What defines a Christian?

[laconicsax]

What doctrinal beliefs do ALL Christians share that can be agreed on AND make it distinct from any other religions? If there aren't any, then how can Christianity be defined as a specific religion as opposed to a loose philosophy?

I've seen the following broad definition and if you like, it can be a starting point:

A person is Christian only if they:
-Believe that a specific theistic God exists,
-that Jesus existed at the time of Pilate,
-that Jesus is an Incarnation of God
-that Jesus is a model of ethical behavior, and
-that person follows or attempts to follow the ethical teachings of Jesus.

Is this a just definition? If not, what needs amending?

[msongs]

1. without jesus you are going to that hot place even if you've lived a perfect life? nt

[laconicsax]

6. According to Martin Luther, yes.

Based on the teachings of Luther, a serial rapist could accept Jesus into his heart moments before death and go to heaven, while someone who spent their whole life doing good works could go to hell if they never truly accepted Jesus as their Savior.

The idea of faith alone guarantees salvation was a response to the selling of indulgences.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Yes, Martin Luther was so disgusted by the selling of indulgences,

which was the Catholic Church telling people that they could buy their way into heaven or buy the way of a dead loved one into heaven, that he went way in the opposite direction, saying that faith alone was the way to salvation.

He was also convinced that he was such a miserable sinner that there was no way he could earn his way into heaven through personal righteousness.

He was so fanatical about "faith alone" that he wanted to throw the Epistle of James out of the Bible, James being a book that talks about the necessity of good works. It's a wonder that he didn't throw out the Romans 2:12-16, which talks about righteous pagans being judged by the law that is written on their hearts.

[mikelewis]

20. No, you are not going to that hot place even if you didn't live a perfect life...

Proponents of that idea are idiots who will probably be spending a great deal of time in that hot place. FYI, You can even curse the name of Christ... spit on it and say he never even existed and still get into heaven... though it may be a bit tougher if that's the road you choose. Jesus was reported to have said that you can blaspheme his name and the name of his father but blasphemy's against the holy spirit would not be forgiven. He once told a story about two sons... the father tells the first son to go out into the field to work. The son tells the father, "Yes, I will go" and yet he walks out the door and doesn't do the work. The second son is told to go out in the field and work but that son defies him and says, "No, I will not go." and yet he goes out the door and does the work in spite of his defiance. Then Jesus asks the question, "Which one does his fathers' work?" That's the one who is saved, btw... the one who, even though he denied the father to his face, still went and labored... which is why if ever you should find heaven you can rest assured Gandhi has earned a place of high honor. And you don't have to live a perfect life... in fact, you can't live a perfect life, it's impossible... the best you can hope for is to live a life of progress, where every day you strive to be better than you were the day before... love a little more, hope a little more and grow a little more faith everyday... that's the best you can do and even in that you will fail so many times you'll wonder why the hell you ever set such an ambitious and unobtainable goal.

[laconicsax]

22. That's interesting.

It's also one of the little contradictions in the New Testament.

I'm assuming you're refering to the part in Matthew 12, Mark 3, and Luke 12 which all read about the same.
Matthew 12

(31)Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. (32)And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Acts 13 directly contradicts that, saying

(38)Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins (39) And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

So you have Jesus allegedly saying that only blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will count against you, and the part in Acts saying that everything is forgiven. Can it be both, is it one or the other, and how do you pick? Also, if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, then isn't blasphemy against one blasphemy against all?

[mikelewis]

39. I would tend to let the reported words of Christ trump Luke's Acts...

Don't get me wrong, Acts is a fine piece of work but it has many failings. The spirit in which Luke (or whoever wrote it) approaches Acts is the right spirit but he fails in many respects to achieve the goals he set out to achieve in the beginning of the text. This is not a failure mind you... it's actually what happened to the initial Judeo-Christian church. Acts sets out to recreate the mind of the remaining Apostles... as Mark had done with Jesus. Only, what Mark did was a literary miracle that could only be expounded on and not easily replicated. Those expositions are the Gospels of Mathew (a mostly Jewish interpretation) and Luke (a work directed at the gentile's). Luke attempted to capitalize on his enormously successful interpretation by creating a new Gospel that would take up where where the others end. Only the tendrils of the story begin to expand way beyond what he is able to capture in the parabolic language in which Mark had written. Mark was using the code words and phrases of the "Jesus Movement", walking on water, sailing in ships, devils and swine, these were codes that the movement understood but strange and ridiculous tongues that outsiders just mocked and ignored. After the movement was destroyed and the remaining heirs to the dynasty of Jesus were hunted down and murdered, the language disappeared and Luke wasn't able to catch the same lightening in the bottle that Mark had and the others had capitalized upon. It wasn't until later that John was able to try to wrench the focus back into that "Christ-centered" and message driven format by his reinterpretation of Mark providing a new vernacular to the crazy tongues the Christians were speaking in their churches. Where Mark had Loaves and Fishes, John had Water and Wine... and many other examples that make John such an amazing piece of work and an equal to Mark in many ways. As I see it, Mark is the Body of Christ and John the soul... but I am way off topic...


But the point of Act's was to do the same for the Apostles as the Gospel of Mark had done for Christ but unfortunately it begins to stumble and ultimately the author gives up and finally recreates a quasi-Markan image of Paul which lacks the same majesty as the other gospels. To take Acts and treat it as an edict that supersedes or contradicts the message from the Messiah is to take those two pieces of work out of the context in which they were written. I guess the best way to look at it is that the words of Jesus is the main intent and Acts is the interpretations of those parabolic ideas espoused by Christ.

