What is a Christian?

[cybercoma]

Not any less annoying when other people do it. At least there's no smileys though.

[dre]

Not any less annoying when other people do it. At least there's no smileys though.

Ok ok sorry.

[betsy]

NONE of them do. The only thing that christianity has to do with Christ is that they used a legend of a great man that has lived a century before as the basis for their state santioned belief/control system.

Its OBVIOUSLY true, because those are some HUGE ASS FONTS!

Using huge fonts might give you a perception of truth to what you say....but, that ain't so.

You must still be able to back up your statement. Huge fonts denotes CONFIDENCE in the statement being posted, among other things.

It means the poster can go head-to-head defending that ground!

Backing it up with something credible other than pure spit!

So far, you're just repeating your personal opinion.....and like your personal on the history of western civilization, it's far from being accurate.

Christianity seems to be a mosaic of judaism and various pagan religions like Mithraism that was wrapped around the Jesus legend

Speaking of Mithraism, here's a curious note from a group that call itself the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance.

Similarities between Pagan and Christian practices

The early Christians and Pagans shared many rituals and practices. Authors Freke & Gandy appear to assume that all of the copying was done by Christians from Pagan sources. 3 However, some might have gone in the opposite direction. During the 3rd century CE, Mithraism and Christianity were the main competitors for the religious affiliation the citizens of Romans. Some Christian practices might have actually been picked up by the Mithraites, rather than vice-versa.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

As for the actual day of Sabbath it's supposed to be Saturday if you follow the statutes given to the Jews. As for the actual date for Christmas and Death and Resurrection....yeah, those are said to be inaccurate. One explanation why some Christian holidays coincide with pagan celebrations was due to the persecutions of Christians in those days, and to sort of make the transition easier for the pagan converts.

The New Testament discourages Christians from squabbling about small details. What's important is the faith and following the gospel.

The bible itself is still partly a mystery. It was mostly likely written by Roman aristrocrats. Maybe the Piso family. Who knows. Not me... not you. Christianity seems to be a mosaic of judaism and various pagan religions like Mithraism that was wrapped around the Jesus legend which may have been based on a little bit of truth at least in terms of a man with that name actually existing and being the subject of various stories handed down by the previous generation.

A mystery? BINGO! See what I mean?

If it's a mystery to you....therefore, you don't know diddly squat! Just read what you've stated again. You practically admit you're arguing about something you don't know!

And speak for yourself....don't try to wrangle me along with you.

I KNOW THE BIBLE IS TRUE! And I've been proving it all along....with you nothing to contradict what's been offered as proof so far!

So never mind your attempt to get me in the same leaky boat you sit on.

I KNOW...and YOU DON'T. You've just stated that as a fact!

Your statement is full of "seems....and maybes" You say it's still a mystery! You say you don't know!

Then how come you've already come up with your "conclusion?"

What's your "conclusion" based upon?

In huge fonts to boot!

Edited August 18, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

I KNOW...and YOU DON'T.

I understand that gord is getting very pissed off by all this judging (lest you be judged).

[Michael Hardner]

Betsy,

FOUR replies !

But Shakespeare is a writer. He didn't found a religion.

This is a side issue - I was responding to the question of calling Jesus' teachings Christian, though some dispute that those were his teachings.

Do you believe that God created everything, that ...

This debate is not about what I believe.

Some of those "flavours" of Christianity do not follow the teachings of Christ. Like those cults who commit mass murders

or those clergy who rape children.

So as I said, one can insist to call themselves "Christians," but that doesn't make them so.

And there we have the problem - it's a common use term that people use to describe themselves and others without consensus.

What is 'liberal' ? What is 'open minded' ?

An "option?" Because they insist on calling themselves Christians? If I insist to give myself the title of "Queen," and refer to myself as Her Royal Highness Queen Betsy....

Are you saying I've got that option? Do I really have that option?

More likely everyone will call me Delusional before anyone would call me by my preferred title!

