[RD] What is a Christian?

[timtofly]

Right, Christians often squabble about who is and who isn't Christian. There are a plethora of various disagreements and opinions on this from various sects of Christians and sub-groups within that.

I ignore all that noise. Christians are followers of Christ, however that manifests itself. IMO it doesn't matter if you don't go to church. Even Jesus said that religion should be a private thing. Not that it should matter - IMO a Christian is simply someone who chooses to be a follower of Christ, son of God. If that describes you, then you are a Christian.

I would agree it is a self confession. To avoid any hypocrisy, what if you are only a Christian if others can actually tell if you are one?

I think that would make it less a religion and just a lifestyle that reflects the personal choice.

As for being just a religion, that is what you mark on some legal document. And/or the group of people you hang out with.

 

[jackelgull]

I wasn't gonna mention this, since I thought no one would be interested but since Owen is apparently interested, I will let you know that there is a "formal" definition of a Muslim. Now there are 2 parts to this definition - beliefs and practices. For a Muslim to be Muslim they must a) believe in Allah as the one true god b) believe in his angels c)believe in his Holy word d) believe that Muhammed was his prophet and there will be no prophets after him e) believe in an afterlife and f) believe in the day of judgment. There also five religious duties that a Muslim must perform - Prayer (Salah), Zikr (giving alms), Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca), Fasting and the Shahada (the voluntary conscious declaration of faith).

I won't go over the beliefs section since if Trump wanted to come up with a working definition of a Muslim those wouldn't be helpful to him. However, the practices section proves just as unworkable. For example, if a Muslim misses one prayer, his Deen is not immediately invalidated since that would be stupid. Prayers can be made up. Even regular lapses, like people who don't pray Fajr on Tuesdays because their college classes start at 3PM so they sleep at 4 AM and they can't wake up at 6 AM wouldn't neccessarily not be Muslims. They'd be sinners, but the flesh is weak yadda, yadda. However, in some schools of fiqh, if a Muslim misses his prayers for extended periods of time, he is considered a Kaffir, an unbeliever.

I'm not going to go deeper into the hole of Islamic jurisprudence, but needless to say that I assume even if Trump came up with a working definition for Christian like I outlined for Islam, it's still gonna be too broad to determine the line between Christian and not, and he'll have to get more specific until it becomes arbitrary, and I don't think Trump has the patience to think that far ahead.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Cherry pick? If you don't think being a Christian means changing yourself to be different from this world (which doesn't mean being sinless, of course, but certainly not being content with leading the same lives as those who aren't Christian), then I question whether you understand Christianity. As you said, many Christians themselves don't.

So quick to jump to conclusions

Of course being a Christian means aiming to be different from the world. What that's supposed to look like and what it often actually looks like are two very different things. It's actually very unchristian to view yourself as somehow better than anyone else.

 

[aelf]

So quick to jump to conclusions

Of course being a Christian means aiming to be different from the world. What that's supposed to look like and what it often actually looks like are two very different things. It's actually very unchristian to view yourself as somehow better than anyone else.

That's the thing, though, innit? That's a big part of the hypocrisy.

In any case, being hyprocites like everyone else isn't something Christians should be content with. That's what I was saying, and I don't think that point is controversial at all to anyone who doesn't misunderstand Christianity.

 

[thecrazyscot]

That's the thing, though, innit? That's a big part of the hypocrisy.

In any case, being hyprocites like everyone else isn't something Christians should be content with. That's what I was saying, and I don't think that point is controversial at all to anyone who doesn't misunderstand Christianity.

I...actually agree with you.

I don't know how I feel about that.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

The definition I've been given is that a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ and has given up their free will for His will.

xample 2: When the Bible was first put together, there were many versions of the gospel being used: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but also Mary, Judas, and many others.

From what I've been told there's a reason why there are only four gospels, the reason is that four is an important number in God's plan, such as the four colours of the Tabernacle.

People, pls; you can't be christian if you can't read the new testament in its original greek. The english translations maim it ^^ For a funny and poignant example: "I am that i am" is lame; original says "I am the one who exists" and furthermore uses omega in the term for existing thing ('wn' instead of regular 'on'). Iirc (not sure) it also capitalizes it. Εγώ ειμί ο Ων etc.

