What is a Christian?

@moonbus said
The emphasis on belief is telling, for some Christians, don't you think? That opens up another can of worms: salvation through works vs salvation through faith. Some Christians will tell you that there is no salvation outside the Church (i.e., no salvation without belief in a set of propositions and membership in a specific community of believers), whereas others will tell yo ...[text shortened]... at they do God's work and even if they never heard anything about the Gospels). A wide range indeed.

I don't mind who calls themselves a Christian. They can make stickers for their bumpers and reference Jesus. And they can fashion their own definitions that encompass whoever they want. For me, the five core beliefs are defining and necessary. The fact that I would not recognize someone who didn't profess those beliefs as a Christian does not affect their reality, nor would their objection to not being included in my definition affect mine. If they don't go for my suggested alternative ~ follower of Jesus [while not being a Chrstian, per se], that's OK too.

@moonbus said
"What is a Christian?" is a question liable to lead to misleading or merely partial answers ("partial" in both senses: incomplete, and biased towards one particular party).

The definition I have offered is not "partial" or "misleading" or "biased" at all. I think it is complete and clear and candid. It means exactly what I mean it to mean and is not "incomplete". If you want a more vague or wishy-washy, everybody-gets-a-rosette-type definition of "a Christian" that embraces people that do not agree with the five core beliefs I laid out, by all means, offer one of your own.

@moonbus said
What strikes me about Christianity is how mental and cognitive it is. At one end of the range is Catholicism, with its massive edifice of theological speculations about the metaphysical nature of man and God and the Trinity and so on, at the other end there are Quakers who sit around and talk about their experiences -- and it's all so very mental and cognitive. It's all going on in their minds.

If you want to make a case that Quakers are not "Christians" according to my definition in the OP, then that would be interesting.

@fmf said
If you want to make a case that Quakers are not "Christians" according to my definition in the OP, then that would be interesting.

No, I'll leave the Quakers alone; they're (mostly) harmless pacifists. BTW, did you know that Richard Nixon was a Quaker?

@fmf said
I don't mind who calls themselves a Christian. They can make stickers for their bumpers and reference Jesus. And they can fashion their own definitions that encompass whoever they want. For me, the five core beliefs are defining and necessary. The fact that I would not recognize someone who didn't profess those beliefs as a Christian does not affect their reality, nor would their ...[text shortened]... or my suggested alternative ~ follower of Jesus [while not being a Chrstian, per se], that's OK too.

"Beliefs are defining and necessary" -- so, that's your take on Christianity, is it? Now you just have to formulate which beliefs make the grade, right?

It's all so mental and cognitive.

Remember KellyJay's motto? "Walk your faith."

@moonbus said
No, I'll leave the Quakers alone; they're (mostly) harmless pacifists. BTW, did you know that Richard Nixon was a Quaker?

Quaker "services" are interesting. They don't have a leader, in the sense of someone leading the congregation in prayer, or in performing rites or giving a sermon. The congregation is free to pray and communicate with God as they see fit, and if a member feels a need to speak, they are free to do so. They feel that everyone's relationship with God is up to them to work out for themselves. I don't even know if they adhere to the Nicene creed as do most Christian churches, but I'm thinking they don't feel that such declarations of faith are required or even necessary. They seem to follow the "Live and let live" ideas better than most churches.

@suzianne said
Quaker "services" are interesting. They don't have a leader, in the sense of someone leading the congregation in prayer, or in performing rites or giving a sermon. The congregation is free to pray and communicate with God as they see fit, and if a member feels a need to speak, they are free to do so. They feel that everyone's relationship with God is up to them to work ou ...[text shortened]... red or even necessary. They seem to follow the "Live and let live" ideas better than most churches.

My father's family were Quakers going back many generations. My father rejected it completely. He was the youngest and the scale of what had gone in concentration camps had become apparent by the time of his national service. He wanted to do it and he rejected all religion completely including the Quakers.

It meant I had the experience of Quaker meetings through my extended family. I found my Grandmother's funeral very moving. The whole extended family sat in silence around the coffin unless moved to speak and I heard some very profound and heart felt sentiments. An uncle who had married into the family from a different religion was moved to say the Lord's Prayer. I wondered if the Quakers would feel that was wrong as he was using learned words rather than his own, but the attitude was that if he was using that as a vehicle to express what he needed to do then fine.