Yes, you have the option to call yourself something that clearly doesn't describe you. The term 'Christian' is more problematic, for the reasons we're discussing here.

If you've heard people referred to as Hegelian...perhaps in some creative writing (which means their philosophy).........but not common use.

Yes, if I heard somebody called Hegelian (928K Google hits) as a follower of his or Nietzschean (957K Google hits) and there are definitions of these terms in the online dictionary and Wikipedia so they are definitely common use.

The aanalogy is not the same. The term Christian is not being associated with a place of origin. The ancestors of Quebeckers came from France - hence, the Fench Connection.

The term Christian is a description of someone who follows the religion founded by Christ.

It is more than just a philosophy.

The "philosophy" of Christ is actually His explanations of the terms on how a person - His follower - can have eternal life.

His way of simplifying the "rules."

Rules imply principles, which are more common to a philosophy than a religion, I would say.

The analogy is about common use of a term that doesn't make logical sense. The "French" in Canada are not French, they're Canadians. "Christians" are not those who follow the rules of Christ (by your own admission) but those who are members of a religion based on his teachings.

If one admires only the philosophy of Christ, then why not just say it so? I like His philosophy!

Why not admit more people into the broader umbrella of Christianity ? It has been quite successful as a philosophy, so let's give it credit where it's due.

For really, how can one even believe anything coming from someone he actually think is a liar?

I don't understand that sentence.

Are you comfy being decribed as "special?" Think it over.

It's not about me.

[Shwa]

I KNOW THE BIBLE IS TRUE! And I've been proving it all along

You see betsy, here's the problem:

It is very easy to "know" something to be "true" and sincerely prove it to oneself. Hypochondriacs are a good example of that sort of mental operation. The difficulty is in proving it to others - on external grounds, not your internal grounds. This is why hypochondriacs generally fail to convince their doctors of their various false illnesses and conditions, but are able to have the true illneses diagnosed and treated when they arise.

Between the hypochondriac and doctor exists an external, agreed upon, frame of reference to discuss 'the thing' they are both interested in, otherwise known as an 'object.' The hypochondriac agrees to the object-ivity of this frame of reference because that is the only way the doctor will agree to an examination.

So are you saying you have proved that the Bible is objectively true? And, if so, is it objectively true in a literal sense, a symbolic sense or a mixture of the two? (and, if a mixture, how does one determine what is literal and what is symbolic?)

[Michael Hardner]

Why not humanist? It is an article of faith that those views were "ascribed to JC" and moreso when you dig into the authenticity of the content of text, which is where those views come from. But once you identify yourself, it is all religion from there on in.

Humanism certainly meshes with Christian philosophy, but it's more ambiguous.

That includes you as well.

You're mistaking logical for commonly understood. You know that funny tidbit where 'inflammable' and 'flammable' can mean the same thing ? Like that.

No, Christianity is distinquished as a religion. Perhaps a definition of philosophy is in order. Here is your standard wiki cite - agree or disagree?

Sure.

How does Christ's "philosophy," which is derived wholly from a widely recognized religious text, compare to the definition?

Quite well.

Now you can argue that his words - standing alone - might constitute a philosophy of sorts and I might tend to agree. But Christ was a Jew, not a Christian. All the rest - the "Christian" parts - is all religion.

There's a philosophy at the core of it, which I would argue is more important historically than the religious aspects. As with other philosophers, (say, Carl Jung) there are various facets to their body of work.

[Shwa]

Humanism certainly meshes with Christian philosophy, but it's more ambiguous.

Sure it is, but re-inventing meanings for words (or worse, twisting them) to suit one's purpose leaves things a titch more ambiguous in my mind. Besides, what's the big deal about being associated with a religion if that is where your philosophy comes from?

You're mistaking logical for commonly understood. You know that funny tidbit where 'inflammable' and 'flammable' can mean the same thing ? Like that.

Exactly. So where do you derive the meanings for 'inflammable' and 'flammable?'

There's a philosophy at the core of it, which I would argue is more important historically than the religious aspects. As with other philosophers, (say, Carl Jung) there are various facets to their body of work.