However, even supposing that these two phrases are divine edicts on the salvific intent of God is to make the same mistake the Jews had made in the time of Christ. Applying legalistic interpretations to every line of the Bible is to commit the same sin the Pharisaic and Sadducean Jews had committed by making the letter of the law more important than the spirit of the law. Had they understood what it meant that God demanded mercy and not sacrifice they would have never crucified the Lord of Hosts. It's not the letter of the law, it's the Holy spirit that is the law that is important. So when choosing which takes precedents, you must first find the spirit from which these words flow and then make the best interpretation that you can... always with the knowledge that we are imperfect prophets and often subject to egotistical and often fanciful errors. The Bible is not the Law... God is the Law... and if God is bound by the Bible, he can be no God. Take your questions to God and let him answer if he wills it... but in the meantime do the best you can with as much mercy as you can muster.

Also concerning the Triune nature of God, the Son and the Holy spirit... That relationship is a bit more complicated than Catholic dogma would have one believe. Jesus was not God, he was the articulation of God, the servant of God, the son of God but not God... but to know Jesus was to know God because he had sent him to give the world the message that was of God and Jesus emanated that Holy Spirit that was of God... to know one is to know the other, to hear one is to hear the other, to obey one is to obey the other... but that idea is so complicated I believe the Church decided that since it understood that relationship it wasn't really all that concerned with trying to explain that concept to others who did not. Over time, I'm not even sure if the Church we have today even understands that relationship any longer... I think they have become slaves to the dogmatic teachings that they believe must have had a good reason for existing but have lost the sense of that relationship. They instinctively understand it but lack the ability to explain it in terms most people will accept or understand and rely on the tradition and acceptance of that tradition to help them win theological arguments. How does one make this case? "Jesus was not God while on earth but he supplanted his will for the will of God and infused the Holy spirit into his spirit and became one with God so that when he passed from this realm into the realm of God he turned back into God from which he came... just as all of us must do if we are to dwell with God." To make that statement is to create a theological thunderstorm of... well Biblical proportions... and frankly most people really don't want God to be all that complicated.

It's easier to just say that Jesus was God and that any blaspheme against the name of Jesus is a blasphemy against God... which is ridiculous since for one... Jesus wasn't the name of the Messiah... his name was Joshua but since the name Joshua in Latin was a female name they changed it from Yeshua to Iesvs but the name of Christ was not Jesus.. the full name of Christ was Yeshua Ha-Nozri Wemelech Hajehudim which is interpreted as Yeshua (Jesus) Ha-Nozri (From Nazereth) we-melech (the King) Ha-Jehudim (of Jews) which if you take the first letters of each and put it on a sign on top of a crucifix you would have "YHWH" which is the secret name of God among Hebrews. The Latin interpretation would be INRI which would read Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm...

So to blaspheme the name Jesus isn't really a blasphemy against the Messiah since the Messiah had a much more complicated and "Jewish" name... to blaspheme the name of God wasn't such a big deal since most people wouldn't know Yahweh anyway but it was the spirits that those names were associated with... that Holy spirit that used those names... if you blasphemed that then you were in danger of damnation... but this was a time when telling your neighbor you'd spit on them would land you in court and calling them a coward would land you in hell... I think we've relaxed a bit on those interpretations over the years.

The point is that if you know that holy spirit that is God then there can be no greater sin than to blaspheme his name because you know him and he is precious and holy... but if you don't know God, say what you like because you are blaspheming something that you do not understand and are merely crucifying a name and not that spirit... just as the Roman's blasphemed the body and not the spirit. So ultimately, "God dammit" is only a sin if it's an order and not an expletive.

[laconicsax]

42. So you acknowledge the uncertain authorship of the Bible, but decide for yourself which books count?

What makes you such an authority to decide which books count and which ones don't?

[mikelewis]

49. I never said some books count and some do not...

I said that you have to take them in the context in which they are presented which is not invalidating the texts, only putting them in their proper perspective. And yes, the authorship of the Bible is uncertain though what is certain is the underlying spirit from which most of the Bible is derived... taking into account certain places where the text has been either misreported or out-right manipulated to fit the designs of the church or the needs of the congregations they were designed to serve. It's important to note that the Bible is not God on earth... the Bible is merely a treasure map; important when one is looking for treasure but once found the map itself becomes superfluous. I am not an authority on the Bible and make no claim to any authority over the book but I do know a great deal about it and the treasures it contains.

[laconicsax]

53. If you are not an authority on its contents, how do you know that you're right?

I know you've said that it doesn't matter who's right so long as they've found the 'treasure,' but since others who claim to have found the same treasure could (and do) argue that anyone else who doesn't follow their path didn't really find the treasure and may be punished accordingly, then how can you be certain that you're right and they're wrong?

[mikelewis]

55. No one can be certain that they are right...

In deed, there can be no surer way to prove that you are wrong than to assert your own righteousness so I will not make that ignorant claim. However, there are things that you can know even though others believe you are wrong. Did we not believe Bush and his friends were evil and that he would lead us to disaster? And how was that belief persecuted? Were we not called traitors and weaklings? Did we not believe the war in Iraq was wrong? Were we not despised and ridiculed for that belief? Did we not say that to have a stable economy that capital had to flow and not trickle? And were we not thrown into poverty for that belief? How could we have been so certain that we were right and they were wrong? And yet, here we are today, proven right and they proven wrong... so I guess only time and circumstance will prove me right or wrong on the nature of God. I guess on the day when you make that giant leap into the chasm of death over which all of us dangles then you shall know who was right and who wrong.

[Sanctified]

41. I would have to disagree with you.

Gandhi is most certainly not in heaven unless he accepted Christ as his savior and repented.

