Atheist tells a minister they are not 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]

I do not deny that the definition of Christianity should be accessible; I just deny that others have the right to define it. I am not saying that atheists are incapable of understanding the Christian faith. My comment is broadly about identity. Rwingett has in the past said that atheism is the absence of belief in God. This is a statement of his identity as an atheist and so when he uses it, I understand that is what he means; I do not impose my own definition. Now I can say to him 'That is not what others mean by atheism' or object 'but your definition covers agnostics', but it would be quite silly to tell him what his atheism means since he has just defined it!

The same prerogative belongs to Christians. When I use the term 'Christian', I usually mean that this person is baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, professes the Trinity, holds to the Scriptures and follows certain moral norms, even if he fails. This would exclude a lot of so-called Christians on this site. I would not call the JWs Christians because they do not practice a valid baptism or profess the Trinity. I do not however object to their right to use the term 'Christian'; I just understand they mean something different and there is little point in semantic quibbling.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

[b]There is something very arrogant about stipulating to billions ...[text shortened]... you would not be wrong to call me out for claiming to be atheist under the above definition.[/b]

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.

I disagree. The thief does not identity as a thief. It is not an identity-marker. If it were intended that way, I would have no objection. If a man entered a room and said 'Call me thief because I act slyly', I might say that his reasons do not accord with their normal sense (a thief normally takes someone's belongings without consent); I might think there is something bizarre about using the word in a new sense. It is however his right to use the term.

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.

Not necessarily. I would understand you meant 'atheist' in a different sense and I would expect a clarification. I would respect your right to use the term in your own way. There is a good historical precedent anyway. Jews and Christians were described as atheists for rejecting the pagan gods.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not deny that the definition of Christianity should be accessible; I just deny that others have the right to define it. I am not saying that atheists are incapable of understanding the Christian faith. My comment is broadly about identity. Rwingett has in the past said that atheism is the absence of belief in God. This is a statement of his identity as nderstand they mean something different and there is little point in semantic quibbling.

what is wrong with the definition that i gave? A Buddhist for example is someone who follows the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, a Muslim is one who follows the teachings of Muhammed, why is a Christian different from one who follows the teachings of Christ? If you deny the teachings of Christ you are not a Christian, you are something else.

Your definition of a Christian through baptism is in serious want for there is no, i repeat NO, NO biblical record of any of the apostles having taken a Christian Baptism, does that therefore mean, by your definition that they are not Christian? I hardly think so. Nor is there any Biblical record of any of them as having professed the trinity either directly or through inference.

1. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ, to deny or teach or to act contrary to, makes one something else.

2. Baptism is not a prerequisite nor can it be used as a definition of a Christian.

3. There is no biblical record of any of the Apostles expressing even remotely nor by inference the concept of the trinity. It was unknown to Christ and the Apostles.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
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 da ...[text shortened]... ch. It seems you dont need to do squat to become a member of certain denominations. Hmmm..

"Christianity has to be one of the easiest religons to join."

On the contrary. Jesus went through a great deal of agony to make it possible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

Its like someone calling themselves a "Mohammadite" and then saying that the the Koran, the book he wrote, is daft.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The same prerogative belongs to Christians.

But if it is allowable for you to have a definition for "Christian" and a JW to have a definition for Christian, then why do both groups have a prerogative over me simply because they claim to be described by the term?
If I use the term "Christian" or any other word for that matter, it is of course important that we agree on a definition. But there is no good reason for the agreed on definition being owned by one party, and certainly no good reason why anyone should claim ownership based on the fact that they describe themselves with the word.
Further, if I feel that the definition is agreed upon and you do not match the definition, I have the right to say so and explain why even if you disagree about whether the definition fits you or not.

Your argument is dangerously close to the popular argument that 'good' or 'righteous' is defined by God and that anyone claiming otherwise has no prerogative.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]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.

I disagree. The thief does not identity as a thief. It is not ...[text shortened]... cedent anyway. Jews and Christians were described as atheists for rejecting the pagan gods.[/b]

your problem is the manner in which you view language. in your view, we are free to abuse language in any way we see fit. as such, it is ok to use a word to mean something different than its usual meaning as long as we explain what we meant. but then what is the point of using that word in the first place? and furthermore, how can the others be sure that the words you used to explain the first word are really in their common meaning or they should be explained as well? the purpose of language therefore crumbles and you cannot say that it is within each right to attach whatever meaning they see fit to words. Not if they want to be understood of course.


