What is a Christian?

[WIP]

Yes, it's his way to show that Muslim extremists aren't the only extremists. Cause you know, holding up a piece of cardboard is pretty scary stuff!

It is when the religious extremists have state power over us! We have more to fear from the Christian extremists (like Harper) who have military, security and surveillance powers at their disposal, and raise the foreign terrorism boogeyman to justify the march towards fascism. This is btw, one of the major reasons why I have a big problem with the rose-coloured-glasses presentation of history by the likes of Steven Pinker - who tells us that violence is on a long thousands of years decline because of the rise of state power. Governments may be necessary, BUT the issues of terrorism must be addressed along side the use of state power by government. Terrorism often becomes the warfare of the dispossesed - Asymmetrical warfare against larger, more powerful forces, with increasing levels of surveillance power in the modern age of the internet and handheld devices.

*As a side note, as long as we are talking about "extremism"; I'd like to know why all of the Muslim extremism pundits I've come across never include Anders Breivik's massacre in Norway as an example of Christian terrorism? Instead, on the day of the Hebdo Shootings in Paris, I watched two different MSM talking heads call it the worst terrorist attack in Europe since the 7/7 Subway Bombing in London...leapfrogging right over Breivik!

Could it be that all the good conservative Christians with an opinion, find ways to disqualify Breivik as one of their own? While demanding that all the Muslims in the world take ownership of every guy with a beard and a Quran, as an example of their religion's collective use of terrorism!

fwiw regarding thread derailing - I took a few minutes to scan through this three year old thread, and it appears to me to have started as a straight out attempt to proselytize non-evangelicals by a former member here; and I was surprised that the merits of hers and other more liberal approaches to Christianity, and atheist critiques of fundamentalist Christianity and Christianity in whole, were aired out over 15 pages. So, if the resurrected version here has little to do with the original, that's besides the point! At some point, somebody should have raised the question of what are the social consequences of the OP's dogmatic, restrictive and unyielding version of Christianity, which wouldn't tolerate anything outside of a narrow, predetermined orthodoxy.

[sharkman]

So are you saying you can't revive an old thread with a current connection? That seems rather silly, perhaps you need to "get a grip". Reading it once was fine enough I think.

Many people in this forum are actually less pleased with having numerous threads that share common topics, to continue to start new threads with similar topics you just flood the forum with far to many threads. I'd prefer someone drags up an old discussion to continue it than to start an entirely new one when they share the same topic. As many on this forum do on a regular basis. It's just when it offends an incredibly daft right wing politician, then it becomes a no no.

No, I am not saying you can't revive an old thread. Read the post of mine you quoted again. I very clearly said that anyone can drag up any old thread. That means that anyone can drag up any old thread. Then I introduce the main point of my post, that dragging up old threads like this is not the point of the forum. When you start a conversation with friends or co-workers, people never say, "remember that conversation we had 3 years ago? I'd like to add something to it…". That never happens. Only in cyber space where ancient threads can be searched for does this occur.

Your argument that "many" people in this forum being pleased or less pleased can not be backed up with data. The other thing about that is, there are maybe 50 people who post here regularly, which can hardly be defined as "many" in the first place. But hey, do whatever you feel like, it's not like I post here even every week, I just saw something that I thought I'd comment on and that's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

[Michael Hardner]

Why should there be a rule about it?

I don't know if there is one or isn't one, that's all I care about here.

[PrimeNumber]

No, I am not saying you can't revive an old thread. Read the post of mine you quoted again. I very clearly said that anyone can drag up any old thread. That means that anyone can drag up any old thread. Then I introduce the main point of my post, that dragging up old threads like this is not the point of the forum. When you start a conversation with friends or co-workers, people never say, "remember that conversation we had 3 years ago? I'd like to add something to it…". That never happens. Only in cyber space where ancient threads can be searched for does this occur.