John 14:6
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[mikelewis]

47. Christ in not the name but the spirit...

It is true that there is no other path to God but through Christ but I think that you are confusing Christ with a name and not the eternal spirit of God. If I were to hold to your doctrine any man can gain access to heaven through the power of some magical incantation and not through following the will of God. Saying Christ is my savior does not guarantee me access to heaven... I must also take up the Cross (even daily if Luke is to be believed) and that requires something a bit more than uttering a secret code word to gain access to a club. To gain access to heaven, you must lay down your life, drown it and crucify it and then be raised again as a new spirit dedicated to do the will of God. But that will of God does not always take the shape that is familiar to you... God is God of the whole world and he alone grants access to his Kingdom... not you nor any book written by the hand of man. If you can take it upon yourself to decide for God who has access to his Kingdom then why can I not take it upon myself to deny even you access to God's kingdom? Perhaps you believe that God is impotently bound by the edicts of some magical book, enslaved to the will of an authors pen or an interpreters interpretation? Is not God God; eternally powerful and master of the Universe, able to bend space and time, reality and unreality to his will, granting access to his kingdom to whomever he wishes? If this is indeed God and we are shown a parabolic vision of God through the life and unjust murder of his son and through that holy parable we are able to set him up as King of Kings then the spirit of that which he decreed must still rule on who gains access to his Kingdom. The spirit of God is revealed in Messiah and Gandhi most certainly followed Christ... not in name but in spirit as the parable teaches. Gandhi laid down his life in the service of his fellow man... he took up his cross and served God with all his heart and all his mind and all his strength. He forsook everything... even, according to you, his very soul for his fellow man and there can be no greater love... and since we know that God is Love he did indeed follow Christ since Christ is God and therefore Gandhi will be in Heaven. Of course, we do not know this for sure because the Kingdom of Heaven is ruled by God and God alone grants access to it to whoever he desires... it maybe that Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts are correct in their estimation of God's nature and unfortunately that would damn both you and I to hell but perhaps it's best we let God decide such matters and we learn from grace to accept the will of God and do our best, however inaccurately, to follow that eternal spirit.

But do not only accept my argument... Paul and James (the very brother of Jesus) had this same discussion and here is James' reply...

For the judgment is merciless to one who has not shown mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

In this, I would tend to believe James since James knew Jesus far better than Paul and since Gandhi exhibited his faith through his works I will leave it up to God to decide what to do with him... but I choose to believe God's reward is to those who do the labor even if they deny his name... just as Jesus said.

[GodlessBiker]

2. Jesus was not just an incarnation, he was the Son of God.

And I think you have to add a worship of Jesus as well as God.

[laconicsax]

14. Doesn't that imply polytheism?

If you have Jesus as a separate entity to be worshiped alongside God, then you don't have a monotheistic religion anymore.

[knitter4democracy]

31. That's why the Catholics messed with the Creed.

The Muslims said the same thing back in the 1300s.

[trixie]

62. Exactly!

The story keeps getting more and more confused. According to God you should only follow him and have no other Gods. Then we have JC and his story and now to keep making the story fit the original story we must have the trinity. Without the trinity we have more than one God and with the trinity we have a holy mess.

And while we are at it, what the heck is the theory of Jews for Jesus?

[Turbineguy]

3. The Nicene Creed

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

[knitter4democracy]

26. Which version?

I see that you put the Filioque Clause in parentheses, but which is it? And what about Pentecostals who don't believe in the Nicene Creed but only the Apostles Creed?

[TechBear_Seattle]

68. Pentecostals are heretics, according to the Ecumenical Councils

(Knitter, I know you know this; I'm posting for others. :hi: )

Between 325 CE and 787 CE, there were seven(1) great Ecumenical (Greek Οικουμένη, "all the world") Councils, where representatives from throughout Christendom met to hash out what was and what was not Christianity. Most of these Councils dealt with issues of theology (the nature of God), christology (the nature of Christ) and soteriology (the nature of salvation.) It was at these councils that the Creed was written (I Nicaea, 325) and subsequently modified (I Constantinople, 381.) The third Council, Ephesus, 431, reaffirmed the Creed and declared that any departure from it was anathema and would result in eternal damnation(2). This Canon from the Council of Ephesus and the Creed of 381 were also reaffirmed at subsequent Councils.

In short: the definition of Christianity as set forth by the assembly of the world's Christians very early in the religion's history, seems like a good starting point on the question of "What is Christianity?" That definition declares that Roman Catholics and most Protestants are heretics and not really Christians at all. Who am I to say otherwise?

As a side note, Pentecostalism and other churches which affirm modern day revelation directly from the Holy Spirit are not only heretics but heretics of a very old lineage. Their core doctrine is nearly identical with that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism">Montanism, which appeared somewhere in the middle of the second century.


(1) Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches hold that there was an 8th Ecumenical Council called the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which involved a succession displute over the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but disagree as to which meeting it actually was. The Roman church says it took place in 869; the Orthodox churches say it was a different meeting held in 879. The later council also condemned the insertion of filioque ("and from the son") into the Creed and helped set the stage for the Great Schism.

(2)The official record of the Council of Ephesus specifically mentions the original creed from Nicaea, implying that the changes made in Constantinople were heretical. This was corrected at the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 481, making the modified Creed the correct and unalterable doctrine of Christianity.

[Xipe Totec]

4. Baptism

that's it.

[laconicsax]

17. Other religions have water-baptism and not all Christian sects do baptisms.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Well, then I guess I and others like the Unitarian Universalists don't count

But then I am more of the loose philosophy type rather than the strict religious type. ;)

Here's another way of looking at it: http://www.tcpc.org/about/8points.cfm

[laconicsax]

7. Hence my original post.

There are many liberal Christians who are excluded by that definition, but still consider themselves and others like them to be Christian.

My main question is from the perspective of an outsider--since there are so many accusations of 'that person isn't a true Christian' and 'not all Christians believe all of those things,' then what can be used as a definition of Christianity that all adherents would agree on and those of us outside your religion can use as a frame of reference in discussion?

