@moonbus saidI 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.
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.
@moonbus saidThe 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.
"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).
@moonbus saidIf you want to make a case that Quakers are not "Christians" according to my definition in the OP, then that would be interesting.
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.
@fmf 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?
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.
It's all so mental and cognitive.
Remember KellyJay's motto? "Walk your faith."
1 edit
@moonbus saidQuaker "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.
No, I'll leave the Quakers alone; they're (mostly) harmless pacifists. BTW, did you know that Richard Nixon was a Quaker?
@suzianne saidMy 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.
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.
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.
1 edit
@moonbus saidKellyJay certainly did nothing to preach about Christians "walking [their] faith. It was rhetoric. 'Walk your faith'? Nothing of the sort.
"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."
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.