Your argument that "many" people in this forum being pleased or less pleased can not be backed up with data. The other thing about that is, there are maybe 50 people who post here regularly, which can hardly be defined as "many" in the first place. But hey, do whatever you feel like, it's not like I post here even every week, I just saw something that I thought I'd comment on and that's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

The point of the forum is to discuss topic by posting on threads. That's what is being done here who cares how old the damn thread is?

Are you seriously trying to compare a face to face conversation to a forum? I don't think I have to tell you how many differences there are.

Many has more than one meaning, one of which is a majority, in my experience on this forum a majority of people complain about multiple threads on the same topic. I saw something I thought I'd comment on as well, and here we are.

[kimmy]

I don't know if there is one or isn't one, that's all I care about here.

If there is, there shouldn't be. I can't imagine why anybody should have an issue with revisiting prior discussions.

No, I am not saying you can't revive an old thread. Read the post of mine you quoted again. I very clearly said that anyone can drag up any old thread. That means that anyone can drag up any old thread. Then I introduce the main point of my post, that dragging up old threads like this is not the point of the forum. When you start a conversation with friends or co-workers, people never say, "remember that conversation we had 3 years ago? I'd like to add something to it…". That never happens. Only in cyber space where ancient threads can be searched for does this occur.

Your argument that "many" people in this forum being pleased or less pleased can not be backed up with data. The other thing about that is, there are maybe 50 people who post here regularly, which can hardly be defined as "many" in the first place. But hey, do whatever you feel like, it's not like I post here even every week, I just saw something that I thought I'd comment on and that's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

Myself, JBG, and August1991 (to name 3 of the forum's longer-standing members...) all revisit older threads from time to time and it never seems to cause any controversy.

To be honest it looks less that you have any issue with people bumping an old discussion and more that you're butt-hurt about somebody bagging on Sarah Palin.

-k

[sharkman]

Controversy? Not sure what you're talking about there. As for Palin, she is a joke of sorts, and though I post here very little for some strange reason you like to respond to me. I guess your bored of conversing with other conservatives around here and since there are so few posters in the first place, 1 + 1 = 2?

Personally I see this place as being pretty much dead. Only the forum junkies come here for the most part to repeat the same old tired arguments again and again. What's the point?

Edited February 2, 2015 by sharkman

[kimmy]

I respond to lots of people.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

If there is, there shouldn't be. I can't imagine why anybody should have an issue with revisiting prior discussions.

Apparently, reviving old threads is fine if it is done on topic. I don't know why I thought otherwise, I suspect some of my synapses flipped into failure mode and default configuration was reset.

[Big Guy]

I had earlier suggested that old threads (1 year old?) be allowed to disappear. When you revive old threads, a new member has to read through pages of previous opinions based on the atmosphere of the time. This discourages comments. Older members may have changed their minds from their previous position and Lord help somebody who admits to changing their mind.

They would get ridiculed by those lightweights who are more concerned with posters than posts.

If there are archives of 10 years or more then there must be very few topics which have not been picked over. The interest in postings here is participation and not the resolution of a topic. It is the exchange of intelligent exchange of different views that draws people here.

The problem also is that many posters have "painted" themselves into philosophical and political corners through their consistent support or opposition to some political philosophy. That is when it becomes the same old saying the same old about the same old.

[Mighty AC]

With thousands of sects that agree on next to nothing I wonder what a Christian really is. Christians are the first to tell you that every disagreeable action taken by a person claiming to believe in Jeebus, is "not a real Christian". Palin calls herself a Christian, yet pushes an agenda that robs from the poor to give to the rich. Sarah called out the Pope for being too liberal on the wealth front, so maybe he's a Christian. Then of course, Franky rejected the whole turn the other cheek lesson and went on to justify violence against those that criticize religion or his mother. (Franky's mom is soooo fat that.....)