Sure there is. But you would be hard pressed to avoid the religious argument - or implication of religion - when you explain your interpretation of any of those core philosophical tenets. Not to mention the historicity of any give word, phrase or passage and how those have been modified over time through translation, etc. The history of the Bible is a very central piece to the religion.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure it is, but re-inventing meanings for words (or worse, twisting them) to suit one's purpose leaves things a titch more ambiguous in my mind. Besides, what's the big deal about being associated with a religion if that is where your philosophy comes from?

One might be a secular Christian, is the point.

Exactly. So where do you derive the meanings for 'inflammable' and 'flammable?'

Common use, however if you use the term you may be inclined to be a pixie, a devil, a word nerd and point out the fallacy in using the term.

I suppose 'secular Christian' works better if you want clarity.

But you would be hard pressed to avoid the religious argument - or implication of religion - when you explain your interpretation of any of those core philosophical tenets. Not to mention the historicity of any give word, phrase or passage and how those have been modified over time through translation, etc. The history of the Bible is a very central piece to the religion.

Agreed. I guess it depends on how much discussion you want to generate when you're using these terms.

[dre]

Using huge fonts might give you a perception of truth to what you say....but, that ain't so.

You must still be able to back up your statement. Huge fonts denotes CONFIDENCE in the statement being posted, among other things.

It means the poster can go head-to-head defending that ground!

Backing it up with something credible other than pure spit!

So far, you're just repeating your personal opinion.....and like your personal on the history of western civilization, it's far from being accurate.

Speaking of Mithraism, here's a curious note from a group that call itself the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

As for the actual day of Sabbath it's supposed to be Saturday if you follow the statutes given to the Jews. As for the actual date for Christmas and Death and Resurrection....yeah, those are said to be inaccurate. One explanation why some Christian holidays coincide with pagan celebrations was due to the persecutions of Christians in those days, and to sort of make the transition easier for the pagan converts.

The New Testament discourages Christians from squabbling about small details. What's important is the faith and following the gospel.

A mystery? BINGO! See what I mean?

If it's a mystery to you....therefore, you don't know diddly squat! Just read what you've stated again. You practically admit you're arguing about something you don't know!

And speak for yourself....don't try to wrangle me along with you.

I KNOW THE BIBLE IS TRUE! And I've been proving it all along....with you nothing to contradict what's been offered as proof so far!

So never mind your attempt to get me in the same leaky boat you sit on.

I KNOW...and YOU DON'T. You've just stated that as a fact!

Your statement is full of "seems....and maybes" You say it's still a mystery! You say you don't know!

Then how come you've already come up with your "conclusion?"

What's your "conclusion" based upon?

In huge fonts to boot!

Similarities between Pagan and Christian practices

The early Christians and Pagans shared many rituals and practices. Authors Freke & Gandy appear to assume that all of the copying was done by Christians from Pagan sources. 3 However, some might have gone in the opposite direction. During the 3rd century CE, Mithraism and Christianity were the main competitors for the religious affiliation the citizens of Romans. Some Christian practices might have actually been picked up by the Mithraites, rather than vice-versa.

Yes Iv read this attempt at goose stepping before. The problem is that mithraism and its rituals are a hel of a lot older, and were popular for centuries before christ was even born.

I KNOW...and YOU DON'T.

Thats really not the case. You DONT know. You dont know who wrote the bible, you dont know when it was written, you dont know that some of those gospels were based on very short skeleton versions of the stories that were handed down a couple of generations, and you dont know how much they changed. You also dont appear to know that there were other gospels and many other stories and writings that were included, and that some of those gospels completely disagreed on central points like the ressurection.

You have a bunch of wild guesses... that you mistake for facts out of sheer smug arrogance. The only diference is I wont lie to myself and coin my suspicions as incontravertable facts.

[Saipan]

Yes, you have the option to call yourself something that clearly doesn't describe you. The term 'Christian' is more problematic, for the reasons we're discussing here.

