What is a Christian? [Archive]

NewCasa

11-09-2009, 09:16 AM

I asked Soundbear on another thread what his definition of a Christian was but I guess he hasn't found a workable definition yet. Ok, so aside from the typical dictionary definition of Christian, what is it that differentiates a Christian from a non-Christian? Maybe others can help Soundbear out?

Christian
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christia-nus, adjective & noun, from Greek christianos, from Christos
Date: 1526
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : disciple 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress

Bluesky

11-09-2009, 10:16 AM

What kind of dictionary is this that you're using? WOnder why only 2 Christian denominations were singled out? Weird.

NewCasa

11-09-2009, 10:23 AM

What kind of dictionary is this that you're using? WOnder why only 2 Christian denominations were singled out? Weird.

Merriam-Webster. I just wanted to provide a dictionary definition so we could avoid having everyone else provide dictionary definitions without providing their own personal take on the subject.

GRUMPY

11-09-2009, 11:17 AM

won't help. To me it is somebody who believes in the teachings of Christ and tries to live by them in their daily life. As for being a member of one church or another it is unimportant to me as I believe that it is a toss up between those who go to church all the time and those who have never darkened its doorway as to which have more souls in heaven.

Blunt

11-09-2009, 11:36 AM

Soundbear

11-09-2009, 12:15 PM

I asked Soundbear on another thread what his definition of a Christian was but I guess he hasn't found a workable definition yet. .....

Or maybe I just didn't see it??

I have a broad view of this, and bellieve that the foundation of real Chritianity is a submission to God. This results in being born-again, not just born of the flesh, but born of God. One therefore becomes a legitimate child of God, an unchangable condition. The broad view of this is that, like old testament people, ONE MIGHT NOT YET HAVE EVEN HEARD THE NAME OF CHRIST. It's the open-hearted turning to God that He recognizes. One continues to grow after this point of course, but without that submission there is no salvation.

NewCasa

11-09-2009, 12:58 PM

Or maybe I just didn't see it??

I have a broad view of this, and bellieve that the foundation of real Chritianity is a submission to God. This results in being born-again, not just born of the flesh, but born of God. One therefore becomes a legitimate child of God, an unchangable condition. The broad view of this is that, like old testament people, ONE MIGHT NOT YET HAVE EVEN HEARD THE NAME OF CHRIST. It's the open-hearted turning to God that He recognizes. One continues to grow after this point of course, but without that submission there is no salvation.

Good point - maybe you didn't see it - I'll give you that one. Thanks for the response here. I don't know about submission. Defining that might take a whole thread of it's own.

NewCasa

11-09-2009, 12:59 PM

A Christian is someone who tries to be something (an idealized self) that they're not, by way of claiming adherence and belief, to and of, dogmatic principles they come to believe as true, by way of interpellation and indoctrination.

Which is another way of saying that a Christian aspires to be better than is possible for them, given their clay feet. But they aspire nonetheless. Heroic in it's way.

Blunt

11-09-2009, 02:26 PM

Which is another way of saying that a Christian aspires to be better than is possible for them, given their clay feet. But they aspire nonetheless. Heroic in it's way.

The aspiration is at its roots, noble, yes. But the hopelessness of the individual and their reliance on subordination to religious dogmatics, scours any nobility from from the aspiration.

It's a roundabout admission to the effect of, "I'm weak and pathetic on my own and could never hope to be more than that without a placebo effect (religion)."

A Christian is a slave, a creature broken and marred. You won't find a Christian seeking nobility, you'll find a Christian seeking affirmation that they're correctly playing the role of a weakling.

NewCasa

11-09-2009, 02:34 PM

The aspiration is at its roots, noble, yes. But the hopelessness of the individual and their reliance on subordination to religious dogmatics, scours any nobility from from the aspiration.

It's a roundabout admission to the effect of, "I'm weak and pathetic on my own and could never hope to be more than that without a placebo effect (religion)."

A Christian is a slave, a creature broken and marred.

I would think it depends on the Christian. I think if a Christian pays more attention to the church than their God they can certainly become a slave, but I think if they treated the church as being just another institution and put their focus on their God they might not find themselves so weakened. In the case of Christianity by the way, I actually see 'the trinity' as being their God. I think this confuses even the Christians at times but that is really what their faith teaches - they worship a God with three faces, though I doubt their churches would ever put it quite that way.