When describing Christian red necks amped up to kill Muslims after watching "American Sniper", Bill Maher quipped "that's not the Christian thing to do." But is there anything historically more Christian than killing Muslims or those loyal to another myth? Anyway, I think the term Christian has some power politically, but is devoid of meaning on a religious or moral level. I think it's time we rate groups of people by how they actually behave not the ideal they would like to achieve. I'm sure Nazi propaganda vids referred to the movement as being positive too.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

I think it's time we rate groups of people ...

I don't. Your idea of a group sets the question up so that it can be answered in the way you want. Individuals have rights, let's focus on individuals. If we can't trust individuals then maybe Obama's idea of an ID implant chip is necessary after all.

[Bonam]

I don't. Your idea of a group sets the question up so that it can be answered in the way you want. Individuals have rights, let's focus on individuals.

Hear hear. Unfortunately, the moment you want to focus on individuals, there will be people who come tell you that collective rights / grievances trump individual considerations.

[Mighty AC]

I don't. Your idea of a group sets the question up so that it can be answered in the way you want. Individuals have rights, let's focus on individuals. If we can't trust individuals then maybe Obama's idea of an ID implant chip is necessary after all.

My idea of a group simply is a number of people classed together based on a something common. Christians, Canadians, fans of the Toronto Maple Leafs, etc. Like individuals groups also have defining behaviours, actions and characteristics.

With respect to both individuals and groups it is important to recognize or judge them on their actual characteristics not how they profess to be. As a group, Nazis behaved differently than the messages in the propaganda films, Fox News personalities are certainly not all 'Fair and Balanced' and Christians do not uphold the ideals professed in the Christ stories and referenced when using phrases like 'not the Christian thing to do.'

So we can judge individuals based on their individual actions and we can rate groups by the actions of the collective. With respect to this thread the ideals people like to associate with Christianity often are not reflected by the actions of the group.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

My idea of a group simply is a number of people classed together based on a something common.

Right. So you can make a group out of almost any set of individuals.

Fox News personalities are certainly not all 'Fair and Balanced' and Christians do not uphold the ideals professed in the Christ stories and referenced when using phrases like 'not the Christian thing to do.'

If you're criticizing a group then you need to be careful with your words, as they will be parsed very carefully. You would probably do better to criticize a group to which you belong, actually, because it won't appear that you're just going after a group for being different.

Eg. "certainly not all" vs "Christians do not uphold"

So we can judge individuals based on their individual actions and we can rate groups by the actions of the collective.

To a certain degree you can, assuming you're the judgmental type. What is more difficult is to project your findings onto the wider group based on your experience, or assess some kind of causal link rather than just an correlative link.

With respect to this thread the ideals people like to associate with Christianity often are not reflected by the actions of the group.

And as I have pointed out, words like "often" are unquantified so really meaningless. What's clear when you use a term like "often" is that your argument can't proceed beyond an observation and so it's really just your perspective on whatever you're looking at, rather than something the rest of us should have to consider as meaningful.

[Michael Hardner]

Here's a group you can start with:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23732-indigenous-rights-and-title-in-canada/?p=1027802

[Mighty AC]

If you're criticizing a group then you need to be careful with your words, as they will be parsed very carefully. You would probably do better to criticize a group to which you belong, actually, because it won't appear that you're just going after a group for being different.

I criticize both groups I belong to and those I don't, plus I am clear why I go after them. You should stop insinuating that legitimate criticisms are bigoted. One does not have to be a homophobe or abusive spouse to disparage the practice.

And as I have pointed out, words like "often" are unquantified so really meaningless. What's clear when you use a term like "often" is that your argument can't proceed beyond an observation and so it's really just your perspective on whatever you're looking at, rather than something the rest of us should have to consider as meaningful.

When talking about generalities, general terms suffice. When talking about specific points I do provide specifics.

[Michael Hardner]

I criticize both groups I belong to and those I don't, plus I am clear why I go after them.

You are clear to yourself only. People won't believe that you're being objective when you're being criticized as an outsider.

When talking about generalities, general terms suffice. When talking about specific points I do provide specifics.

As I said... most generalities are useless...

