There are only so many questions that can be asked, yes. But the answers you receive are largely a matter of what you're willing to see. If you are determined at the outset that only certain answers will be acceptable to you, or that certain criteria in your own mind must be met -- regardless of their relationship to the actual truth of the matter -- you are 50% less likely to come to the right conclusion. (math isn't my strong point, but you know what I mean)

If I stare at a glass of water and demand that it transplant itself into my stomach in order for me to believe that it quenches thirst, how am I ever going to know for sure?

Are you responding to my last post, right above yours? If so... I'm really confused.

(not directed to anyone in particular)

Why is it that the people who become most strident about discussions over "What it means to be Christian," are usually not Christian?

I can only answer for myself, but I do follow the message of Christ, and I just don't understand what I could possibly have to gain by calling myself Christian. It's fascinating, and a little frustrating, honestly, that I can't seem to get a coherent explanation regarding this. It usually ends up being "something that can't be explained, you just have to feel it in your heart" or whatever. That kind of non-logic just rubs me the wrong way.

A Christian is someone who has accepted Christ as their savior. That's all it means. If you have done this, it will reflect in your life -- but not 100% of the time, because the ever-present condition of sin is too much to be overcome by human willpower. Hence the need for salvation.

What answer are you looking for? What criteria have to be met before you consider the answer complete?

edited for clarity

That isn't exactly what you said it meant before now, so for starters, a criteria would be consistency. Then, we can address the issue that not everyone agrees with your definition, or definitions. So who is right? Not everybody can be right, so there can't be one right answer.

Unless you use the definition I do: Christians are people who choose to call themsleves Christians, and I respect whatever their reasons are.

Next, this would eliminate the sneaky "but those aren't real Christians" excuse which makes it literally impossible to ever criticize Christianity.

It's exactly what I said before. Jesus said he was the son of God and that he was sent to pay for our sins. If you believe the "message of Christ", you believe this. If you believe it, and accept it for yourself, bam! You're a Christian. Convincing anyone else that you are is your own task, of course.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't want a real answer, you only want someone to agree with you that there is no set definition. But there is. And there are only so many ways to say the same thing.

From some etymology site:the passage in question:

No, I believe the message of Christ as I read it, not as a dogmatic construct that has been interpreted by others, and, no I am not a Christian just because you say so. Christianity is a human social institution that I choose not to join, for my own reasons; just like others do choose to join, for their own reasons. And just because you have an answer that you think is right, it doesn't make it right for everybody. It's a real question and it doesn't have an easy answer, even if you keep repeating variations of the same theme.

I'm not convinced that there is a better definition than mine, because it is fair to everybody, and I don't have to impose it on anybody, the way your definition would be imposed on me (if I believed the right things exactly the same way you do). My earth-shattering idea is that if you say you are a Christian I just believe you.

How would you interpret

I believe he is saying that if you understand his message, really understand it, then you are guaranteed of being on the right path.

Sometimes it's a tool because they don't have anything smarter to talk about and since it's a good topic to hook someone in. It's whamy. An Instant star is born.

I might be wrong but for as long as I have watched these kind of supposed talks there's never any resolution so it has to be for something other than understanding? * shrug*


OR maybe it's about showing up the supposid lie inherent in it. There's an axe to grind. *shrug*


I wonder why we don't have threads about 'what it is to be a Satanist, witch or Pagan. Christianity is just a soft target. Like political affiliation.

Personally, I've always wanted to do a 'what is a pagan' thread.

Because Pagans don't get caught doing stupid stuff like this. And if they do, at least they don't come off as hypocrites.

Didn't Mari talk about these guys in a thread somewhere?
This week Bill Maher's joke was "Republicans are against gay marriage, because they know that congressman need to be able to play the field." Maybe that's why this guy was against gay marriage.

I think many so-called Christians pick and choose what they will take literally from the Bible. The parts that are contradictory or impossible are argued to be an allegory or parable. The differences in interpretation are the root of the various religious sects. And each sect insists that they are the ones with the 'truth'. Some say to just live as Christ-like as possible, others say every word in the Bible is accurate. Therefore, I refuse to buy into any one person or group of peoples proclamation that their way is the right way, and that they (and only they) have the correct path to salvation. I submit that I have as much right to my own interpretation as anyone else.

Maybe God is just another name for the 'highest power' (along with Jehovah, Jesus, Yahwen, Elohim, Allah, Brahman, Ekam, Deus, etc.). Maybe the existence of this supreme being is too expansive for our minds to comprehend so we create rules, rituals and symbols to help us feel more in control of our insignificant little lives. Just as with civilization itself, we need for religion to have form and substance. Maybe our narrow-minded views of God and religion stems from the same ignorance and lack of comprehension that spurred the theories of a flat earth, a solitary planet or solar system.

Then again, maybe God did send Christ, his only-begotten son, to die for our sins so that we can gain salvation and go to heaven. Speaking of heaven, what and where is that exactly? Is it a black hole? Another planet? A different plane of existance? Utopia somewhere in space? Or is it a reborn 'earth' (if so, how will we fit generations of the saved on our little earth?)

I find it fascinating that people will put forth impassioned arguements regarding the legalistic interpretation of the Bible and yet expect so much to be taken on 'faith'. How convenient that portions of the Bible such as the Creation or the Flood described in Genesis can be disregarded when it contradicts science or common sense.

apart from transubstantiation, the nature of the trinity has caused more schisms within Christianity than pretty much anything else :P