So is Atheist.

[cybercoma]

I tell people I'm a Christian Atheist... that usually makes them scratch their heads.

[Moonlight Graham]

A Christian is someone who believes in the words from the New Testament of things that Jesus Christ purportedly said or did by those Apostles/Disciples etc. (some of whom never even met Jesus or was alive when he was) that claim these things did occur. or by those who may have edited their writings afterward.

[betsy]

The analogy is about common use of a term that doesn't make logical sense. The "French" in Canada are not French, they're Canadians. "Christians" are not those who follow the rules of Christ (by your own admission) -

???

On the contrary, Christians are the ones who do follow the rules of Christ. Those who say they are Christians, and yet do not follow the rules and teachings of Christ, are not true christians. I'd given the child-raping clergy as an example of the latter.

but those who are members of a religion based on his teachings.

It is a religion, with rules and teachings that came directly from Christ. This religion is founded by Christ!

Why not admit more people into the broader umbrella of Christianity ?

It is not for me to give admission passes to be identified as a Christian. I'm just stating the fact that there are rules and requirements to be identified as a Christan.

It has been quite successful as a philosophy, so let's give it credit where it's due.

Of course, why wouldn't it be successful considering from whom it came? After all, God knows what's best for His people.....although we usually do not see it the way He does.

No one is stopping or forbidding you to follow which philosophy you wish to pick out from the teachings of Christ.

I don't understand that sentence.

Jesus Christ said He is the Son of God. He performed miracles. He prophesied His death and Resurrection. He died and He Resurrected. He talked about His second Coming....His Kingdom on earth. He talked about eternal life. In fact, that's why He came to die for us....to give us a chance at eternal life.

You say you don't believe those. That they aren'ttrue. So, aren't you saying He was a liar?

If you believe Him to be a liar....why'd you even consider any of His philosophies?

You said you like His Golden Rule....well, there are other philosophies quite similar to the Golden Rule. If I'm not mistaken, Confuscious said something similar....so why not be a Confucian instead? You don't have to deal with the supernatural.

It's not about me.

I din't mean you personally. But would one be comfy with that word, "special" christian?

Of course, from a true Christian's point of view.....referring to one's self as "special" - raising one's self above the others, with a ring of "mockery" towards those who do believe in everything Christ said, is not exactly in-line with Christ's philosophy.

[betsy]

You see betsy, here's the problem:

It is very easy to "know" something to be "true" and sincerely prove it to oneself. Hypochondriacs are a good example of that sort of mental operation. The difficulty is in proving it to others - on external grounds, not your internal grounds. This is why hypochondriacs generally fail to convince their doctors of their various false illnesses and conditions, but are able to have the true illneses diagnosed and treated when they arise.

Between the hypochondriac and doctor exists an external, agreed upon, frame of reference to discuss 'the thing' they are both interested in, otherwise known as an 'object.' The hypochondriac agrees to the object-ivity of this frame of reference because that is the only way the doctor will agree to an examination.

So are you saying you have proved that the Bible is objectively true? And, if so, is it objectively true in a literal sense, a symbolic sense or a mixture of the two? (and, if a mixture, how does one determine what is literal and what is symbolic?)

But then, we're not arguing whether the Bible is true or not. You have the chance to prove it wrong by going to the other topic, The Bible....and start contradicting the facts listed in that thread. With credible sources, of course.

Even though my belief is based on faith.....I've been giving scientific proofs that support the Bible.

Hypochondriac....imaginary illness. You must be referring to Dre or to the rest of you new atheists (who still firmly clings to the deadwood Neo-Darwinism). I even showed you why it's only logical for you evolutionists to support Intelligent Design instead, since it doesn't throw away the possibility of evolution!

That hypochondria analogy doesn't apply to me folks! It's not me who's imagining things.

Edited August 19, 2011 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

???

On the contrary, Christians are the ones who do follow the rules of Christ. ...

It is a religion, with rules and teachings that came directly from Christ. This religion is founded by Christ!