@moonbus said
"Beliefs are defining and necessary" -- so, that's your take on Christianity, is it? Now you just have to formulate which beliefs make the grade, right?

It's all so mental and cognitive.

Remember KellyJay's motto? "Walk your faith."

KellyJay certainly did nothing to preach about Christians "walking [their] faith. It was rhetoric. 'Walk your faith'? Nothing of the sort.

Umpteen times he asserted that doing stuff cuts no ice with his version of God and that it was only belief in Jesus that led to "salvation".

KellyJay preached that there was zero obligation to "walk your faith". He preached that deeds were meaningless to his God.

He ran a mile from genuine discussion of the 'faith without works is dead' issue and would often dodge the issue by copy-pasting reams of stuff about being "saved" by faith alone.

He had a bumper sticker under his screen name but I always saw it as empty posturing and sanctimoniousness.

I just listened to the actual ideology he recited.

@moonbus said
@FMF

Apart from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the other well-defined mainstream branches are Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. These four denominations make up a pretty solidly defined core with a clear doctrine (although the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Roman Church still don't agree on the filioque).

Armenia was the first nation to officially accept Christ ...[text shortened]... ich captures the entire spectrum and to which all people who call themselves Christians would agree.

Didn’t you once assert something along the lines of true spiritual Christian church was one of the orthodox churches?

We had a lengthy exchange about it.

@moonbus said
Observation.

My question was on what basis are you asserting that Christianity would have died out if it was not diverse. This reply by you is a bit of a cop out of an interesting are making.

You see, I think that Christianity had died out because it has become diverse. Christianity was a narrow sect in its origin, full of (apparent) spiritual power and divine authority. NoW it is pretty much a unilateral sham.

@moonbus said
The diversity which Christianity in fact exhibits.

But that very diversity in fact makes whatever the Roman Catholic Church has or hasn’t said since whatever year dot it said it, completely moot.

@fmf said
Personally, in my view that is, and for what it's worth, denominations that deny the divinity of Jesus are perfectly entitled to call themselves followers of Jesus, and may well think and act in accordance with what they distill as being the significance of Jesus' life.

However, the bottom-line, minimal definition of what beliefs, if held, make it legitimate to call yourself a Christian - with a capital C - to my way of thinking at least, is laid out in the OP.

The term “Christian” has become so ubiquitous, used even by some passive atheists in America for example, that it has ceased to be a useful noun or adjective for describing followers of Jesus and their works.

@fmf said
I don't mind who calls themselves a Christian. They can make stickers for their bumpers and reference Jesus. And they can fashion their own definitions that encompass whoever they want. For me, the five core beliefs are defining and necessary. The fact that I would not recognize someone who didn't profess those beliefs as a Christian does not affect their reality, nor would their ...[text shortened]... or my suggested alternative ~ follower of Jesus [while not being a Chrstian, per se], that's OK too.

The structure, diversification, creeds, rules, doctrines, sacrifices and money of christianity are all irrelevant.

From memory (which isn’t complete by any means) the bible recognises these behaviours as being manifestations of the sons of God:

- they are peacemakers (from the sermon on the mount)
- they display the fruit (singular) of the spirt (love, joy, peace, etc)
- they are obedient to God through his word and spirit

@divegeester said
From memory (which isn’t complete by any means) the bible recognises these behaviours as being manifestations of the sons of God:

- they are peacemakers (from the sermon on the mount)
- they display the fruit (singular) of the spirt (love, joy, peace, etc)
- they are obedient to God through his word and spirit

This sounds like Admirer of Jesus or Follower Of Jesus' Teachings zone to me. Without the Doctrine of Atonement, or something very attendant thereto, I think it's hard to apply the "Christian" label.

@fmf said
This sounds like Admirer of Jesus or Follower Of Jesus' Teachings zone to me. Without the Doctrine of Atonement, or something very attendant thereto, I think it's hard to apply the "Christian" label.

I disagree. Jesus himself is reported to have said “blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God”. He also said you shall know them by their fruits and he also said “anyone who loves me will obey my teaching.

We have a clear act of peacemaking
We have clear calling out of the virtues, the spiritual fruit of love, joy, peace, patience etc
And we have love for Christ called out as being demonstrated by obedience.

So for me a Christian is someone who is obedient to the teachings of Christ , lives virtuously and does good works such as peacemaking among their fellow people.

Doctrines don’t do anything to convince me of a person being Christian, however is a person is obeying a certain teaching I suppose it can come to be called a doctrine.