Not a Christian?

[Marsh]

I try not to be one of those people who just replies with 'your source is too biased/stupid/whatever' to respond to. It may be true but I still try to respond to each claim individually instead of website or group level generalizing.

And so you should. Once you've had some experience with their claims then you will feel justified in brushing them off.

I've looked into quite a number of Creationist websites over the years and I have never found anything but what looks like a deliberate attempt to twist the truth. They are infamous for quote mining and leaving out important facts. Many conservative Christians rely upon them almost exclusively for their knowledge of evolution, which accounts for their dismal understanding of the science. I've also looked briefly at some of their criticisms of the Documentary Hypothesis. They are no more reliable there. The thing to remember is that the DH undermines all their claims; of course they are going to reject it. If you want to study Jewish history you don’t turn to Neo-Nazis, and if you want to learn about the Documentary Hypothesis you don’t go to those in whose best interest it is to denigrate the field. Just saying.

 

[nazz]

Of course, they would tell you that if you're cherry picking what you think is accurate than you're not playing at all. I'm not their mouthpiece though. I'm not arguing for the same kind of literalism that modern YECs do because I don't believe the bible is inerrant either. Rather that nothing is inspired in it and that it's a patchwork of oral traditions and appropriated regional mythology.



That would be part of that Adventist link.

I think Jesus indicates the Law came through (or even from Moses) but I don't see him indicating Moses wrote books in the Bible. That's just a tradition that caught on that has no scriptural support.

 

[Kenny]

I think Jesus indicates the Law came through (or even from Moses) but I don't see him indicating Moses wrote books in the Bible. That's just a tradition that caught on that has no scriptural support.

I was told by a Jewish Rabbi that it was a tradition for people to give authorship to the person of whom the information came from. In other words, if I learned from "Fred", so to speak, and I wrote about what I learned from "Fred", I would say "The letter from Fred". Thus, the credit goes to Moses because the information came from him-thus, the books of Moses.

 

[gnomon]

Actually it is quite relevant as my questions were addressed only to atheists as this is the atheism DIR

I'm an atheist.

Ask around.

Understand.

 

[Kenny]

New-bee here. DIR stands for what?

 

[LuisDantas]

New-bee here. DIR stands for what?

Discuss Individual Religions. Those are the "clubhouses" of the forums, where specific groups may talk without contestation.

Despite the meaning of the abbreviation, atheism has its own DIR as well.

 

[Awoon]

In another forum I have been told recently by two atheists that I am not a Christian. Now I am used to hearing such from Christian fundamentalists who do not recognize others as Christians unless they agree with them. But this is the first time I have ever heard this said by atheists. Admittedly my views are quite outside those of mainstream Christianity but there is still much I hold in common with other Christians. My question is this. As an atheist would you judge some self-professed Christians as not making a valid claim? Would you tell them they are not really Christians because they do not subscribe to certain mainstream views?

I've never gotten a "true" definition of Christian from anyone. Now as to comparing the so called Christians of the Bible with those who call themselves Christian today, they were healers, martyrs, teachers, socialists, non political, cultists. Todays so called Christians are self righteous hypocrites....IMHO

 

[Kenny]

Discuss Individual Religions. Those are the "clubhouses" of the forums, where specific groups may talk without contestation.

Despite the meaning of the abbreviation, atheism has its own DIR as well.

LOL... I guess I'm in the wrong forum... I know I am highly contagious so I'll vamus!

 

[gnomon]

I've never gotten a "true" definition of Christian from anyone. Now as to comparing the so called Christians of the Bible with those who call themselves Christian today, they were healers, martyrs, teachers, socialists, non political, cultists. Todays so called Christians are self righteous hypocrites....IMHO

There is a very common and cross cultural concept of what being a Christian means. Namely on the idea that Christ, or Joshua, was a semi-divine, or wholly divine, being sent to Earth by God as his only Son in order to sacrifice himself for humanities sins. Throughout the canonical Gospels as well as non-Canonical texts this idea remains. That Christ was sent by God to forgive humanity of it's Sins and that redemption was through the acceptance of this concept. Only a traditional school of gnosticism, rising later than the time period of Christ, argues against those specific ideals. However, throughout the cultural development of Christianity in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and later the Americas the cultural norm has remained and the philological concept of a Christian has remained that a Christian is one who has accepted the divinity and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

It is the most defining concept of the religion.

Thus later concepts attempting to paint themselves as "Christian" in some form, such as Christian Wiccans, while absolutely denying the long term traditions of not only the religious practices but the actual terminology itself are essentially.............. ********,

Imagine if I took the verifiable fact that my great, great grandmother was Jewish. She was. Up until whatever point in her life that she married a Christian ancestor of mine and adopted his tradition she was a Jew. To date I do not practice any Judaic traditions. I find most of them utterly useless and one of them utterly offensive. However, if I decided that my ancestor was really cool and adopted her definition of herself, prior to marriage, and told people I was Jewish while never observing Jewish traditions what would most people call me?