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, that should be "many"... or "several"...

[WIP]

With thousands of sects that agree on next to nothing I wonder what a Christian really is. Christians are the first to tell you that every disagreeable action taken by a person claiming to believe in Jeebus, is "not a real Christian". Palin calls herself a Christian, yet pushes an agenda that robs from the poor to give to the rich. Sarah called out the Pope for being too liberal on the wealth front, so maybe he's a Christian. Then of course, Franky rejected the whole turn the other cheek lesson and went on to justify violence against those that criticize religion or his mother. (Franky's mom is soooo fat that.....)

When describing Christian red necks amped up to kill Muslims after watching "American Sniper", Bill Maher quipped "that's not the Christian thing to do." But is there anything historically more Christian than killing Muslims or those loyal to another myth? Anyway, I think the term Christian has some power politically, but is devoid of meaning on a religious or moral level. I think it's time we rate groups of people by how they actually behave not the ideal they would like to achieve. I'm sure Nazi propaganda vids referred to the movement as being positive too.

You're mixing two different themes together here! The last time....several years ago, I checked the religioustolerance website, the homepage noted that there were at least 33,000 different Christian sects in the world, and I'm sure that you can find a self-proclaimed Christian arguing on every side of every issue going! But, that doesn't exactly mean that Christianity in total is post-modern or has no core ethical teachings or moral principles. It's more a matter of whether Christian advocates...especially those in high positions of authority, are actually following those principles!

I'm surprised to see Bill Maher make that point....maybe he is actually learning something of late! Because you can't find a clear Christian justification for even being a soldier who has to kill in the line of duty...let alone find Christian justification for being an assassin or a sniper...regardless of the situations that might justify such actions. Let's just say that early Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas had to reach back to Aristotle or other Greek philosophers, rather than find a clear moral argument for Just War in the New Testament! But, Catholic theologians had to throw something together! Because...if Christians are completely honest about the origins of their faith, they have to admit that their religion began as an end of days cult, that did not foresee the world lasting another generation, let alone carrying on permanently and making the institutions of government - including war policy, a necessity.

But, it's not just in regards to modern warrior christianity where right wing opportunists have created a new religion; the traditional social gospel of Judaism through Christianity was turned on its head by the rise of Prosperity gospel theorizing, that wealth is a sign of God's blessings and poverty is a sign of not being in God's favour is the reverse of the traditional vantage point that the rich are always under suspicion for how they have gathered such great amounts of wealth, and how much they are beholden to the things of this world. While the poor...who are the subjects of derision and disregard in modern right wing christianity, are the focus of attention of both New Testament teaching and the prophets of the Old Testament.

Regarding important issues of today like the environment - this is one area where traditional Judeo-Christian teaching has to be shifted away from the traditional attitude towards the Creation. So, in modern progressive Christianity having dominion over the Earth means being a caretaker or custodian, looking after God's creation/not rendering or exploiting the Earth, which I have read, is much closer to the original Hebrew definition of having dominion. So, this is one issue where Christian tradition put us in a hole that's hard to get out of! But, regardless of what any religious tradition says/or doesn't say, if there is the will to improve general quality of life, it can be done!

A lot of people...in the west at least, are leaving Christianity and traditional religion behind, mostly because it doesn't have a clear role to play in our lives, living in typical modern urban environments. But, what people move towards is harder to define. Most don't seem to be really interested in big questions to life, or big social and ethical issues...at least not until they are nearer to death. The drift from Christianity looks more like a trend towards further hedonism, rather than any move towards a secular-humanist future. And among that secular humanist minority, the majority of new atheist/humanist writers seem to have exchanged their faith in God or religion for a faith in technology and human progress. This "faith" has almost universal appeal anyway....but it still doesn't address how 7+ billion people are going to deal with future resource scarcities or environmental destruction.