Bluesky

11-09-2009, 02:55 PM

This is not the first time in history that Christians have been charged with being delusional weak characters. That charge makes perfect sense to me.. i.e. I understand why Blunt would say that. In fact, any consistent atheist would have to say that.

Bluesky

11-09-2009, 03:10 PM

Or maybe I just didn't see it??

I have a broad view of this, and bellieve that the foundation of real Chritianity is a submission to God. This results in being born-again, not just born of the flesh, but born of God. One therefore becomes a legitimate child of God, an unchangable condition. The broad view of this is that, like old testament people, ONE MIGHT NOT YET HAVE EVEN HEARD THE NAME OF CHRIST. It's the open-hearted turning to God that He recognizes. One continues to grow after this point of course, but without that submission there is no salvation.

The question is not, "What is the foundation of Christianity" which you say equals submission to God.

The question is, What is a Christian.

You say a submission to God results in being born again, i.e. born of God.

Can you explain what that means? Otherwise you are sill not being clear.
And then answer me this - is there such a thing as a NON-born again Christian?

Blunt

11-09-2009, 03:43 PM

I would think it depends on the Christian. I think if a Christian pays more attention to the church than their God they can certainly become a slave, but I think if they treated the church as being just another institution and put their focus on their God they might not find themselves so weakened.

I disagree, re: Soundbear

NewCasa

11-09-2009, 04:01 PM

I disagree, re: Soundbear

Do you mean this about Soundbears' statements in reference to submission?

Blunt

11-09-2009, 04:45 PM

Do you mean this about Soundbears' statements in reference to submission?

I use Soundbear as an example of a Christian who puts less focus on the church, and more focus on God and his relationship with God. But as one of those 'types', and contrary to what you hypothesized, Soundbear does not often forego the opportunity to articulate how weak, lost and helpless he is.

NewCasa

11-09-2009, 04:49 PM

I use Soundbear as an example of a Christian who puts less focus on the church, and more focus on God and his relationship with God. But as one of those 'types', and contrary to what you hypothesized, Soundbear does not often forego the opportunity to articulate how weak, lost and helpless he is.

You make a good point, but I still think that's 'church learning'. It's always been the job of the church to subjegate the masses and the psychology is quite apparent. I would say that someone who is truly 'church free' would see the Christian God as Jesus meant him to be seen - without all the guilt trips and inadequacy the church lays on it's 'flock'.

Blunt

11-09-2009, 04:55 PM

You make a good point, but I still think that's 'church learning'. It's always been the job of the church to subjegate the masses and the psychology is quite apparent. I would say that someone who is truly 'church free' would see the Christian God as Jesus meant him to be seen - without all the guilt trips and inadequacy the church lays on it's 'flock'.

I would assert that someone who is truly church free would not see the Christian God.

NewCasa

11-09-2009, 05:03 PM

I would assert that someone who is truly church free would not see the Christian God.

I don't agree. Their prophet was essentially church free as were many of those who followed shortly after. The physical and social institutions of the religion evolved later.

Soundbear

11-09-2009, 05:22 PM

Soundbear

11-09-2009, 05:26 PM

I would assert that someone who is truly church free would not see the Christian God.

You don't understand, then, what the church is.

It's not a particular institution, or denomination, sect, assembly, or organization. We call it an organism, and Christ's people are all part of it, those who REALLY, in their inmost sincere being, trust God. Their understanding of any particular doctrine may be weak or different from another member of His church, but they are still His children.

Soundbear

11-09-2009, 05:31 PM

The aspiration is at its roots, noble, yes. But the hopelessness of the individual and their reliance on subordination to religious dogmatics, scours any nobility from from the aspiration.

I don't 100 percent believe ANY religious dogma. How can I?? I would never fully understand any one of them.

It's a roundabout admission to the effect of, "I'm weak and pathetic on my own and could never hope to be more than that without a placebo effect (religion)."

Don't forget that a placebo has no effect. That can never be said of Christianity.

A Christian is a slave, a creature broken and marred. You won't find a Christian seeking nobility, you'll find a Christian seeking affirmation that they're correctly playing the role of a weakling.

Wrong. A Christian seeks affirmation (from God) that he is like Jesus. "Well done thou good and faithful servant."

Soundbear

11-09-2009, 05:34 PM

You make a good point, but I still think that's 'church learning'. It's always been the job of the church to subjegate the masses and the psychology is quite apparent. I would say that someone who is truly 'church free' would see the Christian God as Jesus meant him to be seen - without all the guilt trips and inadequacy the church lays on it's 'flock'.

