What is a Christian?

Michael Hardner · August 16, 2011

But those things in the Bible....they were written by authors, who call themselves the Apostles. They claim that Jesus appointed them...taught them....so they can continue to spread His word. They claim Jesus said those things, they claim to have witnessed those things and more. You believe them.

One could believe their accounts, without believing their interpretations of the teachings.

cybercoma · August 16, 2011

betsy, do yourself a favour and read The Bible: A Biography by Karen Armstrong

betsy · August 16, 2011

Moved from the topic, The Bible.

If my posting and the previous one are not clear enough, if the APOSTLES'S CREED is not clear enough, then both the Creed and the English language are joining the growing list of things you do not understand.

Unless you are either:

God

one of His Angels

one of the Saints

the Pope (yes, I am Catholic)

my Bishop, or

my priest

You are not the judge of what I believe, how I live what I believe, how I express what I believe.

No, I am not the judge.

But you brought up this issue. As I've said, you strongly come across as agnostic or atheist by your own arguments with me in practically every topics I've posted about religion.

And your accusation that "CREATIONISM IS A FRAUD."

You corrected me about my "misconception" of you, and you claim you are a Christian. Since you seem so hostile against those who believe in Creation(to the point where you seem to be so well in-tuned and comfortable with the new atheists in this forum who'd been ridiculing the Bible, and you don't seem to believe that God created....or designed everything, therefore I ask you to explain why you think you are a Christian?

It's just as simple as that. You brought in a contradictory statement - bolstered by your attitude and views which appear to be in-line with the new atheists on this board. That statement declaring yourself to be a Christian came like a lightning bolt!

It does requires an explanation....unless of course, that statement was said...out of confusion, maybe?

You are not sure where you stand that's why you do not wish to elaborate on it?

You cannot explain your position because they're clashing against one another and they cannot be reconciled, perhaps?

I don't know. I can only speculate that you're confused.

Edited August 16, 2011 by betsy

betsy · August 16, 2011

One could believe their accounts, without believing their interpretations of the teachings.

Believe their accounts about the birth and death of Christ.

The Pentecost, the miracles, His resurrection....His diety.

That they were personally appointed - and taught by Jesus Himself.

And yet not believe their "interpretations" of the teachings?

How can that be? Yes, the Apostles did the writing.

But if you believe their accounts, therefore you must believe "their interpretations" - which according to their account comes from the Holy Spirit/Christ.

Edited August 16, 2011 by betsy

Michael Hardner · August 16, 2011

But if you believe their accounts, therefore you must believe "their interpretations" - which according to their account comes from the Holy Spirit/Christ.

No, you can believe what is believable to you, and leave out the rest. Certainly the teachings and parables can stand alone as a philosophy, and are likely closer to the actual words and deeds of the man than many of the stories of miracles and so on.

Shwa · August 16, 2011

I don't think you can call it a religion. It's a philosophy upon which a set of religions is based.

I think it's possible to be Christian without being religious.

Nope. By all definitions, Christianity is a religion and there mere act of identifying oneself as Christian is a religious act.

Shwa · August 16, 2011

I believe that those who persist in pushing their religion on others are more followers of Paul the Roman who institutionalised the corporate church, than Jesus who simply drew people to him.

Amen.

Michael Hardner · August 16, 2011

Nope. By all definitions, Christianity is a religion and there mere act of identifying oneself as Christian is a religious act.

Christianity is a set of religions, based on the teachings of one man. So what do you call someone who believes in the philosophy behind the teachings, but rejects the supernatural trappings ?

I would call that person a Christian.

Shwa · August 16, 2011

Christianity is a set of religions, based on the teachings of one man. So what do you call someone who believes in the philosophy behind the teachings, but rejects the supernatural trappings ?
I would call that person a Christian.

Christianity is a religion with many sects or denominations, like every other religion on the planet.

Anyone that identifies themselves as a Christian is performing a religious act. Supernatural trappings are not required for this act.

Michael Hardner · August 16, 2011

Anyone that identifies themselves as a Christian is performing a religious act.

Says you ! :lol:

Luckily, there's no overarching authority for people's self-definitions. There's even an arch conservative on here who thinks of himself as a radical liberal lawyer !

M.Dancer · August 16, 2011

A Christian not only believes in God....but he also obeys the gospel of God.

So does that mean they were no Betsy approved Christians prior to the 1870?

Shwa · August 16, 2011

Luckily, there's no overarching authority for people's self-definitions.

True. But there are definitions of the terms people choose to self-identify themselves as.

M.Dancer · August 16, 2011

Obviuosly one must accept consubstantiality or risk being burned at the stake

betsy · August 16, 2011

No, you can believe what is believable to you, and leave out the rest. Certainly the teachings and parables can stand alone as a philosophy, and are likely closer to the actual words and deeds of the man than many of the stories of miracles and so on.

