What is a Christian?

[NewCasa]

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]

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

[NewCasa]

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]

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]

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.

[Soundbear]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I disagree, re: Soundbear

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

[Blunt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Indeed, I AM weak, lost and helpless.

Good thing I trust God.

[Soundbear]

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.