It isn't the job of the church to to "subjugate the masses", it's the weakness of men. Too often church leaders are NOT the servants thay are called to be.

Blunt

11-09-2009, 06:03 PM

I think your discussion about how weak and lost Soundbear is crosses the line. In fact, this is nasty.

If you do not know him in person, you cannot make such a low down judgment.
Most posters cannot truly represent themselves as they really are in soundbytes on a BBS.

His arguments and articulation skills may be one thing. But do not judge the entire person.

He's said all those things about himself before, it's not a baseless character assessment on my part; I'm not libeling the man. I provided an analysis of his own admissions. Since when is loosely quoting someone so "nasty"?

Indeed, I AM weak, lost and helpless.

Good thing I trust God.

Kind of undermines your objection, does it not, SkyBlue?

Blunt

11-09-2009, 06:07 PM

Don't forget that a placebo has no effect.

Wrong.

The placebo effect is both an expectancy effect, and a conditioning effect; both of which can actually manifest both psychological and physiological results.

Christianity = One of mankind's longest running placebo effect studies.

Bluesky

11-09-2009, 06:07 PM

He's said all those things about himself before, it's not a baseless character assessment on my part; I'm not libeling the man. I provided an analysis of his own admissions. Since when is loosely quoting someone so "nasty"?

Kind of undermines your objection, does it not, SkyBlue?

Doh! That's the last time I speak for someone else. So sorry. I withdraw my post..

But a word of explanation.
I know what SB means with those words.
And I also know what Blunt means. They are not talking the same language.

That is one of the problems with SB's method of communication on these boards. His vocabulary is often only truly understood with the framework of Christian cultural/theological/ecclesiological context. And if you don't have his glossary in hand, you will understand something totally different.

Blunt

11-09-2009, 06:09 PM

Doh! That's the last time I speak for someone else. So sorry. I withdraw my post..

That's almost signature worthy! ;)

TheManInBlack

11-09-2009, 06:22 PM

Blunt

11-09-2009, 06:29 PM

well said

Yes I suppose, minus perhaps the repetition of the word 'from'

NewCasa

11-09-2009, 08:02 PM

It isn't the job of the church to to "subjugate the masses", it's the weakness of men. Too often church leaders are NOT the servants thay are called to be.

OK SB. I don't want to discuss that part here so I'll retract those comments for now. That's material for another thread. My opinions stand and not without reason, but I won't discuss them in this thread.

Anapeg

11-09-2009, 09:05 PM

Would not a Christian, a true Christian believe with out reservation? Anything less would support doubt and make a True Christian unworthy would it not?

Soundbear

11-09-2009, 09:33 PM

Would not a Christian, a true Christian believe with out reservation? Anything less would support doubt and make a True Christian unworthy would it not?

No, I don't believe that for a second.

You guys all seem to think that a Christian never questions his beliefs. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The reality is that we TRUST without reservation, trust in God. How can I believe what I don't understand?? Some might say, "faith", and to some extent that might be true. But even when faith is not enough, I trust God to lead me, and do what is best for me.

Soundbear

11-09-2009, 09:35 PM

Wrong.

The placebo effect is both an expectancy effect, and a conditioning effect; both of which can actually manifest both psychological and physiological results.

Christianity = One of mankind's longest running placebo effect studies.

Hmmm. So tell me again why I should give up what works??? :) :) :)

Somebody said Christianity is a crutch. Some of us realize that everybody limps.

Bluesky

11-09-2009, 09:53 PM

Somebody said Christianity is a crutch. Some of us realize that everybody limps.

That's the best quote I have seen in a long time.

Blunt

11-09-2009, 10:04 PM

Somebody said Christianity is a crutch. Some of us realize that everybody limps.

Is that what you think?

Soundbear

11-10-2009, 08:31 AM

Is that what you think?

Yes.

(wonder where this is going?? :) :) :) )

NewCasa

11-10-2009, 08:41 AM

Umm...any problem with getting back on topic here?

Blunt, if you'd like to create a Christian bashing thread feel free. This thread was started for a different reason though. It comes out of Blue's pie chart, showing that there are 1.2 billion or so Christians in the world and SB's comment about whether or not some people are real Christians. I would really like to come to some kind of consensus as to what constitutes a 'real' Christian, if that's possible.