[Mighty AC]

You're mixing two different themes together here! The last time....several years ago, I checked the religioustolerance website, the homepage noted that there were at least 33,000 different Christian sects in the world, and I'm sure that you can find a self-proclaimed Christian arguing on every side of every issue going! But, that doesn't exactly mean that Christianity in total is post-modern or has no core ethical teachings or moral principles. It's more a matter of whether Christian advocates...especially those in high positions of authority, are actually following those principles!

I was making two points. I think the term Christian is almost meaningless and we should judge based on actions not idealized professions of one's purpose.

As you pointed out with so many diverse sects the term Christianity is fragmented and has little value. The shared core is so small at this point it ceases to matter. Terms like Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Catholic hold more value. It seems to me that the movement to refer to one's self as a Christian, rather than of a specific sect is a relatively recent one.

I'm surprised to see Bill Maher make that point....maybe he is actually learning something of late! Because you can't find a clear Christian justification for even being a soldier who has to kill in the line of duty...let alone find Christian justification for being an assassin or a sniper...regardless of the situations that might justify such actions. Let's just say that early Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas had to reach back to Aristotle or other Greek philosophers, rather than find a clear moral argument for Just War in the New Testament! But, Catholic theologians had to throw something together!

I think Bill was just using the term to highlight the hypocrisy of the Republican, gun toting, violent Christian right.

Because...if Christians are completely honest about the origins of their faith, they have to admit that their religion began as an end of days cult, that did not foresee the world lasting another generation, let alone carrying on permanently and making the institutions of government - including war policy, a necessity.

But, it's not just in regards to modern warrior christianity where right wing opportunists have created a new religion; the traditional social gospel of Judaism through Christianity was turned on its head by the rise of Prosperity gospel theorizing, that wealth is a sign of God's blessings and poverty is a sign of not being in God's favour is the reverse of the traditional vantage point that the rich are always under suspicion for how they have gathered such great amounts of wealth, and how much they are beholden to the things of this world. While the poor...who are the subjects of derision and disregard in modern right wing christianity, are the focus of attention of both New Testament teaching and the prophets of the Old Testament.

As for the end of days cult, sure, but as shown by the 33,000 sects it has evolved into many distinct cults now. Not unlike modern Republican Capitalist Christianity, I think original Christianity and the development of the Christ character himself was born out of people wanting a religion to better suit their own desires. It was designed to fulfill Jewish prophecy and included many popular religious themes from the time. Like biological evolution, eventually a species can change so much it is completely incompatible with its cousins.

A lot of people...in the west at least, are leaving Christianity and traditional religion behind, mostly because it doesn't have a clear role to play in our lives, living in typical modern urban environments. But, what people move towards is harder to define. Most don't seem to be really interested in big questions to life, or big social and ethical issues...at least not until they are nearer to death. The drift from Christianity looks more like a trend towards further hedonism, rather than any move towards a secular-humanist future. And among that secular humanist minority, the majority of new atheist/humanist writers seem to have exchanged their faith in God or religion for a faith in technology and human progress. This "faith" has almost universal appeal anyway....but it still doesn't address how 7+ billion people are going to deal with future resource scarcities or environmental destruction.

How do you account for the long, continuous decline in religious adherence coinciding with the long continuous reduction in violence and barbarism? Should the world get less safe and peaceful as people embrace hedonism over humanism?

As for how to manage scarce resources and weakened biosphere on a population stressed planet, embracing science, reason and education is a good place to start. A decline in religion is helpful here but we will also need to squash the new conservative, anti-intellectualism movement.

[WIP]

I was making two points. I think the term Christian is almost meaningless and we should judge based on actions not idealized professions of one's purpose.

As you pointed out with so many diverse sects the term Christianity is fragmented and has little value. The shared core is so small at this point it ceases to matter. Terms like Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Catholic hold more value. It seems to me that the movement to refer to one's self as a Christian, rather than of a specific sect is a relatively recent one.