Oh okay. So they just like the philosphy of Christ.

I thought you're saying that they can still be considered Christians.

betsy · August 16, 2011

Christianity is a set of religions, based on the teachings of one man. So what do you call someone who believes in the philosophy behind the teachings, but rejects the supernatural trappings ?

I would call that person a Christian.

If someone reads textbooks on law, but never actually took law or pass the bar....do you call him a lawyer?

betsy · August 16, 2011

Christianity is a religion with many sects or denominations, like every other religion on the planet.

Anyone that identifies themselves as a Christian is performing a religious act. Supernatural trappings are not required for this act.

Although I agree with you that Christianity is a religion, apparently not everyone who identifies themselves as christians are performing a religious act....at least, that's being argued by M Hardner.

I guess there are Christians.....and then, there are pseudo-christians.

Edited August 16, 2011 by betsy

Michael Hardner · August 16, 2011

If someone reads textbooks on law, but never actually took law or pass the bar....do you call him a lawyer?

No, you don't. But that's not analogous.

CANADIEN · August 16, 2011

Obviuosly one must accept consubstantiality or risk being burned at the stake

Dancer Dancer Dancer... This is the 21th century. We now attack them with giant fonts.

betsy · August 17, 2011

No, you don't. But that's not analogous.

Of course it is. There are certain requirements that must be met to be called a Christian....just like there are certain requirements that must be met to be called a lawyer.

Is Chess still the game of chess if one wants to play it but refuses to use a queen....or wants to change the l-shape movement of the horse?

Is baseball still the game of baseball when one refuses to use a bat, and instead uses his hand to strike the ball? There are rules.

Of course, one can insist on identifying themselves as "lawyers"....but that doesn't necessarily mean that they truly are.

Even "doctors" who carry their charade too far by actually seeing and diagnosing patients for real end up in hot water.

Edited August 17, 2011 by betsy

betsy · August 17, 2011

Since there is no widely agreed-upon definition of Christian, though, you almost have to allow people to define themselves as Christians or not.

Allow? Who can allow?

It is not for me to "allow" anyone to identify himself as a Christian.

I'm just stating a fact.

Based on the teachings of Christ through the Apostles....and based on logic.

Edited August 17, 2011 by betsy

dre · August 17, 2011

I don't understand your point either. The philosophy of Jesus was published by an organization, that has since splintered and declined - and so ? What's to stop somebody from reading the book and deciding that they like what's in it ?

They CAN do that, but that book isnt the word of jesus, its a collection of stories compiled for political reasons. You cant separate Jesus from the Christian church by reading the bible because its a church document. Its there book, not Jesus's. Their message.

dre · August 17, 2011

One could believe their accounts, without believing their interpretations of the teachings.

Why? These accounts are very much in question. The only thing we know the church got right was the word Christ. All the rest of it is up in the air.

First of all... the first generation of Christians never wrote much down because they believed Jesus had told them he would return while they were still alive. It wasnt until after he was dead, that the bible was compiled, and when it was compiled a lot of the gospels were buried or not included and they all radically contradict each other. The gospels that are in the bible were chosen because they provided a somewhat similar and reconcilable account.

Picture a political organization today writing the bible of Abraham Lincoln without any written work to reference, by remembering stories that had been handed down by the previous generation. It would have some accurate stuff in there and some correct quotes, but not very much. Thats what the catholic bible is.

dre · August 17, 2011

Believe their accounts about the birth and death of Christ.

The Pentecost, the miracles, His resurrection....His diety.

That they were personally appointed - and taught by Jesus Himself.

And yet not believe their "interpretations" of the teachings?

How can that be? Yes, the Apostles did the writing.

But if you believe their accounts, therefore you must believe "their interpretations" - which according to their account comes from the Holy Spirit/Christ.

No historians consider it very unlikely that any of the gospels were really written by the Apostles. And we know for a fact that they were cherry picked, and many not included.

Edited August 17, 2011 by dre

dre · August 17, 2011

Christianity is a set of religions, based on the teachings of one man. So what do you call someone who believes in the philosophy behind the teachings, but rejects the supernatural trappings ?

I would call that person a Christian.

No!!! Its not based on the teachings of one man, its based on a collection of writings by people that most likely never met him, at least a hundred years after he died, and compiled by a political organization.

Michael Hardner · August 17, 2011

No!!! Its not based on the teachings of one man, its based on a collection of writings by people that most likely never met him, at least a hundred years after he died, and compiled by a political organization.

Well, somebody wrote those teachings, and it's attributed to someone call Jesus so there you are: "Christian". Many say Shakespeare didn't write his plays either, and there is still the term 'Shakesperean'...