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. None. You will not find a definition that all of us agree upon because we

are coming from a different direction. "The Bible is the literal Word of God" is a tenet that RW evangelicals believe very firmly in whereas many of the rest of us range from doubtful t outright adamant that it is in no way meant to be taken literally.

I don't take it literally and cannot because it conflicts with reason and science in too many places. (Ie no water cycle existed until the time of the great flood. etc etc)

I am also uncertain as to whether or not Jesus as outlined in the Bible existed, and even if he did would he necessarily wish to be worshiped?

[laconicsax]

16. So then how do you define someone as Christian?

Is it as simple a matter of saying that someone's Christian because they say they are, regardless of their beliefs?

It seems to me that if you remove Jesus as a historical figure and don't at least include him as a metaphorical figure, then you're left with Judaism and some extra commentaries.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. For myself, I was a literal Christian as a kid and I married into a RW evangelical family

My concept of spirituality has changed greatly since then, and I would say I am a nominal Christian at best. I'm a universalist in both senses of the word. There are many paths to enlightenment/paradise and everyone gets there eventually.

But I still feel tied to Christianity for two reasons and so still apply the label to myself.

1) There is plenty to be admired and learned from in the faith, and 2) it is the faith language of my family by which they speak to and of God. I could change faiths and faith languages, but it would cause conflict in my family and confusion as well since they don't understand other faith languages and only see the True Christian TM one as being valid.

I understand that you would like some sort of basic definition so that you can speak of all of us at once. For myself followers of the teachings of Christ might do it, but the RW evangelicals would be very unhappy if you didn't include more requirements. (And I would be rather unhappy if you did. :) )

Are you sure you cannot be satisfied with the fact that we are cats that just cannot be herded all in one direction? LOL

[laconicsax]

23. That would imply different religions under one banner.

If it's impossible to state that all Christians share common beliefs, then is there an actual single religion in place?

It sounds like your definition is along the lines of the first and last two points of the one I suggested since it allows for Jesus as a metaphorical figure intended as an ethical model. If that's something that everyone could agree on, then that would be very satisfactory.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

57. UUs don't have a creedal test.

So you can be a UU and NOT be a Christian. In fact, I don't think I have ever met a UU that identified as a Christian.

The furthest left you can go and still identify as Christian is the UCC United Church of Christ, also known as the Congregationalists. A New England denomination that started Harvard and Yale. Very much into social activism. The UUs are closely related to them.


I, in the meantime, will continue to worship the Giver of Life, the coffeepot, like a good Unitarian Universalist :D

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Jesus is the Son of God

and what that means varies from denomination to denomination. I was raised in a liberal Methodist Church, which taught that Jesus was Son of God, a special human, but not God. I still get very uncomfortable when I hear other Christians say Jesus was God.

[Lerkfish]

9. "being a christian" is used in (at least) two different ways:

"being a christian" is used in (at least) two different way
1. in how one lives one's life, regardless of affiliation with a particular church, and
2. an affiliation with an organized church, regardless of how one lives one's life

number 2 causes the most confusion and conflict.
I prefer to define a christian by number one, and that becomes hard for people who insist on number two to understand how that makes it easier for me to differentiate, by actions, who is a christian and who is not.

As Jesus said, you shall know them by their fruits, what a person does defines who they are, and not what they label themselves. A tree can call itself a fig tree, but if it bears no fruit, does it matter what it calls itself?

this probably does not help you with your question, but hopefully it helps explain why there is conflict with the definition.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. In addition, within the last few decades, evangelicals and fundamentalists

have used the term "Christian" to refer exclusively to people who have had a specific conversion experience and who belong to one of their approved churches.

[arKansasJHawk]

21. That's anything but a recent phenomenon ...

Christians, as a whole, have always been on the lookout for heretics to shun and blame and persecute.

In fact, I would suggest that the more liberal, less dogmatic version(s) of Christianity are the ones that have really come to the fore in the last few decades.

Ever since Constantine gave the religion his stamp of approval, Christianity in its various guises has had real disdain for people who weren't doing it "right."

It's really only very recently that large numbers of Christians have advanced the idea that there's no such thing as a "right" way to be a Christian. The Arians were one of the first sects to be told that they weren't really "Christians." They were not the last.

It seems that only recently have large numbers of self-described Christians advanced the idea that there's no "right" way to be a Christian, and that there's more than one way to look at the figure of Jesus.

And yet there still remains a split. A lot of these progressive Christians would and do suggest that being an old-time, fire and brimstone, Biblical-literalist isn't the "right" way. A lot of progressive Catholics ignore the foundational teachings of their church as being out-of-touch and meaningless in the modern world.

As to the OP, I don't think it's possible to come up with a definition of "Christian" that isn't so conditional and inconsistent as to be essentially meaningless. But I don't think that's really surprising when you're trying to pin down a philosophy/worldview that's based entirely on something as capricious and arbitrary as faith.

[Taverner]

77. Yep - as far as word meanings go, however

An Atheist could be a Christian, if they tried to be like Christ

[laconicsax]

24. You're right, it doesn't help with the question I have.

Its actually pretty easy to see why there's conflict with the definition. Historically, whenever someone with influence took issue with an interpretation of scripture, they started their own brand of Christianity. Martin Luther took issue with the Church management and left to form his own church, Henry VIII wanted a divorce, so he started the Church of England, etc. Those without influence are typically expelled/killed for heresy.

Another aspect is that as society's morals shift from what's written in the Bible or at least how it's been interpreted in the past, more progressive churches are forced to either go against societal morals or change their tune. This creates a split between those who disagree with the change and those who find it necessary to change.

The question (to you at least) then becomes, how do Christians live their lives differently than any other religious adherent or non believer? Do they, and if not, what defines them as Christian?