Not necessarily! I think there is a clear set of principles promoting empathy, unselfishness and non-violence as the general principles that can be derived from the New Testament. I have also mentioned before that...especially when the Church-added verses and re-interpretations are omitted, the Gospel of Jesus is radically pro-women's liberation compared with any other teaching of that time. There are a number of things that can considered universal Christian values, but they can just as easily be ignored and even directly opposed by those claiming to be Christians. So, on that point I disagree. If all those calling themselves Christians were trying to follow the gospel, the world would be a better place today.

I think Bill was just using the term to highlight the hypocrisy of the Republican, gun toting, violent Christian right.

But, in so doing, he understands that gun-toting violent Christianity is anti-Christian.

How do you account for the long, continuous decline in religious adherence coinciding with the long continuous reduction in violence and barbarism? Should the world get less safe and peaceful as people embrace hedonism over humanism?

Don't believe the crap that Stephen Pinker writes (Our Better Angels in particular). His hopeful presentation of a glorious humanist future...with a few little bumps on the road, is total crap...but unfortunately the kind of crap that a lot of very, very powerful people today want to hear. Bill Gates is a high profile fan for one...and last week, I learned that another dotcom asshole - Steve Zuckerberg has Our Better Angels no. 1 on his book club reading list! You don't have to have a credible argument if you can enlist a small coterie of billionaires and politicians like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on your side!

In a nutshell, other works I've read which are critical of Pinker and similar presentations of savage, warlike human ancestors, are doing it from cherrypicking the limited archaeological data available, along with jumbled up categories of modern so called hunter/gatherer groups...most not legitimately falling under that classification in the first place, regardless of how violent they are.

But, the big failing of this notion that civilization is becoming more peaceful is that it doesn't count state-sponsored violence in the tallies! So, terrorism is a crime, but anti-terrorist strategies by governments are not.

As for how to manage scarce resources and weakened biosphere on a population stressed planet, embracing science, reason and education is a good place to start. A decline in religion is helpful here but we will also need to squash the new conservative, anti-intellectualism movement.

I don't see eliminating religion and a corresponding rise in secularism as necessarily helpful or unhelpful. The one difference is that the claimed adherents of existing religions may have their holy books held up in their faces when there is a groundswell to change, while the emerging secular humanists have no similar book to follow and can go off in any direction: pro destructive, exploitive capitalist or pro-environment as no. 1 principle.

[Mighty AC]

Not necessarily! I think there is a clear set of principles promoting empathy, unselfishness and non-violence as the general principles that can be derived from the New Testament. I have also mentioned before that...especially when the Church-added verses and re-interpretations are omitted, the Gospel of Jesus is radically pro-women's liberation compared with any other teaching of that time. There are a number of things that can considered universal Christian values, but they can just as easily be ignored and even directly opposed by those claiming to be Christians. So, on that point I disagree. If all those calling themselves Christians were trying to follow the gospel, the world would be a better place today.

That's my point! The clear set of core principles you outline here are being violated by so many; take the Republican types in the US for example. Palin even criticizes the Pope for his adherence to some of them. Though even he, the worldly conduit for God's messages, espouses violence if his religion or mother is criticized.

But, in so doing, he understands that gun-toting violent Christianity is anti-Christian.

That's my other point. He used it as a joke, but he doesn't believe it. Claiming Christians are humble, peace loving folk because that's what their literature says would be like saying Hamas is a charitable organization because that's what they advertise.

Don't believe the crap that Stephen Pinker writes (Our Better Angels in particular).

In a nutshell, other works I've read which are critical of Pinker and similar presentations of savage, warlike human ancestors, are doing it from cherrypicking the limited archaeological data available, along with jumbled up categories of modern so called hunter/gatherer groups...most not legitimately falling under that classification in the first place, regardless of how violent they are.

But, the big failing of this notion that civilization is becoming more peaceful is that it doesn't count state-sponsored violence in the tallies! So, terrorism is a crime, but anti-terrorist strategies by governments are not.

