Atheist tells a minister they are not a Christian

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

You missed the point of the whole conversation. I can provide you with a definition that would include him as a Christian.

Considering all the branches of christianity. It is no surprise why people quibble over who is christian.

By the way. I can't see why Christopher Hitchens even said that she wasn't a Christian in any meaningful sense. I have a feeling he is being tongue-in-cheek, as to him, Christianity is meaningless anyway. Therefore there wouldn't be any strict definition of being Christian to him.

Originally posted by lausey
By the way. I can't see why Christopher Hitchens even said that she wasn't a Christian in any meaningful sense. I have a feeling he is being tongue-in-cheek, as to him, Christianity is meaningless anyway. Therefore there wouldn't be any strict definition of being Christian to him.

Good to see you agree that what he said was meaningless.

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

The term 'true Christian' is used quite a lot and effectively recognizes that the word "Christian" has a wide range of meanings and it essentially means "the type of Christian I accept as valid" as in 'true Christians will go to heaven and everyone else won't'.

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.
That is not necessarily so at all.
There is really not difference between I as an atheist telling a Roman Catholic he is not Christian and a Jehovah's Witness telling the Roman Catholic he is not Christian. The Jehovah's witness has no more right than I simply because he himself uses the label. Yet that is what both you and Conrau K appear to be arguing.

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.
Yet there are quite a large number of people who claim to be both atheist and Christian. I think I have even met one on this site.

I see "no problem" with anyone making meaningless comments, apart from the fact that they do not support any argument.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here - I guess you are just being rude. Most unchristian of you.

Originally posted by lausey
By the way. I can't see why Christopher Hitchens even said that she wasn't a Christian in any meaningful sense. I have a feeling he is being tongue-in-cheek, as to him, Christianity is meaningless anyway. Therefore there wouldn't be any strict definition of being Christian to him.

Does he actually say Christianity (as a word) is meaningless? Does he say the religion is meaningless? Or do you simply assume that all non-believers feel that way?
Do you think that Buddhism or Islam are meaningless? If you did, would you be unable to compose a meaningful sentence using one of those words?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The term 'true Christian' is used quite a lot and effectively recognizes that the word "Christian" has a wide range of meanings and it essentially means "the type of Christian I accept as valid" as in 'true Christians will go to heaven and everyone else won't'.

[b]If the atheist wants to say something about the beliefs of the theist, then he needs to r ...[text shortened]... are trying to say here - I guess you are just being rude. Most unchristian of you.[/b]

Yes, twhitehead, keep avoiding the point.

Originally posted by Palynka
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 r rsally accepted, so there is none that can be used as the default standard. QED.

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?????

Can you explain what is wrong with my definition that a Christian is someone who practices the teachings of Christ, for it seems to me to be perfectly valid , easily understood and ready to be universally adopted. No one has as far as i can discern offered a refutation that is worthy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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?????

Can you explain what is wrong with my definition that a Christian is someone who practices the teachings of Christ, for it seems to me to be perfectly valid , easily understood and ready to be universally adopted. No one has as far as i can discern offered a refutation that is worthy!

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?????
Yes, that was the clincher in my point.

Can you explain what is wrong with my definition that a Christian is someone who practices the teachings of Christ, for it seems to me to be perfectly valid , easily understood and ready to be universally adopted.
Well, I would accept that definition, but others seem to have more stringent definitions of Christianity. Hitchens, for example, doesn't seem to believe that is enough.

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]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?????
Yes, that was the clincher in my point.

Can you explain what is wrong with my definition that a Christian is someone who practices the teachings of Christ, for it seems to me to be perfectly nt definitions of Christianity. Hitchens, for example, doesn't seem to believe that is enough.[/b]

mmm i see, do you know what his objections are?

perhaps we transcend the forum with our simplicity, they are not yet ready and we must appease their appetite for verbose and vague definitions proffered from hazy metal mirrors, so be it, we shall return in a thousand years! 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

...[text shortened]... emotely nor by inference the concept of the trinity. It was unknown to Christ and the Apostles.

Your definition is too simplistic. What Jesus taught is hardly agreed upon. Firstly, there is the problem of even establishing what Jesus said. Some Christians doubt the canonicity and inspiration of some of Scripture. Members of the Jesus Seminar, for example, regularly vote about which passages are considered more authentic. Secondly, Christians differ in their biblical hermeneutics. Some Christians follow a literal reading of the gospels while others employ the historical-critical method which looks at the cultural and historical context of these works and acknowledges the role of myth and story-telling in creative fidelity to Jesus' teachings and life. Along side of that, some Christians insist on the importance of tradition, the writings of the Church Fathers and the dogmatic teachings of their church. Finally, even when there is agreement about the canonicity and inspiration of Scripture and the method of interpretation, there will still no doubt be different accents and nuances in interpretation. So the question of who is Christian remains difficult.

The reason I insist of the importance of baptism is that this has historically been the clinching definition. We know that the apostles baptized (John 4:2) which would suggest their own baptism. Jesus says that the apostles will be baptized by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). Mark 16:16 also indicates the necessity of baptism and it is preached and ordered by the apostles (Acts 2:38, 41, 8:12). Paul gives a more ecclesiological interpretation of baptism -- that it brings the Christian into the body of Christ (Romans 6:3, 1Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27.) The theology of baptism grows more explicit in the early Church. Whether or not, however, baptism is prescribed by Scripture is irrelevant. The point is that Christians in the past have seen baptism as the core of Christian identity.

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.

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?