On a side note, a christian is not one who follows the teachings of christ. It is one who also acknowldges that jesus is the son of god and that he died for our sins and got resurrected. otherwise, a particularly nice atheist could also be a christian.

which of course leads us to "jews and christians were considered atheists" which is again wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But if it is allowable for you to have a definition for "Christian" and a JW to have a definition for Christian, then why do both groups have a prerogative over me simply because they claim to be described by the term?
If I use the term "Christian" or any other word for that matter, it is of course important that we agree on a definition. But there is no or 'righteous' is defined by God and that anyone claiming otherwise has no prerogative.

Quite the contrary. Conrau K's view is the only one that can reconcile different definitions of "Christian" existing concurrently.

Since there is simply no established clear-cut definition of "Christian", it is ridiculous for someone who do not calls himself Christian to claim that others are somehow not true "Christians".

So how can communication be re-established when there is no clear-cut definition of "Christian"? It is up for the person who defines himself as such to present his definition and communication to go from there. The assertion that a given definition of "Christian" is not "Christian" in any meaningful sense is then easily identified as ridiculous, because it requires another definition of "Christian"! But, as we've identified before, there is no definition which is near universally accepted, so there is none that can be used as the default standard. QED.

Originally posted by Palynka
Since there is simply no established clear-cut definition of "Christian", it is ridiculous for someone who do not calls himself Christian to claim that others are somehow not true "Christians".

Note that you inserted 'true' in there which changes the meaning considerably.

So how can communication be re-established when there is no clear-cut definition of "Christian"? It is up for the person who defines himself as such to present his definition and communication to go from there.
I disagree that a person identifying himself has such has an special prerogative. Communication can just as easily be established if it is the atheists definition that is agreed upon. All that is required is agreement.

But, as we've identified before, there is no definition which is near universally accepted, so there is none that can be used as the default standard. QED.
Yet there are certain aspect that are nearly universally accepted. If there weren't, the word would not even be in the dictionary as it would have no meaning. For example, if I said that a well known Muslim was not Christian, you would probably agree with me without even considering what particular definition we are using. Similarly, most people would agree that a Christian cannot be an atheist which implies at least some common agreement about both definitions.
So I see no problem with someone making a statement about whether a given individual is a Christian or not, regardless that individuals personal claims so long as it is clear to all what is meant by the claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Note that you inserted 'true' in there which changes the meaning considerably.

[b]So how can communication be re-established when there is no clear-cut definition of "Christian"? It is up for the person who defines himself as such to present his definition and communication to go from there.
I disagree that a person identifying himself has such ha that individuals personal claims so long as it is clear to all what is meant by the claim.[/b]

How did that change the meaning "considerably"? Remove it if you want, that doesn't change my argument at all.

Communication can just as easily be established if it is the atheists definition that is agreed upon. All that is required is agreement.
Yet obviously there would be no agreement if the atheist's definition does not fit the definition of the self-named Christian. If the atheist wants to say something about the beliefs of the theist, then he needs to refer to the specific belief of the theist, not whichever belief he wants to address that the theist does not adhere to.

As for your second point, dictionaries list median (or at least close to the median) definitions, not all possible ones. The point of being an atheist Christian is not just an issue of contradicting the median definition, it is an issue of being logically contradictory with respect to 99.999999% of the definitions I know. Yet, despite that, if someone claimed to be an atheist Christian and provided me his definition, it would be completely ridiculously for me to argue that his beliefs are not Christian when I cannot identify in any objective way what being a Christian is.

I see "no problem" with anyone making meaningless comments, apart from the fact that they do not support any argument.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Christianity has to be one of the easiest religons to join."

On the contrary. Jesus went through a great deal of agony to make it possible.[/b]

Yes, but Jesus wasn't a christian

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, but Jesus wasn't a christian

By whose definition? 😵

So what about when Christians lapse and sin? (which most professs to) Are they then doing the work of the devil?( Are idle hands the devils plaything? )
Or a satanist? What if she lapses in worshipping satan and falls in line with some christian practice?
On the surface this may seem preposterous, but think about it. Geroge Bush is a christian. In the eyes of many muslims he would be the 'hands of the devil'. Same thing with muslims- they are seen by many westerners as the devil manifest.

What I'm trying to get at here is that (imo) nearly everyone has some split personality in the sense that they sin and therefore dont always act as they think they should. Do not some justify their sinning by telling themselves they have racked up so many good points already so they can allow themsleves this "one little sin"? Who has the absolute honesty to admit that when they are not doing good, they are doing bad? Or is there an in-between? Is there a fence to sit on where you dont follow christ or the devil?

Originally posted by Palynka
By whose definition? 😵

Well I'm not really sure😵 But he couldn't really follow himself. Whats more, if he was the son of god,special,etc. whats to say he couldn't put up with the agony josephw speaks of?

Originally posted by Palynka
By whose definition? 😵

If Jesus was the Jewish rabbi that he is, that would make him Jewish and not Christian, yes?