They would call me a dick.

Get that OP.

Understand it now?

But now to your description of Christians and your absolutely and utterly bigoted concept that today's Christians are so self righteous. That is an unsubstantiated view in itself. It's your opinion. And here is my opinion as a self declared atheist still living among a very faithful Southern Baptist family. The religious believers are the most caring and charitable people I've known.

So your honest opinion....in my honest opinion....is utter crap.

 

[Awoon]

There is a very common and cross cultural concept of what being a Christian means. Namely on the idea that Christ, or Joshua, was a semi-divine, or wholly divine, being sent to Earth by God as his only Son in order to sacrifice himself for humanities sins. Throughout the canonical Gospels as well as non-Canonical texts this idea remains. That Christ was sent by God to forgive humanity of it's Sins and that redemption was through the acceptance of this concept. Only a traditional school of gnosticism, rising later than the time period of Christ, argues against those specific ideals. However, throughout the cultural development of Christianity in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and later the Americas the cultural norm has remained and the philological concept of a Christian has remained that a Christian is one who has accepted the divinity and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

It is the most defining concept of the religion.

Thus later concepts attempting to paint themselves as "Christian" in some form, such as Christian Wiccans, while absolutely denying the long term traditions of not only the religious practices but the actual terminology itself are essentially.............. ********,

Imagine if I took the verifiable fact that my great, great grandmother was Jewish. She was. Up until whatever point in her life that she married a Christian ancestor of mine and adopted his tradition she was a Jew. To date I do not practice any Judaic traditions. I find most of them utterly useless and one of them utterly offensive. However, if I decided that my ancestor was really cool and adopted her definition of herself, prior to marriage, and told people I was Jewish while never observing Jewish traditions what would most people call me?

They would call me a dick.

Get that OP.

Understand it now?

But now to your description of Christians and your absolutely and utterly bigoted concept that today's Christians are so self righteous. That is an unsubstantiated view in itself. It's your opinion. And here is my opinion as a self declared atheist still living among a very faithful Southern Baptist family. The religious believers are the most caring and charitable people I've known.

So your honest opinion....in my honest opinion....is utter crap.

Been there dumped that 20 years ago.

 

[gnomon]

Been there dumped that 20 years ago.

Yeah.

That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'll ask for some clarification before commenting otherwise.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Don't be hard on yourself man. Only God (who is Jesus in your beliefs, I believe) knows what's in your heart and He's the only judge, as long as you have faith in his basics, which are as I suppose accepting and having faith in him.

 

[Marsh]

I've never gotten a "true" definition of Christian from anyone. Now as to comparing the so called Christians of the Bible with those who call themselves Christian today, they were healers, martyrs, teachers, socialists, non political, cultists. Todays so called Christians are self righteous hypocrites....IMHO

We all know how varied Christianity is in its many forms, so I suppose no one definition fits all. The more conservative the Christian the more narrow the outlook and the more liberal the Christian the broader the sweep of acceptance. Christians run the gamut from presuming that only their own isolated congregation will enjoy heaven's rewards to believing there are many religious paths to a blessed afterlife. Not even atheists agree on what constitutes Christianity.

 

[gnomon]

We all know how varied Christianity is in its many forms, so I suppose no one definition fits all. The more conservative the Christian the more narrow the outlook and the more liberal the Christian the broader the sweep of acceptance. Christians run the gamut from presuming that only their own isolated congregation will enjoy heaven's rewards to believing there are many religious paths to a blessed afterlife. Not even atheists agree on what constitutes Christianity.

It's hardly that varied.

The base definition of Christianity is a very simple concept to understand.

It's only been defined by every Christian religion in existence. Excepting, perhaps, that very rare minority of Gnostics. So rare as there contribution to human history is hardly worth noting.

 

[maggie2]

In another forum I have been told recently by two atheists that I am not a Christian. Now I am used to hearing such from Christian fundamentalists who do not recognize others as Christians unless they agree with them. But this is the first time I have ever heard this said by atheists. Admittedly my views are quite outside those of mainstream Christianity but there is still much I hold in common with other Christians. My question is this. As an atheist would you judge some self-professed Christians as not making a valid claim? Would you tell them they are not really Christians because they do not subscribe to certain mainstream views?

I think the more important question is: Why would you listen to someone else's opinion about your faith. I believe that is a matter between you and God and it is no one else's business. No, I would not tell others whether they are a 'real' Christian or "Jew" or any other religion. That is not for me to say. Reclaim your power and know that you are exactly where you need to be on your journey and don't let anyone tell you what you are or are not.

