Atheist tells a minister they are not a Christian

http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hithchens/1/

This is an article about a conversation with atheist Christopher Hitchens with a unitarian minister by the name of Marilyn Sewell. In it, Marilyn revels that she does not believe in the atonement of the sacrifice of Jesus nor his resurrection from the grave, yet she calls herself a "Christian". Of course, Christopher will have none of it telling her that she is not, in fact, a Christian at all.

What a riot, an atheist that knows more about the Bible than an alleged minister!!

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hithchens/1/

This is an article about a conversation with atheist Christopher Hitchens with a unitarian minister by the name of Marilyn Sewell. In it, Marilyn revels that she does not believe in the atonement of the sacrifice of Jesus nor his resurrectio ...[text shortened]... t all.

What a riot, an atheist that knows more about the Bible than an alleged minister!!

We live in an interesting time. It's getting more and more convoluted every day. Reminds me of a verse.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hithchens/1/

This is an article about a conversation with atheist Christopher Hitchens with a unitarian minister by the name of Marilyn Sewell. In it, Marilyn revels that she does not believe in the atonement of the sacrifice of Jesus nor his resurrectio ...[text shortened]... t all.

What a riot, an atheist that knows more about the Bible than an alleged minister!!

Her response:

http://marilyns.nexcess.net/2010/01/conversation-with-christopher.html

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hithchens/1/

This is an article about a conversation with atheist Christopher Hitchens with a unitarian minister by the name of Marilyn Sewell. In it, Marilyn revels that she does not believe in the atonement of the sacrifice of Jesus nor his resurrectio ...[text shortened]... t all.

What a riot, an atheist that knows more about the Bible than an alleged minister!!

The link doesn't work for me.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hithchens/1/

This is an article about a conversation with atheist Christopher Hitchens with a unitarian minister by the name of Marilyn Sewell. In it, Marilyn revels that she does not believe in the atonement of the sacrifice of Jesus nor his resurrectio ...[text shortened]... t all.

What a riot, an atheist that knows more about the Bible than an alleged minister!!

Alright, I found the article. First, he did not say that she wasn't a Christian at all. He said that she wasn't a Christian in any meaningful sense. Did you read the article, or are you just taking one snippet out of context?

Originally posted by rwingett
Alright, I found the article. First, he did not say that she wasn't a Christian at all. He said that she wasn't a Christian in any meaningful sense. Did you read the article, or are you just taking one snippet out of context?

"He said that she wasn't a Christian in any meaningful sense."

Same difference.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"He said that she wasn't a Christian in any meaningful sense."

Same difference.[/b]

I think the point is how far can you change Christianity before it ceases to be the same thing? Are Mormons Christians? Some say yes, some say no. Personally, I have no problem with calling Sewell a Christian. Her take on it sounds a lot like that of Bishop Spong. Hitchens, however, is entitled to his opinion.

Originally posted by rwingett
I think the point is how far can you change Christianity before it ceases to be the same thing? Are Mormons Christians? Some say yes, some say no. Personally, I have no problem with calling Sewell a Christian. Her take on it sounds a lot like that of Bishop Spong. Hitchens, however, is entitled to his opinion.

Whatever constitutes Christianity however can only be worked out among people who claim that identity; it is the people who use that label who reserve the right to define it. I have a problem with atheists dictating to Christians what their identity entails. Richard Dawkins did the same recently claiming Pat Robinson was a true Christian. There is something very arrogant about stipulating to billions of people what their faith ought to entail when he himself is not a practitioner of that faith.

As a comparative example, you yourself have defined atheism as the absence of belief in God. I am not an atheist and so I cannot contend your definition. I might say that historically there have been other definitions or that others hold a different definition. But it would be plain silly to stipulate any of these definitions as normative.

Originally posted by rwingett
I think the point is how far can you change Christianity before it ceases to be the same thing? Are Mormons Christians? Some say yes, some say no. Personally, I have no problem with calling Sewell a Christian. Her take on it sounds a lot like that of Bishop Spong. Hitchens, however, is entitled to his opinion.

I think the point is how far can you change Christianity before it ceases to be the same thing?

Not one jot or tittle.

Christianity has to be one of the easiest religons to join. Seems some christian "leaders" will take on just about anyone. I really dont think its that great a thing to have more numbers in your religon or denomination. Quality and not quantity. I guess everyone, including christian ministers , have to feed the cat and pay the bills at the end of the day. ToOne's "cheap salvation" comes to mind.