That's something I've been told several times before. There are many phrases in the Bible that no longer work properly when translated from Greek into English. The example they give is "I am," that to be closer to the Greek it should be "I I am".

There is something else, I've been told that it's no coincidence that the Bible was first translated into Greek, because Greek is similar to Hebrew in how numbers are counted by using letters.

Right, Christians often squabble about who is and who isn't Christian.

I have heard it said more than once that Catholics aren't Christian.

 

[Nanuk]

That's not the correct use of "hypocrisy". Supplying the definition of hypocrisy is pointless when you then go on and use it incorrectly.

It wasn't used incorrectly. I supplied the links in the hopes you would read them (some of the wiki, at least) and be reminded of your choice words.

From Webster's:

"the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

From Wiki:

"Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another ... Other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain ... "

Your exact words were;

Hypocrisy is one of the common characteristics of Christians, so it's enough that you profess your faith verbally.

Besides, Christians are supposed to be better than those of this world. Being just the same isn't a great thing at all from a Christian point of view.

Combined with you attempting to define what it takes to be a Christian, is by definition, hypocritical. You've employed demeaning generalizations to describe the faith, and then in the same breath chided those of the faith as not being up to your standards of what you view the faith to be. Indeed you have been picking choice passages from the bible to add to your own confirmation that you understand the religion, and those that practice it in whatever capacity they can or will.

Going back to your original post does not give me any kind of retrospective "ah-hah!" moment as to what you were trying to say. So you'll have to explain how you're not being a hypocrite. If you weren't being a hypocrite, you wouldn't use select few choices of biblical quotes combined with anecdotal references to those that practice Christianity to submit that they are hypocrites. Isn't the point supposed to be NOT to cherry pick from the Christian Bible to defend one's specific stance on the subject.

Perhaps I'm getting into semantics here, and I apologize. I'm trying to explain that I find it suspicious when someone comes in with a simple, bold statement like "hypocrisy is a common characteristic of Christians" that they actually aren't trying to insult everyone of that faith. This is why my response was worded exactly how it was - the gist being that hypocrisy is a common human trait, not just a religious one. The religion didn't bring about hypocrisy. Striving to be above that human trait doesn't mean failing makes the religion hypocritical. It just makes it full of humans.

In any case, being hyprocites like everyone else isn't something Christians should be content with. That's what I was saying, and I don't think that point is controversial at all to anyone who doesn't misunderstand Christianity.

I would posit you probably misunderstand it as well, though. Suggesting they should strive to not be hypocritical isn't the same as generalizing that trait to be hand-in-hand with the faith. Living in sin is kind of a big point in Christianity. The philosophy of whether one suggesting they can rid themselves of sin, makes them more hypocritical than not, has been debated for a long time.

If I'm not giving you any kind of outward perspective on what you're trying to say, then you'll have to explain how you're not ascribing hypocrisy to Christianity instead of Humanity. Because while I'll agree there are hypocritical and contradicting things within the Christian bible, I would not submit they are unique to Christianity. The thread being about Christianity, doesn't mean someone coming in to attribute negativity to it necessarily doesn't have a desire to insult those who practice it. Your second response only further adds that you're excusing a common human trait while bashing it within the confines of the religion.

But if you and I cannot agree or understand each other, then I'll just have to accept that and move on.

 

[aelf]

It wasn't used incorrectly. I supplied the links in the hopes you would read them (some of the wiki, at least) and be reminded of your choice words.

From Webster's:

"the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

From Wiki:

"Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another ... Other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain ... "

Your exact words were;

Combined with you attempting to define what it takes to be a Christian, is by definition, hypocritical. You've employed demeaning generalizations to describe the faith, and then in the same breath chided those of the faith as not being up to your standards of what you view the faith to be. Indeed you have been picking choice passages from the bible to add to your own confirmation that you understand the religion, and those that practice it in whatever capacity they can or will.

Going back to your original post does not give me any kind of retrospective "ah-hah!" moment as to what you were trying to say. So you'll have to explain how you're not being a hypocrite. If you weren't being a hypocrite, you wouldn't use select few choices of biblical quotes combined with anecdotal references to those that practice Christianity to submit that they are hypocrites. Isn't the point supposed to be NOT to cherry pick from the Christian Bible to defend one's specific stance on the subject.