 

[RantingDutchman]

In another forum I have been told recently by two atheists that I am not a Christian. Now I am used to hearing such from Christian fundamentalists who do not recognize others as Christians unless they agree with them. But this is the first time I have ever heard this said by atheists. Admittedly my views are quite outside those of mainstream Christianity but there is still much I hold in common with other Christians. My question is this. As an atheist would you judge some self-professed Christians as not making a valid claim? Would you tell them they are not really Christians because they do not subscribe to certain mainstream views?

Depends.. I have a friend who sees the bible as advice and a metaphore to live as if someone were to be watching you(I disagree since there is a justice system to make sure that that happens). So I wouldnt call her a theist christian.

 

[Slide]

In another forum I have been told recently by two atheists that I am not a Christian. Now I am used to hearing such from Christian fundamentalists who do not recognize others as Christians unless they agree with them. But this is the first time I have ever heard this said by atheists. Admittedly my views are quite outside those of mainstream Christianity but there is still much I hold in common with other Christians. My question is this. As an atheist would you judge some self-professed Christians as not making a valid claim? Would you tell them they are not really Christians because they do not subscribe to certain mainstream views?

I have only said such things in a fit of frustration. In my personal view, I was wrong in doing so. I could have called the professed Christian on their disrespect, but we've no right to tell someone they aren't a part of the religion they claim unless we can provide evidence and such is pertinent to the discussion. What someone believes is more important than their religion. That's why I tend to shy away from titles. Whether or not you call yourself a Christian is irrelevant, because your views will be pertinent to the discussion. Your title will be essentially worthless. Anyone who brings up the "authenticity" of the title is--in my mind--trying to distract attention from the real issue being discussed.

 

[gnomon]

This thread is becoming a sophomore class in the "no True Scotsman fallacy".

Seriously, sharpen up your arguments and get to a specific point already.

It's already barely upon the precipice of boring.

The educational aspect has gone nowhere after the ridiculous stall Awoon dumped on this thread.

I will say this. If anyone, in this age, has a problem in defining Christianity.....I can only question the value of a historical education you have received. It has to be **** poor, at best.

Sorry, I just finished up with an utterly imbecilic Youtube argument with someone proclaiming Catholics are not Christians.

I have little patience for individuals in this educated age who cannot understand that the basic defining concept of Christianity from the pre-Nicene Jews who were Christians all the way to the Latter Day Saints, and even the Gnostic Christians, all accept that a Jewish rabbi or spiritual leader, have at it, was the chosen divine child to be born and sacrificed for human sin. And through that method all of humanity, not just Jews, were to be able to proclaim salvation. That is the definitive meme of Christianity even before Paul starting writing letters to the point that the LDS instituted alien nonsense. It is the underlying definition.

Anyone, at this point in our modern society, having a problem with this can only be declared an idiot in my opinion. Your brain is so devoid of historical understanding and lateral thought I wonder that you made it to a computer to present your ideas on a public forum.

I don't know. Maybe Awoon will dive in and provide us with some rather uninteresting horse****.

Sorry for my brusque manner. I'm an atheist. Yet even I understand the basic historical definition of Christianity.

If this thread goes further we shall start calling out reformed Jews as not truly being Jewish and the Shia Muslims as hardly Islamic.

 

[dgirl1986]

In another forum I have been told recently by two atheists that I am not a Christian. Now I am used to hearing such from Christian fundamentalists who do not recognize others as Christians unless they agree with them. But this is the first time I have ever heard this said by atheists. Admittedly my views are quite outside those of mainstream Christianity but there is still much I hold in common with other Christians. My question is this. As an atheist would you judge some self-professed Christians as not making a valid claim? Would you tell them they are not really Christians because they do not subscribe to certain mainstream views?

I consider that there are different types of christianity and further than that there are people who hold onto the main christian belief of god and jesus without the rest of the stuff. When I was a christian I called myself a non practicing christian because jesus and god were the only bits I dug.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Christianity is so nebulous that it's impossible to point to a single essential doctrine that defines it. Even the Nicene Creed, which is what most people will point to, was written specifically to grant legitimacy to one sect above other existing sects whose doctrines differed. Even seemingly core issues such as what exactly Jesus of Nazareth was, what salvation is, and how one achieves it, are points of contention that different sects have mutually contradictory views on. And unlike, say, Buddhism--which has evolved to be very diverse but still has some core principles without which something can't be said to be Buddhist--it's not clear that there was ever a time when Christians were in agreement on all those points, even in the earliest days of the tradition. Christianity has from day one been defined by diversity, despite the efforts of some dominant sects to stamp out that diversity from time to time.

I'm comfortable accepting as Christian any sect or church that has evolved out of the Christian tradition and views Jesus of Nazareth as its founder and central figure. Some groups, like the Unitarian Universalists, no longer identify as Christian even though they grew out of Christianity, and that's fine. What's not fine is telling groups that come directly out of the Christian tradition that they don't get to use the label. "Christian" is, after all, more of a family name than a specific description of beliefs etc. And as much as we might like to disown some of our cousins sometimes, they have just as much right to the name as anyone.