[greendog]

10. "Christian" is a word that people "tag" themselves with.

It means:

"I'm good"

"People like me are good"

"People who are different might not be good"

"People who don't support the notion that "Christian = Good" are bad.

[laconicsax]

15. So should that be considered a religion or a philosophy?

If it can be taken to mean such a vague concept of labeling someone as good or not good, then what makes it an actual religion?

[greendog]

19. The word "Christian" is like a bag with a fashionable logo printed on it.

The bag might contain something nice. It might contain a sweatshop knockoff of something nice. It might contain something that was once nice but now is broken. Or the kid down the street might fill it full of dogshit and light it on fire before knocking on your door and running away.

You have to look 'in' the bag before you can form a definition.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. If in doubt, go to the root meaning of the word

'Christ' means 'anointed', in Greek. So I think a Christian has to be, at minimum, a believer that Jesus was anointed, by a theistic God, as something more than just another prophet. To most, he was divine himself. Someone who thinks Jesus was just a normal man, but with the best ideas anyone has expressed on ethical behaviour, doesn't really count, I'd say, whether or not they believe in a theistic god.

[knitter4democracy]

27. This is a more difficult question than you realize.

The Church has been trying to define this from day one. In the early Church (and still in the Eastern Orthodox Church), you had to spend a year in study and prayer and then be baptized and chrismated after confessing that you believed in the Creed. At first, it was just the Apostle's Creed, but then, the Church kept adding to it until the Nicene Creed was finalized at the last ecumenical council (well, the Catholics added to it later, and Western Christianity in general accepts that version).

As a Christian, I go with how a person defines him/herself. It is not my place to judge whether or not someone who self-identifies as a Christian actually is one or not. I get grumpy when I see decidedly unChrist-like behavior, sure, but I hesitate to say that person's not a real Christian, as it's not my place to judge anyone.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Yup. What Knitter said. nt

[laconicsax]

29. That's pretty much my point.

As an outsider, it seems to me that unless you can come to a consensus about what constitutes the most basic tenets of your religion, then you have no business criticizing the beliefs of others who claim to be of the same religion.

Since adherence is determined by self-identification, it doesn't necessarily matter if there's any consensus about basic beliefs as long as ALL adherents acknowledge that all other adherents are representative of the religion--that it's a big tent and you accept the good along with the bad. This of course is rejected every time a Christian side-steps criticism by saying that their congregation/personal faith is different or that the belief in question isn't held by 'real Christians.'

I frequently see self-identified Christians call out other self-identified Christians as 'not a real Christian' as a way of distancing themselves from some things that range from reprehensible to just ridiculous. As I see it, if there's no basic creed that ALL Christians can agree on (by agree, I mean accept all parts of without condition rather than encompassing the entirety of someone's faith), then none of you are 'real Christians.'

If there aren't any true Christians, then it's a meaningless label that makes a hypocrite out of any of the self-labeled who criticize others wearing the same label on the non-existent foundations of the label. Using qualifiers to describe a specific sect is meaningless unless that sect is universally acknowledged as independent. You can't label someone else as outside the religion and at the same time be unable to define what places someone inside the religion.

[knitter4democracy]

30. It sounds like what's really tripping you up is Christian code.

Just like any other faith or profession or hobby group, Christians have their own code, their own language, so to speak. When we say that someone's not a "real Christian" we mean that his or her behavior isn't Christlike and that they aren't conforming to our understanding of Christian behavior. We're not saying that God Himself has erased that person's name from the Book of Life or that they're going to burn in hell (most of the time--some of us get rather pissed off at "Dr." James Dobson and his group). Instead, what we're saying is that his/her behavior doesn't conform to our understanding of what Christians are supposed to do. It doesn't mean that we're saying they're outside of the faith.

As for hypocrisy, yup, we're all hypocrites. It's part of the faith. According to our faith, we're to be as much like Christ as possible, but we also believe He was both God and man at the same time and without sin and that He never sinned. So, we're supposed to be Godlike and without sin, but we're all completely human and sin all the time. That makes us all hypocrites, really. As St. Paul said, we know what we're supposed to do but have a hard time doing it (massive paraphrase there from Romans). One thing I've always liked about the saints is that none of them considered themselves saints and never would have. They saw their flaws and sins just like the rest of us, but it's only been when the rest of us have looked at their lives that we've been able to see that the saints are helping light the way on this faith path we're on.

[laconicsax]

35. Thanks, that's helpful.

I don't think I've seen "not a real Christian" used that way in the past. I usually see the following:

-Person A, a self-identified Christian, does something morally repugnant and bases their ideology on scripture, their religious philosophy, or a combination of the two.
-Person B, a self-identified atheist, criticizes Christianity as a religion that permits or encourages such morally repugnant behavior.
-Person C, a self-identified Christian, rejects B's criticism on the grounds that A isn't "a real Christian." (Sometimes even going as far as saying that "real Christians" are morally superior to A.)
-B responds by stating that since A justifies their action on the religion, then aspects of that religion must be seen as allowing A's behavior.
-C rejects this on any number of arguments, but typically bends over backwards to shift any blame away from A and C's shared religion.
-A shouting match/flamewar ensues.

Based on what you've said (written), is C justified in trying to defend Christianity by excluding A, or should C own up to A's actions as being influenced by Christian beliefs?

[knitter4democracy]

36. I think C should own up to A being part of the faith.

For example, "Dr." James Dobson (yeah, I know, his Ph.D in sociology's real, but most of his followers think he's an MD, and he lets them) is a Christian. I can't stand the guy and think he's done massive harm to real people and to the faith in general, but I can't say he's not a real Christian since he self-identifies as one. I can take apart his insane stances on things and attack him theologically (and have made his PR chick hang up on me when I proved her wrong on gay rights, but that's another story), but I can't say he's not a real Christian.