You do have that prerogative if you want to identify yourself as Christian. The point here is not about one group having linguistic rights over another; the point is about my self-determination about what constitutes my identity. If I identify myself as X, I have the right to define what I mean by X and it is plain silly for someone to insist that I am wrong because X is after all my identity. Now you might say that X has a different meaning to others or that there are words which better describe my identity but you cannot say I am wrong nor can you stipulate what I mean by X.

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.

Sure. I am not advocating incoherency. If someone continually changed the definition or contradicted the definition, then you can rightly say he is a babbling idiot. This is not really the point though. The fact is when you go from one culture to another, while the language may be constant, the values assigned to them will not be. For example, I went to a farm where a kangaroo with a broken leg had to be shot out of 'compassion'. In my lexicon, this was not compassionate (the compassionate solution to me would have been to administer a sedative and send it to a vet); in theirs however it was (the kangaroo would have had a limp for the rest of its life.) They have not misunderstood compassion; rather we just mean slightly different things by compassion (I understood relief of pain; they quality of life.)

Now in that context, it would be quite silly to insist they are using 'compassion' wrongly or for me to continue to use my definition. Dialogue could become confusing. This fact applies more importantly to identity. If someone chooses to identify under a certain label, I have to leave them the autonomy to define what they mean by it. It would be silly to stipulate another meaning and commit them to an identity they do not affirm. This is not conceding a linguistic right to them as if they now have ownership over it. They do not have ownership over the word itself, rather they have ownership over how they choose to define it when they use it.

This does leave the non-Christian some ways to criticise a self-professed Christian. He may say 'Your definition of Christian does not accord with the historical definition' or 'Yours does not agree with the canon of Scripture' or even 'You do not even meet your own definition'. I do this all the time. I do not think RC is a Christian as has been traditionally understood by the majority of Christian churches. I do not call him 'Christian' but then again I do not deny his right to use the label; I just have to understand he means something different by it. It would be quite silly for me to dictate what he should mean by it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You do have that prerogative if you want to identify yourself as Christian. The point here is not about one group having linguistic rights over another; the point is about my self-determination about what constitutes my identity. If I identify myself as X, I have the right to define what I mean by X and it is plain silly for someone to insist that I am wron ...[text shortened]... etter describe my identity but you cannot say I am wrong nor can you stipulate what I mean by X.

But that is simply not the case. People frequently identify themselves by terms the decidedly do not fit their actual description and they should not be given the prerogative to redefine the terms. In fact it is often done for the express purpose of deception.

For example, if a politician calls himself a democrat, but does not believe in democracy, should we give him the prerogative to so redefine the term? If someone gives himself the title "King", or "Your honor" should we give them the prerogative?

If someone thinks that being called Buddhist is cool, but they don't know the first thing about Buddhism, are we wrong to tell them they are not actually Buddhists? Or does their announcement that they are Buddhist instantly give them more right to decide what the word should mean than us?

I fully realize that in some countries being "Christian" is a tradition for more people than it is a religion (just as is the case with being Jewish) But it would still not be wrong for me to point out to someone who goes to Church on Christmas Sunday only that they are not really Christian by religion but only by tradition, and I might effectively say that by simply saying "you are not really Christian".

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not call him 'Christian' but then again I do not deny his right to use the label; I just have to understand he means something different by it. It would be quite silly for me to dictate what he should mean by it.

The first post seems to me to be someone pointing out to another person that they do not fit their own definition. I could be wrong, he may have been saying "you do not fit the standard definition". But I don't think he in any way said "you have no right to use that label". But your first response seemed to imply that only those of you who use the label can talk about it and us atheists must shut up.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Your definition is too simplistic. What Jesus taught is hardly agreed upon. Firstly, there is the problem of even establishing what Jesus said. Some Christians doubt the canonicity and inspiration of some of Scripture. Members of the Jesus Seminar, for example, regularly vote about which passages are considered more authentic. Secondly, Christians differ in . The point is that Christians in the past have seen baptism as the core of Christian identity.

no its not too simplistic, for the definition itself is not dependent upon what interpretations people give of Christ's teachings, nor of whether they accept them in whole or in part, nor whether they adhere to them or not, for all of these are the variable factors in the equation rather than the equation itself. Also it is not without precedent as i have shown, a Muslim is one who adheres to the teachings of Muhammad, a Buddhist to the teachings of Siddhartha Gautatama. Why this should be different for Christianity i do not know for the teachings of Christ are well known, readily identified, easily understood and without ambiguity, for he himself states,

(Matthew 6:22-23) . . .“The lamp of the body is the eye. If, then, your eye is simple, your whole body will be bright;  but if your eye is wicked, your whole body will be dark. If in reality the light that is in you is darkness, how great that darkness is!

thus it become quite easy to put the variables into our simple equation and readily determine who is Christian and who is not. There is no darkness, no confusion.


The reason I insist of the importance of baptism is that this has historically been the clinching definition????? well history is about to change, for it is well known that during the rule of Ferdinand and Isabella in the 1400s in catholic Spain during the reacquisition of towns many Jews and Muslims converted through baptism under a pretence and continued to carry on their own faiths in secret, are we to assume that they were Christian by virtue of their baptism? hardly!

Your scriptural references for the legitimacy based on baptism and then your statement that scripture is irrelevant are clearly contradictory, please mop it up, its sloppy and try not to let it happen again.

let me tell you a little secret, Christians are defined, not by baptism, a profound step though it is, although merely an outward display, but by something much deeper

(John 13:35)  By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves. . .

the defining mark of true Christianity.