What is Christianity, and what makes a Christian a Christian?

[Gjallarhorn]

It's up to the individual, look at how many denominations there are.

So, if I were a Christian who believed that Jesus was not God, and another self-proclaimed Christian claims that Jesus is one person of the Trinity, which include God the Father and God as Holy Spirit, are we both totally correct?

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Then Christians must also believe in Satan, in demons, and that God allows for the torment of not only them but also humans who can survive death. Who is Satan, and what are demons? How does a human survive death?

Satan is a former angel who rebelled against God and took some other angels with him.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Satan is a former angel who rebelled against God and took some other angels with him.

Then Christians must also believe in angels which have an ability to sin. What are angels?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

1. Believe Jesus is both perfect God and perfect man.
2. Believe his death satisfied God's demand for justice for our sins
3. Believe he rose from the dead
4.Repent from sin and adhere to the life Jesus prescribes.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

1. Believe Jesus is both perfect God and perfect man
2. Believe his death satisfied God's demand for justice for our sins
3. Believe he rose from the dead

So, suppose someone believes all this, but that Jesus was not born of a virgin, or that he rose from the dead only to die again in an earthly existence, or that we no longer have to worry about accepting Jesus to rid us of our sin since he "satisfied God's demand for justice for our sins". Are they still a Christian, or is there more to it?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So, if I were a Christian who believed that Jesus was not God, and another self-proclaimed Christian claims that Jesus is one person of the Trinity, which include God the Father and God as Holy Spirit, are we both totally correct?

We'd have to ask the originator, the religion is like a car driving on flat tires now, scraping its bottom on rocks.

It evolved too much, people wanted to believe different things so they changed it in certain ways, and it continuously happened. We can never be sure.

You both would be a Christian, even though one of you are wrong if not both. That is the Unitarian vs Trinitarian denominations. Both are Christian.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

So, suppose someone believes all this, but that Jesus was not born of a virgin, or that he rose from the dead only to die again in an earthly existence, or that we no longer have to worry about accepting Jesus to rid us of our sin since he "satisfied God's demand for justice for our sins". Are they still a Christian, or is there more to it?

What would the alternate birth scenario look like? If Jesus is dead then so is our faith because it means we have no God. I added to my original post that repentance is a necessary component as it's upon repentance that we believe is blood washes our sins making us forgiven. It's not enough to just believe he exists. Even the Devil believes that

 

[Gjallarhorn]

We'd have to ask the originator, the religion is like a car driving on flat tires now, scraping its bottom on rocks.

It evolved too much, people wanted to believe different things so they changed it in certain ways, and it continuously happened. We can never be sure.

You both would be a Christian, even though one of you are wrong if not both. That is the Unitarian vs Trinitarian denominations. Both are Christian.

I would repost the Nietzsche quote, but that would seem repetitive.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

What would the alternate birth scenario look like? If Jesus is dead then so is our faith because it means we have no God. I added to my original post that repentance is a necessary component.

Your description made no claims as the the continued existence. Jesus may be dead, according to your definition. It also made no claims as to Jesus being fathered by God.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I would repost the Nietzsche quote, but that would seem repetitive.

Yeah I forgot about the Nietzche quote, and I agree with it.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Your description made no claims as the the continued existence. Jesus may be dead, according to your definition. It also made no claims as to Jesus being fathered by God.

I intended to communicate that Jesus is alive by saying he rose from the dead. I didn't intend for my comment to contain the assumption that he simply died of natural causes at a later time. Also, I've never given much thought to the idea that JC wasn't born of a virgin as Scripture is pretty clear that he was. Off the top of my head, I think a bare bones Gospel simply includes a JC that is God. I'm not sure that adherence to a theology other than the Trinity doctrine would necessarily constitute heresy even though I believe it would be incorrect.

 

[Alceste]

As I have said before, if the interpretation of the teachings is left up to the individual, are two people who claim to be Christians yet interpret scriptures to oppose each other's still both Christians? Is one of them wrong?

No, since it's a label that people apply to themselves, two people can disagree with one another and both be Christian. If you want to construct your personal definition of Christians in a way that excludes the majority of Christians, that's your own row to hoe.

It seems to me like you're fishing for something you want to hear and ruling out a lot of responses that don't fit your preconceptions of what "Christian" means. Why bother?

Never mind what you think it SHOULD mean. Look at some statistics. In England, for example, 72% of the population identifies as Christian, but less than half of those people believe Jesus was born of a virgin. So IF your definition excludes people who don't believe in the virgin birth, you're arbitrarily excluding over half of England's self-identified Christians. IOW, there is something wrong with your definition.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

No, since it's a label that people apply to themselves, two people can disagree with one another and both be Christian. If you want to construct your personal definition of Christians in a way that excludes the majority of Christians, that's your own row to hoe.