Perhaps I'm getting into semantics here, and I apologize. I'm trying to explain that I find it suspicious when someone comes in with a simple, bold statement like "hypocrisy is a common characteristic of Christians" that they actually aren't trying to insult everyone of that faith. This is why my response was worded exactly how it was - the gist being that hypocrisy is a common human trait, not just a religious one. The religion didn't bring about hypocrisy. Striving to be above that human trait doesn't mean failing makes the religion hypocritical. It just makes it full of humans.



I would posit you probably misunderstand it as well, though. Suggesting they should strive to not be hypocritical isn't the same as generalizing that trait to be hand-in-hand with the faith. Living in sin is kind of a big point in Christianity. The philosophy of whether one suggesting they can rid themselves of sin, makes them more hypocritical than not, has been debated for a long time.

If I'm not giving you any kind of outward perspective on what you're trying to say, then you'll have to explain how you're not ascribing hypocrisy to Christianity instead of Humanity. Because while I'll agree there are hypocritical and contradicting things within the Christian bible, I would not submit they are unique to Christianity. The thread being about Christianity, doesn't mean someone coming in to attribute negativity to it necessarily doesn't have a desire to insult those who practice it. Your second response only further adds that you're excusing a common human trait while bashing it within the confines of the religion.

Um, I really don't see how saying that a negative trait is common among a group of people while expecting them not to have that trait is an example of hypocrisy at all. 'Ironic' or 'contradictory' might be closer to what you intend to say, but I don't think those are necessarily true either. There's no inherent contradiction in saying "X should not be hypocritical but X is hypocritical". That's not even getting into the complication that it's not my expectation that I'm talking about, but one set out very clearly in the holy scriptures. Thinking that it's acceptable to be Christian and still live like everyone else would be unsound Christian theology.

Your assertion that I'm excusing hypocrisy in other people is even more laughable and disingenuous, especially when I've amply explained that other people's hypocrisy is not relevant in a thread about Christians and is therefore not under discussion. This is especially salient in a thread that alludes to the policies of the Trump presidency, which despite being un-Christian, find support among many Christians. "Other people do it too" is the typical tu quoque response of someone without any other defence, but, as I've said, it's pretty poor showing from a Christian perspective, in any case.

You seem new here. That kind of level of argument won't get you very far.

 

[Nanuk]

I'll try to clean my thoughts up a bit, to make it easier to approach.

Um, I really don't see how saying that a negative trait is common among a group of people while expecting them not to have that trait is an example of hypocrisy at all. 'Ironic' or 'contradictory' might be closer to what you intend to say, but I don't think those are necessarily true either. There's no inherent contradiction in saying "X should not be hypocritical but X is hypocritical". That's not even getting into the complication that it's not my expectation that I'm talking about, but one set out very clearly in the holy scriptures. Thinking that it's acceptable to be Christian and still live like everyone else would be unsound Christian theology.

A hypocrisy is a contradiction of beliefs, not just simply overruling oneself with self-defeating arguments. The hypocrisy in your statements is that you generalize an entire faith based on false pretenses. You're not merely contradicting yourself because you're preaching as a matter of fact. Trying to excuse it by suggesting the argument that humans are hypocrites is second-fiddle to Christians, specifically further reinforces this. The topic being about what it makes to be a Christian doesn't just mean "come and insult Christians."

Your assertion that I'm excusing hypocrisy in other people is even more laughable and disingenuous, especially when I've amply explained that other people's hypocrisy is not relevant in a thread about Christians and is therefore not under discussion.

The thread title vs what is being talked about in the thread. Namely non-Christians taking up the vows, as it were, to get into the country. You say that Christians are hypocrites, so it's not a problem, and then refuse to see how you're being insulting.

This is especially salient in a thread that alludes to the policies of the Trump presidency, which despite being un-Christian, find support among many Christians.

Again you blanket generalize an entire faith based on the actions of some within that faith. You specifically choose to identify the faith based on some of those many you're seeing. Why do you refuse to identify the faith based on other many Christians opposed to Trump's immigration bills? This is hypocritical.

"Other people do it too" is the typical tu quoque response of someone without any other defence, but, as I've said, it's pretty poor showing from a Christian perspective, in any case.