Blunt

11-10-2009, 11:46 AM

Soundbear

11-10-2009, 01:03 PM

No need to make a Christian bashing thread; they devalue themselves enough, it's part of their oppressive creed.

As you were...

Perhaps there's a culture somewhere NOT based on Judeo-Christian values that you would prefer??

Bluesky

11-10-2009, 01:11 PM

Blunt enjoys the religion forum immensely. Out of the last three pages of his posts, (that's as far as I scanned) I think 2-3 of his posts may have been in the soapbox. The vast majority of his comments have been in the religious forum. We add excitement to his day. Why, if it weren't for us, and the putdowns of our faith we afford him, he would have no significance at all.

NewCasa

11-10-2009, 01:33 PM

I wasn't trying to bash Blunt. Actually I was trying to get some ideas as to a definition of a Christian, but that doesn't seem to be forthcoming from too many on the thread, SB excepted.

Blunt

11-10-2009, 01:46 PM

I wasn't trying to bash Blunt. Actually I was trying to get some ideas as to a definition of a Christian, but that doesn't seem to be forthcoming from too many on the thread, SB excepted.

The real definition of a Christian: Jesus Christ

Should be the end of the discussion. Can't get anymore spot on than that.

Side Bar:

"There has been only one Christian and he died on the cross." - Nietzsche
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi

NewCasa

11-10-2009, 01:51 PM

The real definition of a Christian: Jesus Christ

Should be the end of the discussion. Can't get anymore spot on than that.

Side Bar:

"There has been only one Christian and he died on the cross." - Nietzsche
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi

I give up.

Blunt

11-10-2009, 01:54 PM

I give up.

What!? You want a concrete definition of what a Christian is, I'm saying it's Jesus Christ. Unless anyone disagrees that he is exactly what a Christian is, we can logically infer, based on the pie chart data, that there is approximately 1.2 billion posers, hoping to reap the rewards of group membership.

I solved your mystery for you.

You're welcome.

NewCasa

11-10-2009, 01:59 PM

Blunt, first off you've used the word in the definition. Second, you've given an example, not a definition. Third, the example you've given is not a man, but the incarnation of the Christians' God. Jesus would most certainly NOT be a Christian. And if all else fails - he was Jewish, not Christian.

Please stop being obtuse. You seem more intelligent than this. Everyone is aware you've got a chip on your shoulder for Christians. Get over it.

Bluesky

11-10-2009, 02:25 PM

To describe Jesus as a Christian is, well, interesting.
He was clearly a Jew.
But the word Christian, (transliterated from the Greek) would mean a Christ-ling. or Christ's One. One belonging to Christ.
So it is a bit incoherent to call Christ a Christian.

The problem with defining a Christian is that is was the 'other guys' (the onlookers) who first used that appellation.
The first mention of the name is here:
The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Acts 11:26
One of the most primitive terms that Christians used in the Bible was the term "followers of the Way."
See Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:22

These were people who had a conversion (i.e. a change of mind about who Jesus Christ was - in particular the Divinity of Christ, the significance of the death of Christ and the resurrection of Christ). As a result of that conversion, their lives were transformed.

NewCasa

11-10-2009, 02:37 PM

To describe Jesus as a Christian is, well, interesting.
He was clearly a Jew.
But the word Christian, (transliterated from the Greek) would mean a Christ-ling. or Christ's One. One belonging to Christ.
So it is a bit incoherent to call Christ a Christian.

Khristos: annointed one. Christ is a title, not a name. I realise that.

The problem with defining a Christian is that is was the 'other guys' (the onlookers) who first used that appellation.
The first mention of the name is here:
The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Acts 11:26
One of the most primitive terms that Christians used in the Bible was the term "followers of the Way."
See Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:22

But really, isn't 'Christian' simply a follower of the Christ? Didn't Jesus actually say 'I am the way'?

These were people who had a conversion (i.e. a change of mind about who Jesus Christ was - in particular the Divinity of Christ, the significance of the death of Christ and the resurrection of Christ). As a result of that conversion, their lives were transformed.

Sort of like a rebirth maybe? ;)

Blunt

11-10-2009, 02:38 PM

Blunt, first off you've used the word in the definition. No, I said the definition of a Christian is Jesus Christ.

Jesus would most certainly NOT be a Christian. Then I didn't use the word in the definition, now did I?

Second, you've given an example, not a definition.No, I defined a Christian as being Jesus Christ; it's not an example because I'm defining what a Christian is, within very strict parameters that eliminate everyone/thing except Jesus.

