and good deeds. By these things salvation is rewarded. If belief and good deeds shift, does then salvation shift also and does it really exist??

[ZombieHorde]

18. I was offering my own viewpoint, which atheistic at best,

and nihilistic otherwise, according to some.

I assume most theists strongly disagree with my viewpoint that we create god in our own image. Of course I can't prove that claim, so it probably says more about me than them.

[Angry Dragon]

19. There were so many writings that were not included

in the Bible when it was compiled because they went against
the story the catholics wanted to convey that so much is up in
the air.

St. Thomas talks about god inside all of us. That the search for god starts inside
and not outside. If god exists inside each of us why would we need an organization
to guide us??

[Thats my opinion]

14. I certainly agree with your edit nt