Christianity is a messy faith. Whenever you have groups of people involved, things get messy, and often, sadly, people get hurt. I've seen horrible things done to good people all in the name of the faith, but I have also seen great good done as part of the faith, so I'm not giving up on what I believe or my church, as flawed as those are.

That said, I'm really not sure what kind of Christianity Westboro Baptist is. It's so far wacked out that it makes no sense as part of the faith. I know they self-identify as Christians, and while they can quote scripture until the cows come home, their interpretation of it is insane. I don't know many Christians who would recognize their version of the faith.

It's like art: you know it when you see it, and people get into arguments over whether something's really art or not. If the artist says it is, I'm going with that.

[laconicsax]

37. It's good to know that people like you exist.

[knitter4democracy]

38. Yeah, well, you should hear how my STBX-husband describes me.

Then, you might change your mind. ;)

[TWiley]

33. Christians self-identify. They are so because they say so.

[TWiley]

32. I would say that most "Christians" are actually "Paulists"

Paul has more to do with contemporary Christian belief than Christ does.

[knitter4democracy]

34. It depends on which branch of Christianity you're talking about.

I'd agree with you on that if you're referring to fundamentalists, evangelicals, and maybe even Catholics (although that's a bit more debatable). The Eastern Orthodox Church, though, is less Pauline than the others.

[quaker bill]

40. There are far too many answers

as is also true of the many other faiths.

Your question is far too broad. There are entire libraries devoted to this question.

[laconicsax]

43. I have seen threads on this site (including this one) where posters seem to know.

Clearly, since some people know the answer, then it is knowable. How else are people able to determine that self-identified Christians aren't actually Christians?

[quaker bill]

46. Seem to "believe" they know

would be far more accurate.

"How else are people able to determine that self-identified Christians aren't actually Christians?"

In most versions of the faith, Christians are not supposed to be going about judging the quality of another person's faith. For a Quaker, this sort of thing is completely off-limits. Curiously, many Quakers are Christian, and we are generally viewed as a Christian faith, however, we are non-creedal. For us, there simply is no test.

[HamdenRice]

44. If you want the common denominator of all who call themselves Christian

rather than the acid tests for particular churches, it would have to be only the last statement -- people who follow or attempt to follow the ethical teachings of Jesus.

That would include the very large number of people who effectively are Christian agnostics and atheists.

[TWiley]

45. I would edit that to say "People who CLAIM to follow the teachings of Jesus"

I think Christianity is a self-identifying cult. You are one simply because you identify yourself as one.

[greyl]

50. Edit 2: "People who claim to follow their cherry-picked teachings of Jesus", nt

[JerseygirlCT]

52. Or being a bit less negative: who "try" to do so. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

51. I would agree that the most inclusive definition is the only

one that has any practical meaning at all.

Theology can be all over the lot, though hard-core proponents of one theology or another will insist that theirs is the sole defining measurement of "Christian".

For me, I think it's also important to keep in mind that it's less an identity badge of some sort of club membership as it is an obligation one takes on. So how much does it really matter whether you are identified as such?

[greyl]

54. That would simply mean anyone who identifies themselves as Christian, right?

Why, and how, could some people be excluded for not trying hard enough? How much is hard enough?

I think it's very much like people claiming to be intrigued, confused, lonely, or content - if they say they are, they are.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. Yes. It's self-identified, bottom-line

Not anyone else's job to say who is and isn't.

[dmallind]

48. Whatever helps Xians look the best apparently.

When they are using the argumentum ad populum fallacy and claiming to be more numerous than other (obviously lesser) faiths, it's everybody born to Xian parents whether thy can find Matthew in a bible if their life depended on it or not. This is what gives us "1.5 billion Christians".

When they are using the no true Scotsman fallacy and claiming that McVeigh and Rudolph and Phelps are obviously not REAL Christians, it's anybody who has led a generally blameless life and not done anything really wrong like only "Mooslems" or stinking atheists ever do.

But in reality the Nicene Creed pretty much decided what it means for the church. Various denominations can argue that they don't necessarily follow the Nicene Creed per se, but it remains, with the possible exception of the last four sentences, probably the best definition of what it means to be a Christian. That definition is, and must be, ALL about the belief. Not the person or how they act or what they do on Sundays - just their belief. Christianity is a belief, and the belief and nothing else is what makes you Christian.

[MedleyMisty]

58. I tend to think that religions are based on their books

So for me personally, I would say it's someone who believes every word in the Bible. I know that I could never follow a religion if I didn't literally believe the text it was based on - otherwise you're just making up your own beliefs and sticking words from the Bible on them. If you see it as metaphor, then you're pretty much interpreting the metaphors to fit what you already believe. Like my AP biology teacher said that she believed in both creationism and evolution, so basically she started with a belief in evolution and then looked for a metaphor of it in Genesis.

But then I looked around and read some stuff and realized that actually a lot of people who self-identify as Christian have actually never read the Bible. And then all my conflicts with religious people made sense - of course if I started with the idea that Christian = having read and believed the Bible and strictly adhering to everything it says I would make completely wrong assumptions about Christians. And that yes, actually, it seems that most people make up their own beliefs and stick words from the Bible on them.

I think it's really about tribal society more than anything else. "Christian" is a word for Us, as opposed to Them. And that's as far as I can get, because I really don't understand most of the underlying social structure of human societies. Thus why I am an introvert and a hermit and basically just hang out with my husband and ignore the rest of the species. But even I can see that going to church seems to be a lot more about seeing and being seen and making social connections for most people than it is about faith - like the owners of the local company I work for say that being active in their church helps their business.