Of course the numbers of church-goers has been steadily declining for the last three decades ,(or so I've heard), and I wonder if thats the reason that it becomes easier to join a church. It seems you dont need to do squat to become a member of certain denominations. Hmmm..

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hithchens/1/

This is an article about a conversation with atheist Christopher Hitchens with a unitarian minister by the name of Marilyn Sewell. In it, Marilyn revels that she does not believe in the atonement of the sacrifice of Jesus nor his resurrectio ...[text shortened]... t all.

What a riot, an atheist that knows more about the Bible than an alleged minister!!

For the rest of the readership:

change hithchens to hitchens and the link should work.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Whatever constitutes Christianity however can only be worked out among people who claim that identity; it is the people who use that label who reserve the right to define it. I have a problem with atheists dictating to Christians what their identity entails. Richard Dawkins did the same recently claiming Pat Robinson was a true Christian. There is something ...[text shortened]... rent definition. But it would be plain silly to stipulate any of these definitions as normative.

There is something very arrogant about stipulating to billions of people what their faith ought to entail when he himself is not a practitioner of that faith.

I think it's legitimate. If being a 'Christian' has any meaning at all, it should be something we are able to define. And that definition should be accessible to Christians and non-Christians alike. Huston Smith, in his book, "The World's Religions," does an excellent job describing orthodox Christian belief as a non-Christian. Far more eloquently and honestly than Richard Dawkins ever could. Perhaps some, because of arrogance, sell Christianity short (as in Dawkins' case), but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that non-Christians in general are incapable of understanding what true Christian faith entails. Also, as Christians charged with spreading the Gospel, it would be awfully difficult to perform our duty if it were impossible for potential converts to understand precisely what it would mean to become a Christian.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]There is something very arrogant about stipulating to billions of people what their faith ought to entail when he himself is not a practitioner of that faith.

I think it's legitimate. If being a 'Christian' has any meaning at all, it should be something we are able to define. And that definition should be accessible to Christians and non-Chri tential converts to understand precisely what it would mean to become a Christian.[/b]

surely a Christian is someone who practices the teachings of Christ? Why this should be either difficult to define or difficult to understand i do not know.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Whatever constitutes Christianity however can only be worked out among people who claim that identity; it is the people who use that label who reserve the right to define it.

I fully agree that the definition of words is created by those who use it, but you are wrong to apparently claim the the definition of words is owned by those who are described by it. Next you will be telling us that only a thief can decide whether he is correctly called a thief or not.

There is something very arrogant about stipulating to billions of people what their faith ought to entail when he himself is not a practitioner of that faith.
Arrogant it may be, but that doesn't make it incorrect. If anything Richard Dawkins was pointing out a contradiction ie a person making a claim that they believe something yet either not actually believing it, or behaving as if they don't.

As a comparative example, you yourself have defined atheism as the absence of belief in God. I am not an atheist and so I cannot contend your definition. I might say that historically there have been other definitions or that others hold a different definition. But it would be plain silly to stipulate any of these definitions as normative.
But if I do have a belief in God, you would not be wrong to call me out for claiming to be atheist under the above definition.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hithchens/1/

This is an article about a conversation with atheist Christopher Hitchens with a unitarian minister by the name of Marilyn Sewell. In it, Marilyn revels that she does not believe in the atonement of the sacrifice of Jesus nor his resurrectio ...[text shortened]... t all.

What a riot, an atheist that knows more about the Bible than an alleged minister!!

Not an "alleged" minister. An actual minister.

Individuals, regardless of how they prattle about, do not get to define Christianity. The authority as such is reserved for a given church. I can go on about this or that but if I am not affiliated with a particular church then it's just rambling and it won't count for squat to anyone but me.

You may not agree with this "alleged" minister, but they are one whether you like it or not. Also, I would venture to guess that you have not been ordained to a church. Not being ordained means you have an opinion that carries no weight to anyone but yourself. Not being ordained makes it likely that you've little to no theological study. Anyone can put great significance on a lack of knowledge and understanding. When study of the vast spectrum of Christianity happens, however, in an academic setting, it is quickly realized that there is much gray area in the Christian belief. The ability to flow within this dynamic with the teachings of Jesus at the forefront is what makes someone a Christian. Fossilization of spiritual understanding can render faith worthless to believer and non-believer alike.

But - it's all a choice, and to each their own.