Those who don't believe in Christ's divinity, but follow the rules for living are called ... ?

It is not for me to give admission passes to be identified as a Christian. I'm just stating the fact that there are rules and requirements to be identified as a Christan.

Strangely, you say it's not for you to give admission passes, but yet you decide that a Christian must believe in the divinity ?

Ultimately, if someone thinks you are or aren't a Christian, it's their opinion.

You say you don't believe those.

...

If I'm not mistaken, Confuscious said something similar....so why not be a Confucian instead? You don't have to deal with the supernatural.

This discussion isn't about what I believe.

Confuscious said things, Buddha said things, but Jesus defined the Christian philosophy uniquely.

I din't mean you personally. But would one be comfy with that word, "special" christian?

One ? Maybe one would.

[betsy]

Those who don't believe in Christ's divinity, but follow the rules for living are called ... ?

All I did was correct your previous statement about me....which was contrary to what I was saying.

People who don't believe in Christ's divinity, but follow the rules for living are called......people. Those living in the USA are called Americans. In Canada, Canadians. In UK, British.

Aren't their rule of laws adapted from what you called, "rules of living" of Christ?

Strangely, you say it's not for you to give admission passes, but yet you decide that a Christian must believe in the divinity ?

Divinity of Jesus. To be precise.

It's a fact. I'm just repeating what's been said in the Bible.

Btw, I'm not being insulting....but with that question I want to know. Be honest. Have you read the New Testament?

Did you read the verses I gave on page 1 or 2....about Christians, and what identify them?

Ultimately, if someone thinks you are or aren't a Christian, it's their opinion.

To relativists.

After all, to relativists....the truth is what they think it is.

and....the truth is what they want it to be.

This discussion isn't about what I believe.

Ultimately, it is. How do we begin to understand where you're coming from? You "represent" the views of those whom you described as so-called "christians."

Confuscious said things, Buddha said things, but Jesus defined the Christian philosophy uniquely.

Uniquely, yessss!

But first I want to know what you mean. What do you think is "unique" about the Christian philosophy which was defined by Christ?

Edited August 19, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Since you feel so strongly about this....

What particular teachings of Christ do you believe in? Please be specific.

It will also be appreciated if you can quote the verse from the Bible.

[Michael Hardner]

Since you feel so strongly about this....

What particular teachings of Christ do you believe in? Please be specific.

It will also be appreciated if you can quote the verse from the Bible.

I have already said that this discussion isn't about what I believe. I'm talking about the term 'Christian' and its popular use, versus what it could mean when referring to certain beliefs.

[Michael Hardner]

All I did was correct your previous statement about me....which was contrary to what I was saying.

I don't think I made any statements about you, other than talking about your interpretation of the term "Christian".

People who don't believe in Christ's divinity, but follow the rules for living are called......people. Those living in the USA are called Americans. In Canada, Canadians. In UK, British.

They could be called Christians, although I think I've settled on the term 'secular Christians'.

Aren't their rule of laws adapted from what you called, "rules of living" of Christ?

Just as Christianity was adapted, evolved from Judaism, yes.

Divinity of Jesus. To be precise.

It's a fact. I'm just repeating what's been said in the Bible.

Many people don't accept the bible as being entirely factual, including religious Christians.

Can we call these people Christians ? I hope so. There are many Christians who accept evolution, for example.

Btw, I'm not being insulting....but with that question I want to know. Be honest. Have you read the New Testament?

Of course. How many people haven't ?

To relativists.

After all, to relativists....the truth is what they think it is.

and....the truth is what they want it to be.[/size]

Ultimately, it is. How do we begin to understand where you're coming from? You "represent" the views of those whom you described as so-called "christians."

Ultimately, everyone decides the truth for themselves. As I have pointed out, the term 'Christian' is even more problematic as there is no earthly authority who decides who is Christian and who isn't.

But first I want to know what you mean. What do you think is "unique" about the Christian philosophy which was defined by Christ?