So yeah, I guess I agree that whoever says they're Christian is Christian - it's a group label that you choose to put on yourself. And I guess people who say that fundies or whoever aren't real Christians are saying "I don't think of this person as a member of my group. They are not like Us." It's like the whole idea that "hyphenated" Americans aren't real Americans. Basically it's like "I am a member of Us. Members of Us are good and virtuous people who look like me and act like me and think like me. These people are not like me and I don't understand them and they don't fit my idea of good and virtuous. They are Them, not Us, even if they claim to be Us."

[peruban]

59. Hey, laconicsax , I believe I can help answer this for you.

Christianity is a very broad term which, even among those who consider themselves Christians, is difficult to summarize and define. You will see many differing scriptural citations and all sorts of proclamations of belief.

One of the best ways of approaching the subject is to consider its historical development. Christianity has developed through time into something between four to six basic groups.

The first phase of Christianity was very chaotic and many different stories were told and many different precepts were held. Since it was not actually a separate religion at first but an offshoot or sect of Judaism there was much debate on many essential ideas such as the question of the divinity of Jesus, specific tenants of faith, the role the Christian community would play in society and so on. An official leader was supposedly chosen by Jesus to carry on his message and the Roman Catholic papacy derives its lineage from this first leader, the apostle Peter.

The Roman Catholic was established in the mid fourth century when the Emperor Constantine legalized it and Emperor Theodosius made it the official religion of the Roman Empire about 70 years later. This was the first official declaration of general Christianity and it was defined in the First Council of Nicene in 325. Most of the original tenets are still held among most followers.

The next change occurred when the Roman Empire was split in two with Catholicism identifying with the Roman Papacy and the Orthodox faiths splintered off in the Byzantine half. The Orthodox faiths broke up into mainly into regionally separate, but united communities. They did not derive their authority from the Roman papacy but instead relied on regional hierarchies of bishops and councils.

Next we have the Protestant Reformation, generally attributed to the act of Martin Luther posting his 95 thesis on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany in 1512. His protest was that of the authority and corruption in the Roman Catholic Church. This began a wave of splintering off in the West which continues to this day in the various forms of Christianity; including Anglicans, Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians and practically hundreds of other separate faiths, including those referred to as fundies and "non-denominational".

Now that we have established the different forms of Christianity we can try to abstract a basic set of principles:
- There is only one true God and he first revealed himself to Abraham, the father of the Jewish people
- There once lived a man named Jesus who was born a Jew
- This man was born immaculately by a woman named Mary
- Mary chose Joseph as a husband and he was aware of her immaculate conception, he served as Jesus' physical father
- This man Jesus was and is the son of God
- Jesus performed various miracles and supernatural acts
- The New Testament is the story of an establishment of a new covenant with man and concludes events prophesied in the Old Testament.
- Jesus was the Jewish messiah prophesied in Judaism
- Jesus was chosen to die by popular demand of the local Jewish community over a man named Barabus, an alleged murderer of a Roman soldier
- He was sentenced to torture and death by a local Roman bureaucrat named Pontious Pilate
- Three days after his death, he arose from the grave and appeared to numerous apostles
- The are such things as righteousness, and wickedness; the ultimate goal is to follow the path of righteousness and wickedness is considered sin
- We can ask for the forgiveness of sin if our intentions are pure
- Jesus will return someday to vanquish the wicked
- The following of Jesus' teachings is rewarded by some sort of afterlife

I think that's about it. I believe these statements can be said to be considered universal and commonly shared among the different sects of Christianity. I worded things specifically to try to avoid excluding all Christian sects. I hope this is enough information, my brain is getting exhausted so I'm going to head out for a while but please feel free to ask any questions I may not have addressed in my response to the original post. I'll respond later on.

[peruban]

60. Revised list of general definition

- There is only one true God and he first revealed himself to Abraham, the father of the Jewish people
- There once lived a man named Jesus who was born a Jew
- There was a virgin woman named Mary who was visited by a messenger of God named Gabriel
- Gabriel told Mary that she would conceive and bear a child despite her virginity
- Mary chose a man named Joseph as a husband and he was aware of her immaculate conception, he served as Jesus' physical father
- This man Jesus was born immaculately by Mary in a manger in the town of Bethlehem
- Three wise men from the East bearing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh arrived at the time of Jesus' birth and proclaimed him the prophesied king of the Jews
- A man known as King Herod heard of the wise men's proclamation of the birth of the king of the Jews and ordered the killing of all male children under a certain age to be slaughtered
- Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to protect their son and they remained there until Herod's death and then settled in the town of Nazareth
- This man Jesus was and is the son of God
- Jesus was told he was the son of god in his early thirties by a messenger of God in the form of a dove
- Jesus was baptized with water by a man known as John the Baptist who recognized Jesus as the Jewish messiah
- Jesus performed various miracles and supernatural acts
- The New Testament is the story of an establishment of a new covenant with man and concludes events prophesied in the Old Testament.
- Jesus was the Jewish messiah prophesied in Judaism
- Jesus taught about a new covenant with the Jewish God and extended this new covenant to the gentiles, no longer exclusively to Jews
- Jesus traveled and taught for three to four years and developed a group of followers known as apostles
- Jesus was accused of heresy and deemed a threat by the local Jewish authorities who appealed to the new Roman government for punishment
- He was sentenced to torture and death by a Roman bureaucrat named Pontious Pilate who gave the local Jewish community an opportunity to pardon one man sentenced to death and gave the choice of Jesus or a man named Barabus who was accused of killing a Roman soldier
- The local Jewish community chose to set Barabus free instead of Jesus
- Jesus was tortured mercilessly and killed slowly and painfully by the Roman soldiers in a public setting by being nailed to wooden torture device
- Three days after his death, he was resurrected from the grave and appeared to numerous apostles
- The are such things as righteousness, and wickedness; the ultimate goal is to follow the path of righteousness and wickedness is considered sin, or an offense against God
- The new covenant with God allows for the forgiveness of sin if we are sincere and our intentions are pure
- Jesus will return someday to vanquish the wicked
- The following of Jesus' teachings is rewarded by some sort of afterlife

[trixie]

61. Taking Jesus Christ as Savior

That's it. No other requirements.