Third, the example you've given is not a man, but the incarnation of the Christians' God.That's your opinion, and the opinion of a bunch of "Christians" :P.

And if all else fails - he was Jewish, not Christian.He was a Jew, but he was pretty much an anti-semite; The whole of Christianity was based on converting stubborn Jews; in the Christian scheme, accept Christ and you'll be allowed into the Kingdom of God, don't accept Christ, and you're a Godless Jew consigned to eternal damnation.

Please stop being obtuse. You seem more intelligent than this. Everyone is aware you've got a chip on your shoulder for Christians. Get over it.

Well I was... that hermetic nonsense was providing an interesting alternative to dissect; but Seraph must have taken a couple days vacation to the astral plane.

NewCasa

11-10-2009, 02:54 PM

No, I said the definition of a Christian is Jesus Christ.
The word 'Christian' derives from the word 'Christ'. Again, obtuse.

Then I didn't use the word in the definition, now did I?
More nonsense. You used a word.

No, I defined a Christian as being Jesus Christ; it's not an example because I'm defining what a Christian is, within very strict parameters that eliminate everyone/thing except Jesus.
I disagree. But this is going to be an impasse, obviously. As most of this is anyway.

That's your opinion, and the opinion of a bunch of "Christians" :P.
You really need to read. I mean, more than just enough to 'support' your own arguement. It's not an opinion whether or not it's their God. It's a fact. If you want to dispute whether or not that God exists that's a whole different matter. Furry thinking here. Clear it up and you'll be fine.

He was a Jew, but he was pretty much an anti-semite; The whole of Christianity was based on converting stubborn Jews; in the Christian scheme, accept Christ and you'll be allowed into the Kingdom of God, don't accept Christ, and you're a Godless Jew consigned to eternal damnation.
No, not at the start. Not when Jesus was live. All that stuff came after. Again, furry thinking. You really need to clear that up.

Well I was... that hermetic nonsense was providing an interesting alternative to dissect; but Seraph must have taken a couple days vacation to the astral plane.
So, basically what you're saying is that now that Seraph isn't around to be your punching bag you've looked around and decided on me? Well, that's nice. I guess I'll just place you on ignore for a while. I really can't stand bullies. Especially ones who have so little to say that would denote any intelligence, but then that's sort of a bully defined anyway I suppose. Bye for now.

Soundbear

11-10-2009, 03:52 PM

No, I said the definition of a Christian is Jesus Christ.
Then I didn't use the word in the definition, now did I?
No, I defined a Christian as being Jesus Christ; it's not an example because I'm defining what a Christian is, within very strict parameters that eliminate everyone/thing except Jesus.
That's your opinion, and the opinion of a bunch of "Christians" :P.
He was a Jew, but he was pretty much an anti-semite; The whole of Christianity was based on converting stubborn Jews; in the Christian scheme, accept Christ and you'll be allowed into the Kingdom of God, don't accept Christ, and you're a Godless Jew consigned to eternal damnation.

Well I was... that hermetic nonsense was providing an interesting alternative to dissect; but Seraph must have taken a couple days vacation to the astral plane.

Blunt, you clearly show your ignorance of all things Christian. Your attacks have so little substance, I wonder why you waste your time.

Blunt = ignore.

Bluesky

11-10-2009, 04:17 PM

Blunt must be a lonely man in real life.

Blunt

11-10-2009, 05:42 PM

So, basically what you're saying is that now that Seraph isn't around to be your punching bag you've looked around and decided on me? Well, that's nice. I guess I'll just place you on ignore for a while. I really can't stand bullies. Especially ones who have so little to say that would denote any intelligence, but then that's sort of a bully defined anyway I suppose. Bye for now.

You're taking it way too personal. I'm not "attacking" any person(s) in particular, just religious views.

That you can't separate an assessment of a faith from an assessment of a person is unfortunate. It's not as though I'm going around calling you names, NoCasa.

I suppose from your perspective I could come off as a bully, but I imagine that's more in part to you not particularly liking what I say, as opposed to feeling personally threatened.

Blunt, you clearly show your ignorance of all things Christian. Your attacks have so little substance, I wonder why you waste your time.

Blunt = ignore.

Difficult truths huh? Easier to ignore them than refute them; and that's totally cool, that's your right.

Blunt must be a lonely man in real life.

We don't all find God... of course we don't all feel the need to look ;)