It seems to me like you're fishing for something you want to hear and ruling out a lot of responses that don't fit your preconceptions of what "Christian" means. Why bother?

Never mind what you think it SHOULD mean. Look at some statistics. In England, for example, 72% of the population identifies as Christian, but less than half of those people believe Jesus was born of a virgin. So IF your definition excludes people who don't believe in the virgin birth, you're arbitrarily excluding over half of England's self-identified Christians. IOW, there is something wrong with your definition.

I have three things I am trying to express. Christianity means a lot more than the the oversimplified definitions used to win converts, that Christianity lacks a definition for itself that applies in all cases, and that it requires a definition to actually be worth using.

That is all.

 

[Renji]

A Christian for me is someone who follows the teachings of Christ and believes in him as the savior of mankind. A Christian is someone who "Loves God above all things" and tries to see Christ in everyone. A Christian is someone who loves "his neighbor" wholeheartedly. A Christian is someone who knows his identity, which is as a child of God...

 

[waitasec]

I have three things I am trying to express. Christianity means a lot more than the the oversimplified definitions used to win converts, that Christianity lacks a definition for itself that applies in all cases, and that it requires a definition to actually be worth using.

That is all.

i agree.
look at the history between protestants and catholics.
but i would say, sectarianism isn't exclusively a "christian" problem

 

[sojourner]

As I have said before, if the interpretation of the teachings is left up to the individual, are two people who claim to be Christians yet interpret scriptures to oppose each other's still both Christians? Is one of them wrong?

Yep. Both Xian. Nope. It's not about "right" or "wrong." It's about meaning and relationship. Although, usually an interpretation and praxis is more of a community expression, rather than an individual one.

 

[sojourner]

I have three things I am trying to express. Christianity means a lot more than the the oversimplified definitions used to win converts, that Christianity lacks a definition for itself that applies in all cases, and that it requires a definition to actually be worth using.

That is all.

Well said!
Although we have to begin somewhere, and simple is best. Further meaning can be fostered as the journey progresses.

Xy does lack a definition, because it means different things to different people. That's what makes it a universal movement, and not particularly a religion that has to fit in a certain box.

I think it can be used, but not as a definitive, specific identifier -- only as a general pointer.

 

[ChristineES]

I see people putting conditions on people's Christianity, and that disturbs me just a bit. There are some things people ought to keep in mind. Jesus never used the word "Christian", the term was coined by Paul and then only used a couple of times. And Jesus said the 2 most important laws were these: 1. Love the Lord Your God with all your heart, with all your strength (or might), and with all your mind. 2. To love your neighbor as yourself. These, of course, can be found in the Books of Law (Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers and I can't recall which one and where). I never understood why people have always added additional conditions of being a Christian. I used to do it myself, back when I first became a Christian but as time has gone on, I realized that I was judging people's hearts and I should not and could not do that.

EDIT: I should clarify that I am aware that Jesus did have other commands.

 

[Falvlun]

Unless those "oddball" ways represent cultural differences. I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" Xy, except where there's a blatant disregard for love and openness, which lie at the foundation of what Jesus asks us to do.

Well, I was referring to take on Christianity whereas Jesus is a template for uniqueness and nothing more.

In another thread, I offered up the idea that someone could believe Jesus was a donkey that flew to the moon, and so he has dedicated his life to Jesus the donkey. I would assume everyone would claim that this is not Christianity. And yet that clearly displays that people do in fact have some criteria to distinguish legitimate Christianity from illegitimate Christianity, something above and beyond a nebulous "follower of Jesus".

I agree that Jesus asked for his followers to display love, but I don't recall openness per se. It is also strange to me that most people with a similar take on Christianity to yours seem to focus all their attention on the second greatest commandment-- Love thy Neighbor-- but never mention the first-- Love thy God.

While I think that following those two commandments would make you a "follower of Jesus", I find Christianity itself to be a more specific, less inclusive term. Christianity, the religion, is permeated with the idea of reconciliation to God. That is the whole point of everything. And Jesus was the means of that reconciliation. Without that crux, Christianity is not an organized religion, but a ragtag assortment of people trying to be nice to other people.

 

[Katzpur]

A Christian for me is someone who follows the teachings of Christ and believes in him as the savior of mankind. A Christian is someone who "Loves God above all things" and tries to see Christ in everyone. A Christian is someone who loves "his neighbor" wholeheartedly. A Christian is someone who knows his identity, which is as a child of God...

Jeesh! That sounds so Mormon!