This is why I can't understand people who do believe this and yet are influenced by religion especially in regards to organized religion. Why would one even bother if they were "true" Christians? :shrug:

[knitter4democracy]

64. Ah, but how do you define that?

See, we Orthodox say that we must choose Christ as our Savior every minute of every day, that it's a process and not a moment in time. The evangelical church I grew up in says that it's a moment but that you can turn your back on Christ later. The RCC says that it's at baptism where you show that you've chosen Christ (as does the Orthodox church, as a mystery of the faith), but other churches say that you can be saved and still go to heaven without a baptism.

I've found that, in Christianity, nothing's ever quite as simple as we'd like it to be.

[trixie]

65. That's the point

Organized religion has perverted the story. One must follow them, the church. It is not the requirement of Christ but the requirement of an organization controlling people. Most church goers have no idea of the real bible (If one believes it is real, I don't) but mainly rely on others to show them and to follow.

I have answered your question and it does not at any way jive to your belief. Who cares?

[knitter4democracy]

66. So much for having a conversation, then.

If you don't care, then why reply? I'm curious as to what you think is happening here. I wasn't trying to one-up you or be mean, just trying to have a conversation.

If you want to discuss organized Christianity, then we can discuss that, but if we're stilly talking about how to define Christianity, then, no, I don't understand what you're trying to say. You said that a Christian chooses Jesus as their Savior, and I asked you how you define that, as per the OP. How do you define it?

[cosmik debris]

67. It's just another case of a non-believer trying to define believers.

Don't let it get under your skin.

[knitter4democracy]

70. Heck, I've got tons more to get under my skin these days.

:hug:

I just thought it was odd to reply like that. Why do people post if they don't want to talk?

[Sam1]

63. The answer to one simple question. What say you of Christ,

whose son is he?

[TechBear_Seattle]

69. The Holy Spirit himself gave that definition more than a thousand years ago

See post #68.

All seven of the universally recognized Ecumenical Councils were gathered together so that, through their deliberations, the Holy Spirit could speak. Through these Councils, the Holy Spirit declared that the Creed given in Nicaea in 325 CE and modified slightly at Constantinople in 381 CE was a perfect and complete expression of doctrine and that any deviation or change to this Creed would result in eternal damnation (431 CE and several times since.) Heresy, according to the Councils, are those who claim to be Christians or represent Christianity, but do not; therefore, by definition, heretics are not Christians nor can their doctrines be called Christianity.

Who am I to dispute the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine and belief?

[knitter4democracy]

71. I agree!

I don't think all Christians agree with us, though. To hear most evangelicals and fundies I know, you'd think God removed His hand from the Earth until Luther.

[TechBear_Seattle]

72. That is why questions like this are meaningless, or worse

There is no point of doctrine on which ALL Christians (to use laconicsax' own ephasis) agree. There are Christians who hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, and others who reject it. There are Christians who embrace the deity of Christ, and others who insist that Jesus was only human. There are Christians who require faith in certain ancient traditions and practices, and others who denounce any faith other than sola Scriptura. The only possible way out of this morass is to come up with a definition of "christian;" that road leads directly to religious warfare and screams of, "No I am a True Christian and will kill you, your family and every member of your heretical cult to prove it!"

The closest Christendom ever got to answering "What is a Christian" were the seven universally accepted Ecumenical Councils. As I see it, that makes the Councils the only acceptable metric for answering, "What do Christians believe?"

[Fenmick]

73. So, George W. Bush - Christian?

Perhaps christian is as christian does.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

74. Christians are self identifying.

Because of this, no matter how mean and cruel some one is, if they say they are a Christian, then they are.

No True Christian is a logical fallacy.

Their behavior, as to it being good or bad, is a matter of morality, whether it is labeled as Christian morality or not.


I think most of us can figure out generally accepted standards of morality without labelling them as specifically Christian.

[PassingFair]

75. Agree.

The problem arises because Christians
believe that they have a copyright on
humane ideals.

This is funny, because ALL of the religions
believe that THEY have the copyright on
humane ideals.

Of course, people who live in societies
must act humanely or they will be driven
from the group.

[dcsmart]

76. read the 3 three gospels

read mark, mathew, and luke and then go and do what jesus did and said. forget about theology. christianity is a religion of action. jesus was asked what the two most important commandments were. that is your answer....forgot the metaphyics....read Geza Vermes' "the changing faces of jesus" and "the authentic gospel of jesus". you can read Jon sobrino's books.....but the 3 threes gospels should be enough. stay away from the gospel of john. it is bad theology. if you want to pursue the plausibility of the resurrection, read N.T. Wright. some people spend their whole life writing and thinking about christianity and never doing anything that helps other people. join a catholic worker community, then you will know what it means to be christian. you don't have to be catholic....(thank god)

[Taverner]

78. To try to be like Christ

Simply put thats what Christian means

Which means you could have an Atheist Christian...if they tried to live like Christ

Now, the problem is which Christ? The one from Matthew? Mark? Luke? John? (believe it or not there are big differences) From the Pauline Letters? Gnostic Christ? Arian Christ? Manichean Christ? Godspell Christ? Passion of the, Christ?

[laconicsax]

79. There's an even bigger problem you missed.

How does one try to be imaginary?

[Taverner]

80. HAHAHAHAHAHA true that

Especially since I don't think any one Christ existed, but rather a popular amalgam of the time among Essenes, Mithras Devotees and Gnostics.