|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 24, 2008 13:09:51 GMT -4
I always thought that a Christian was someone who believed that Jesus Christ was divine, and the Son of God. But, there are probably lots of other interpretations of what a Christian is. Here www.religioustolerance.org/stone01.htm Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and many others known to us all are Christians... I might consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians, but I consider that very iffy. Christian Science, to me, is simply Eastern thought in Christian garb, and thus not Christian...I definitely think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [a.k.a. the Mormons] is not Christian.christianity.about.com/od/glossary/g/christian.htmA Christian is a follower of Christ; one who professes belief in Jesus as the Christ or follows his teachingsSeems like it can be a tough question to answer: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,815627,00.html www.becomingachristian.com/page2.htmlThe word Christian means CHRIST-IN. A Christian is somebody who has asked Jesus into their lives. ?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 24, 2008 13:39:11 GMT -4
My strict definition is that anyone who believes Jesus was the divine Son of God is a Christian. However, in order to act like a Christian, you have to actually obey the teachings of Christ, such as being good to the poor, not judging, and loving thy neighbour. I wish I had a nickel for every Christian who misses the point of the Good Samaritan story.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 24, 2008 13:45:04 GMT -4
My strict definition is that anyone who believes Jesus was the divine Son of God is a Christian. However, in order to act like a Christian, you have to actually obey the teachings of Christ, such as being good to the poor, not judging, and loving thy neighbour. I wish I had a nickel for every Christian who misses the point of the Good Samaritan story. Like I mentioned in another post, C.S. Lewis says that if you are a Christian and act badly, you're still a Christian - but a bad one. And the other side of the coin I guess is that you can act like the best of Christians, but if you don't believe in Christ, you are a good person, but still not a Christian. Which makes sense. And why do really good people need to compare themselves with what a Christian does anyways. Sort of a defensive behavior thing I guess - "Im not a Christian, but I live a better Christian lifestyle than most of my Christian friends". Its their way of pointing out that just because they aren't a Christian doesn't mean they aren't good people.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 24, 2008 14:22:41 GMT -4
My definition of a Christian has been given on this forum already, but it is basically - "Someone who claims to be attempting to follow the teachings of Jesus." So in my book a Christian doesn't even have to believe in God, and there are good Christians, bad Christians, saved Christians, damned Christians, etc. Note that it's also a self-identifier. If someone declares to me that he's a Christian, I take him at his word. Basically I use "Christian" just as I would use "Muslim - someone who claims to be attempting to following the teachings of Mohammed."
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 24, 2008 15:53:29 GMT -4
I'm a Chaplain's Assistant in the National Guard. I agree with Jason, and have argued this point with my Chaplain. We had a ride-along by a Civil Air Patrol Chaplain, who mentioned in passing that he's LDS. My Lieutenant looked at me and rolled his eyes, and we had to talk about it later.
He's one of those Christians who don't consider Mormons to be Christians, because they don't believe some list of things I don't remember. If DH is still around I'm sure she could tell us what they are. But as a half-@ssed "Buddhist" I'll accept your definition. As a CA I have to interpret things a bit loosely in order to help the most soldiers possible, rather than limit what is available.
edit for typo
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 24, 2008 16:30:49 GMT -4
Well, obviously anybody can calll themselves a Christian, and anybody can devise their own definition of the term.
For example, mainstream Protestantism identifies a short list of "core principles" of Christianity:
1. The existence of a supreme being, personal (i.e., having personality; not an impersonal force or law) and triune in nature, creator of all things. 2. Humanity created in the (spiritual) image of this being, for the purpose of an eternal loving relationship with this being. 3. The fall of Humanity collectively, and of each human individually, by acts of free will, out of this relationship, which acts of free will the supreme being honors by not forcing anyone back into this relationship against their will. 4. That as this relationship is a funamental part of human nature, the lack of this relationship is unnatural and unpleasant. It has many unpleasant consequences for those that choose it, and poisons all their other plans and relationships. 5. The incarnation of the supreme being in human form (the Christ), to enact a mechanism whereby the relationship between the creator and fallen humanity can be restored, for any who want it. 6. That a free will decision to believe in these principles, and to accept the restoration of the relationship, is necessary and sufficient to restore this relationship.
Now others may define Christianity differently. Some may say that good deeds are also necessary for restoration of the relationship. Others may believe that the supreme being does not exist, and that the good deeds are themselves the only important thing in life. Still others may reject the notion that the Christ is one and the same with the supreme creator being. And so on.
Generally speaking, disagreements on "what is a Christian" among those who call themselves Christians tend to focus on the nature of God, the nature of Christ, and the nature of the reconciliation between Humanity and God.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 25, 2008 8:44:05 GMT -4
This seems an interesting way to see where I personally stand.
I fail that one.
I definately fail this one. My belief; we are all made of star stuff. Or as someone posted once, thermonuclear waste material.
What is meant by the "fall of Humanity"? The only fall I know of is that by gravity.