The Golden Rule: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

[Shwa]

But then, we're not arguing whether the Bible is true or not. You have the chance to prove it wrong by going to the other topic, The Bible....and start contradicting the facts listed in that thread. With credible sources, of course.

No, because the argument is about your claim to "know" that the Bible is "true." It is an epistemological argument based on the premise that you are assigning your internal perceptions as objectively, or externally, true. It doesn't matter so much what you think about the Bible as being true, but your ability to present internal information - on any subject - in an objective frame of reference that is coherent externally.

Even though my belief is based on faith.....I've been giving scientific proofs that support the Bible.

This is bound to fail because no one will dispute that the Bible cannot contain facts or some factual data. But stating that the Bible is "true" by citing a few bits and pieces of factual information makes no sense whatsoever. This would be like saying the ocean is actually 5 inches deep by an examination of a few tidal pools here and there.

If you want to use "scientific proofs" that the Bible is "true" then I think it incumbent on you to provide enough facts to exceed a statistical threshold of probability. In other words, you would have to show that the Bible consists of a bare minimum of 50% factual information to even be considered.

Hypochondriac....imaginary illness. You must be referring to Dre or to the rest of you new atheists (who still firmly clings to the deadwood Neo-Darwinism). I even showed you why it's only logical for you evolutionists to support Intelligent Design instead, since it doesn't throw away the possibility of evolution!

See here is an keen example of your problem. You have formulated that I am a part of some social group ("the rest of you new atheists") when in fact, you have no "true" idea whether I am or not. Instead, you have taken this formulation, which is an internal mental construct of yours, and assigned it as "true" externally.

That hypochondria analogy doesn't apply to me folks! It's not me who's imagining things.

Oh but it does, I have just proven it in the previous statement. One of the mopst vexing problems of hypochondria is that hypochondriacs are the first to admit they are not hypochondriacs. And until they get honest enough to be able to take a look at themselves in an external, objective way, they are stuck in that self-fulfilling, looping, mental construct. In a larger sense, this is a similar internal mechanism of circular reference that afflicts plenty of other types of mentally ill people, most notably schizophrenics.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Shwa

[Oleg Bach]

Got has no use for Christians. If there was an effective deployment of Christianity..I am sure that we would notice...so far - no world peace - no justice - no stablity - and no one becoming the chairman of the board - If Christ was to come again - He might just turn around an leave in a hurry. Show me one person on the planet earth that is willing to lose his or her life saving the world? I don't see anyone that brave.

[cybercoma]

Got has no use for Christians. If there was an effective deployment of Christianity..I am sure that we would notice...so far - no world peace - no justice - no stablity - and no one becoming the chairman of the board - If Christ was to come again - He might just turn around an leave in a hurry. Show me one person on the planet earth that is willing to lose his or her life saving the world? I don't see anyone that brave.

I see hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east risking their lives for liberty and to fight against tyranny. I would say those people are trying to save the world.

[betsy]

I have already said that this discussion isn't about what I believe. I'm talking about the term 'Christian' and its popular use, versus what it could mean when referring to certain beliefs.

What do you mean, "popular use?"

We're not talking about Christians who commit sins or who break the rules of Christ even though they believe in His divinity and all the supernatural happenings - after all, who's perfect among us?

Christ knows. That's why there's the message of repentance and forgiveness.

But the "christian" you mean though, is the opposite!

So far, you're the first one that I know of who said that he is a "christian".... yet he doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ and all the supernatural happenings in the New Testament - which of course includes the Resurrection!

Edited August 19, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Just as Christianity was adapted, evolved from Judaism, yes.

It did not evolved from Judaism. It is a CONTINUATION. Jesus was also there in the Old Testament. It's all a part of God's plan. Reaching out to the gentiles!

The Messiah was phropesied in the Old Testament! His coming, His birth, torture, death and His resurrection were all prophesied in the Old Testament.

Christianity is a fulfillment of the prophecy.

The Jews believed that a Messiah would come - as prophesied from the Bible. But they did not believe it was Jesus Christ.