You claim it is a logical fallacy. You have yet to counter with anything other than "No it is not."

You seem new here. That kind of level of argument won't get you very far.

If that level of argument is you not insulting everyone in a specific denomination and being hypocritical in your statements, then you've convinced me that there is not getting anywhere with you, correct.

By the way, from what you preach about understanding Christianity, what are your thoughts about the scholars who worked on the NRSV and other versions of the Christian bible? Did you happen to read any of those bibles in their entirety? The preface where they specifically discuss the sheer quantity of interpretation that is up for grabs?

I guess even figures like the Pope commenting on the differences between past and present interpretations of the scriptures, and how the future will see them, are just misunderstanding Christianity, by your standards. It's like simple people have simple understandings of things. However, it is indeed dubious to suggest they're hypocrites for "misunderstanding" the faith, when there are many things you overlook about what you outwardly project, yourself.

 

[aelf]

Uh, okay. You still don't seem to understand what hypocrisy means or that there's no contradiction in my position, even after I've explained it to you clearly. It also boggles the mind that you think the imperative to live differently as a Christian is up to interpretation. There's really not much else that I can say. You seem to be butthurt more than anything, which is why you twist your arguments into pretzels to point out why I'm wrong. Basically your response seems to amount to: "I'm offended you said bad things about my group, and I think it's hypocritical because you're not (I assume) one of us."

It's common to be unable to see and accept the flaws of your own group. Everyone is guilty of that at some point. But hopefully you'll at least realise that you need to make up for that with better arguments that aren't simply trying to twist meanings to suit your purposes.

 

[FredLC]

What is a Christian?

Easy.

Christians are people whom lions don't eat.

 

[civvver]

Important thing is that you're not Muslim. Let them eat pork.

I was going to say the same thing. If all else fails, bacon.

 

[Farm Boy]

Christians are people whom lions don't eat.

Daniel was Jewish?

 

[FredLC]

Damnatio ad bestias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_ad_bestias

OK,ok; it wold have been more precise to say that they are the ones not afraid to be thrown to lions.

 

[JollyRoger]

 

[civvver]

Daniel was Jewish?

Romans fed christians to lions too so that doesn't really make sense.

 

[Nanuk]

Uh, okay. You still don't seem to understand what hypocrisy means or that there's no contradiction in my position, even after I've explained it to you clearly.

I've provided you with the actual definition and an analysis for how you're being a hypocrite. You've done nothing but say "uh no." You've failed to provide anything of merit here. All you're doing is just snobbishly joy-riding that high horse of yours. Then, tragically, use some classic words like "butthurt" after getting called on your hypocrisy and bigotry.

It also boggles the mind that you think the imperative to live differently as a Christian is up to interpretation.

You're avoiding the argument again.

You seem to be butthurt more than anything, which is why you twist your arguments into pretzels to point out why I'm wrong. Basically your response seems to amount to: "I'm offended you said bad things about my group, and I think it's hypocritical because you're not (I assume) one of us."

Wonderful language from someone who's apparently so enthralled with the ethereal definition of Christianity. One so deep within the study of the topic that you can speak with the same tempo as an entire class of scholars who dedicate their lives to the study of Christianity and theology. You don't have time for political correctness, I guess, with all that dedication to staying as informed on Christianity as those whose careers are the study of it.

You've revealed your character and intent yet again. The fact you think you have a free pass to just insult anyone makes you out to be the most rotten apple here. And again, prove to me with something more in-depth than "you're butthurt" that I'm twisting my argument. Provide something other than hearsay, for once.

It's common to be unable to see and accept the flaws of your own group. Everyone is guilty of that at some point. But hopefully you'll at least realise that you need to make up for that with better arguments that aren't simply trying to twist meanings to suit your purposes.

More false logic. It's clear you're willfully ignorant at this point. I've said it a few posts back that I recognize there are failings within "my" group. Again, your hypocrisy is just shining through your pretentious posts. If it's so common, then why do you neglect to call yourself out on your own misgivings? As you say, twisting the defining characteristics of Christian to suit your own purpose. And meanwhile, the person who remains unapologetic for their anecdotal prejudice, is not butthurt? How quaint.