I fail this; seems to be violence and curiousity are fundimental parts of human nature. I neither feel unpleasant nor unnatural for not having this relationship. Given what I've seen of other people, including my relatives, I haven't had as many cosquences in my decisions as they have.
I fail this. The view shown in one 'Family Guy' episode seemed more plausible to me (the one where Stewie meets his future self).
What of a free will to NOT believe in these principles?
I feel my relationship with the universe is more profound than anything any religion has devised.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 25, 2008 9:49:58 GMT -4
I pretty much agree with Jason -- anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. Everything about Christianity is an interpretation, one way or the other. There can be no "correct" interpretation and because of this, no one group can claim to be actual Christians while saying that others are not.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 25, 2008 10:56:26 GMT -4
Almost invariably, any list of qualificiations made up to define "Christianity" is in fact an attempt to prove your own personal branch of Christiainity to be the only correct one. So instead of calling them requirements for Christianity, it would be more honest to label them the tenets of an individual faith. Stutefish's list would (as he has) be best labled "Tenets of Mainstream Protestant Christianity", rather than "Qualfications for Christianity", and probably doesn't apply to all the branches of Protestantism either.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 25, 2008 10:59:42 GMT -4
I pretty much agree with Jason -- anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. Everything about Christianity is an interpretation, one way or the other. There can be no "correct" interpretation and because of this, no one group can claim to be actual Christians while saying that others are not. I do feel there are more correct and less correct interpretations of Christian doctrine. I just believe that since everyone falls short in some way of completely following it (nobody's perfect) that no one has a right to criticize how others are living up to it and that attempting to deny others the label of Christian is self-defeating. EDIT: Do you realize, wdmundt, that this is the first time we've agreed on any religious matter (though we have slightly different reasoning behind our agreement)? A momentous occasion, then.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 25, 2008 13:18:36 GMT -4
What is meant by the "fall of Humanity"? It's a reference to the whole Garden of Eden thing. Eating the Fruit of the Tree (not an apple) led to the Fall.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 25, 2008 15:20:21 GMT -4
It's the falling out of that relationship between creator and created.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 25, 2008 15:47:18 GMT -4
If we define "christian" as "anybody who claims to be a christian", then while the definition is trivially correct, it's also practically meaningless.
Anybody who claims to be a "Christian" on this basis immediately enters into confusion and misunderstanding with anybody whose definition of Christianity differs from that of the claimant.
We don't consider all who claim to be Doctors as true practicioners of medicine. Some are actually faith healers. Others are homeopaths. Still others are outright charlatans.
Likewise, in some states have laws prohibiting a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer from advertising theirself as an "Engineer". The term is reserved for those who have obtained a formal degree and license in specifically-defined and strictly-regulated Engineering disciplines.
If I claim to be a Bhuddist, but upon examination you discover that I reject or am ignorant of all the core tenets of Bhuddism, then either I am very confused, or very dishonest, or both. Saying I'm a Bhuddist under such circumstances makes "Bhuddism" something not worth claiming.
If anybody could be an Engineer, simply by claiming to be an Engineer, without any regard for or adherence to anybody else's definition of Engineering, what would be the point of making the claim? Such a title would be worthless.
Now, I don't know much about how the tenets of individual faith in Mormonism differ from those in mainstream Protestantism. Perhaps they differ in minor, insignificant ways. Perhaps they differ substantially. Perhaps they are based on entirely different--and inarguably contradictory--source material. But to simply claim that both are Christian, as if the differnces between their definitions of the word are irrelevant, does great violence to the idea that Christianity is even meaningful at all. It's either very confused, or very dishonest, or both.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 25, 2008 15:54:40 GMT -4
I pretty much agree with Jason -- anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. Everything about Christianity is an interpretation, one way or the other. There can be no "correct" interpretation and because of this, no one group can claim to be actual Christians while saying that others are not. I do feel there are more correct and less correct interpretations of Christian doctrine. I just believe that since everyone falls short in some way of completely following it (nobody's perfect) that no one has a right to criticize how others are living up to it and that attempting to deny others the label of Christian is self-defeating. EDIT: Do you realize, wdmundt, that this is the first time we've agreed on any religious matter (though we have slightly different reasoning behind our agreement)? A momentous occasion, then. I'll say! I didn't realize that this question would generate so much interpretation. I was expecting the answer to be simple and straightforward. I guess if you're not religious you wouldn't care who calls themself a Christian, but if you are a Christian, you do. A lot of Protestants don't think Catholics are Christians, and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 25, 2008 16:12:14 GMT -4
The difference here is that there are specific skills and knowledge associated with being a doctor. One has to have those specific skills to actually be a doctor. Claiming to be a doctor does not automatically give one the ability to heal.
As Jason noted, as soon as you start to set down core beliefs of Christianity, you skew Christianity to your version of it. There is no final arbiter of what is or isn't correct.
|
|