I haven't read anything by Pinker so I can't comment, though I will make a point to check it out. I can't definitely say you're wrong here without doing some research, but your comment goes against everything I've read. It seems pretty clear that humanity has had a steady decline in violence and religiosity. However, I can't say the trend will continue for violence. A finite planet, with finite resources and a ballooning population mostly controlled by greedy, short sighted, conservative a--holes leads me to believe that widespread violent revolts are unavoidable, for reasons that have nothing to do with fairy tales.

I don't see eliminating religion and a corresponding rise in secularism as necessarily helpful or unhelpful. The one difference is that the claimed adherents of existing religions may have their holy books held up in their faces when there is a groundswell to change, while the emerging secular humanists have no similar book to follow and can go off in any direction: pro destructive, exploitive capitalist or pro-environment as no. 1 principle.

Sure it's possible. The holy books are not helpful on the topic of progressing human well-being though. Also, every study shows greater respect for scientific evidence among both non-believers (and Jews) than the general religious populations. Thus, I doubt atheists will be prone to ideologies not based in evidence.

Parents who raise their kids without religion are doing just fine, studies say, possibly even better. Overall, not believing in God seems to make people and their offspring more tolerant. Less racist. Less sexist. Enviro-friendly. And their kids care less about what's cool, which—say it with me—only makes them cooler.

http://jezebel.com/godless-parents-are-doing-a-better-job-1682844001

Edited February 5, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Rue]

I am agreeing with AC and anyone else who thinks asking what is a Christian simply asks someone for a subjective opinion that necessarily will be rendered meaningless by the subjectivity of the answer.

It calls for either subjective generalizations based on subjective assumptions and stereotypes.

There is no objective/neutral methodology from which to define a Christian.

As far as I am concerned a Christian is what any Christian tells me they are.

So since we are quoting Pinker, we should quote me while we are at it when I say a Christian is someone:

1-who puts mayonnaise instead of mustard on sandwitches that call for mustard;

2-uses a bagel for something other than lox and cream cheese;

3-has checkered pants that don't fit and who loves the colour baige and pastels;

4-thinks Vanna White is exotic and hot;

5-thinks God will help the Toronto Maple Leafs;

6-thinks the Royal Family are good looking and charming;

7-thinks Dalton Abbey is a reality show;

8-thinks expressing emotion is done by burping;

9-thinks Alberta is the promised land;

10-does not believe in dentists;

11-loves to wear navy blue jackets with brown pants;

12-wears a tie when mowing thelawn;

13-horse back rides but deny it excites them;

14-thinks Wayne Newton is a man;

15-believes the Union Jack is the flag of Canada;

16-prefers drinking alcohol to eating;

17-believes ham is holy;

18-never misses Coronation Street;

19-thinks smoked meat refers to what they want to do to ISIL;

20-finds Steven Harper sexy;

21-wants their children to marry someone with a name they can pronounce and a small nose.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Rue

[Moonlight Graham]

I am agreeing with AC and anyone else who thinks asking what is a Christian simply asks someone for a subjective opinion that necessarily will be rendered meaningless by the subjectivity of the answer.

It calls for either subjective generalizations based on subjective assumptions and stereotypes.

There is no objective/neutral methodology from which to define a Christian.

As far as I am concerned a Christian is what any Christian tells me they are.

Some good points.

But as per your last point, can someone who identifies themselves as "a Christian" but also doesn't believe anyone named Jesus Christ ever existed and doesn't believe in any of his teachings, doesn't believe in anything in the Bible, and believes that 2 gods named Bob and Andy created the universe...can they still be called a Christian? I don't think so.

[Mighty AC]

Some good points.

But as per your last point, can someone who identifies themselves as "a Christian" but also doesn't believe anyone named Jesus Christ ever existed and doesn't believe in any of his teachings, doesn't believe in anything in the Bible, and believes that 2 gods named Bob and Andy created the universe...can they still be called a Christian? I don't think so.

Maybe not Bob and Andy but Catholic clergy are fond of Neil and Bob.