|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Core Beliefs
|
BalddudePeekskill
Shipmate
# 12152
|
Posted
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
I vote for:
Believes that Jesus is God/Son of God
Believes that Virgin Mary was a virgin when she conceived JC(not necessarily stayed a virgin)
Believes that JC was crucified on a cross, died and was resurrected from the dead, BODY and SOUL and then returned back to heaven
Believes in some form of Baptism (sprinkle, immerse, whichever)
Some form of Communion/Eucharist/Lord's table/supper (consubstan-transsubstna-emblems-symbols,whatever) which must be consumed in communion with other believers
Believes in some sort of ordained ministry
Recognizes the Bible alone as Scripture. This doesn't mean that all religious practices have to be directly from the bible, but rather that there are no other books that determine belief.
Believes that the Holy Spirit is present today in the world as God.
[ 26. July 2011, 07:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Christos Aneste
Posts: 308 | From: Peekskill, NY | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Good luck. The Church has been arguing over what the Core Beliefs of a Christian are for 2,000 years (cf. the book of Acts, pretty much every epistle).
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
While part of me just wants to grab some popcorn and watch the ensuing discussion, I feel I must ask the OP:
Why do you feel the Apostle's (or better yet, the Nicene) Creed is insufficient for this task? I note from your profile that you're Episcopalian -- as such you must have heard one or both at least once. If you were confirmed, then you've publicly affirmed the Apostle's Creed as an adult at least once.
I mean, reading down your list I notice the bits designed to exclude:- Jehovah's Witnesses -- "crucified on a cross"
- Liberals (whatever-the-fuck-that's-supposed-to-mean) -- "resurrected from the dead, BODY and SOUL"
- Quakers/Salvationists -- The next three points
- Mormons -- "the Bible alone as Scripture"
Which may be your perogative, but most would say the traditional creeds do this quite well. Are you trying to leave room for Oneness Pentecostals?
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
I vote for:
Believes that Jesus is God/Son of God
Believes that Virgin Mary was a virgin when she conceived JC(not necessarily stayed a virgin)
Believes that JC was crucified on a cross, died and was resurrected from the dead, BODY and SOUL and then returned back to heaven
Believes in some form of Baptism (sprinkle, immerse, whichever)
Some form of Communion/Eucharist/Lord's table/supper (consubstan-transsubstna-emblems-symbols,whatever) which must be consumed in communion with other believers
Believes in some sort of ordained ministry
Recognizes the Bible alone as Scripture. This doesn't mean that all religious practices have to be directly from the bible, but rather that there are no other books that determine belief.
Believes that the Holy Spirit is present today in the world as God.
I must admit, this list may strike some as remarkably narrow, especially if the purpose is not to acknowledge the Creeds, but rather to differentiate between Christians and Muslims.
For example - if a person professed to believe all the things you listed apart from one of them - then does that make them a candidate to be considered a Muslim or a Jew? I think you'll find that most Muslims and Jews would consider that idea absurd.
If you want a definition of "Christian" that will distinguish Christians from Jews and Muslims, and which is likely to be accepted not only by Christians but also Muslims and Jews too - then you're stuck with one thing. And that one thing would be the idea that the story of Jesus should be the primary focus of religion. Nothing less, and nothing more.
Add anything more than that, and you're starting to distinguish between the different denominations of Christianity - although, at a push, I may concede that the idea that Jesus is the Son of God is a defining characteristic of Christianity. If someone believes that Jesus is the Son of God, then they are likely to be regarded as sufficiently "Christian" to be regarded as a Christian by Muslims, Jews and atheists, even if they don't believe anything else.
But on the other hand, the idea that a religious practice can be called "Christian" when it doesn't have anything even remotely to do with Jesus, would probably be considered absurd to both Christians and non-Christians, in my opinion.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
At the loosest end I'd start with the name. Believing the historical Jesus (whatever he was like) is special in the Christ like manner(whatever that is).
Beyond that point I have no qualms with saying I'm using a definition that contradicts with their self-identity, and mine makes more sense than theirs (in the same way the woman's only gym isn't going to let me abuse that word to let me in).
That would include people I'd vastly disagree with Hong Xiuquan for example, and exclude people I'd agree with everything (even morals) except, well, of course the Christian bit.
But as a vague giving words some meaning, it does me.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...If you want a definition of "Christian" that will distinguish Christians from Jews and Muslims, and which is likely to be accepted not only by Christians but also Muslims and Jews too - then you're stuck with one thing. ..
But, why would you care if it was accepted by Muslims and Jews? The point of a statement of faith/core beliefs/creed is simply to outline what you believe, not what others think you believe.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...If you want a definition of "Christian" that will distinguish Christians from Jews and Muslims, and which is likely to be accepted not only by Christians but also Muslims and Jews too - then you're stuck with one thing. ..
But, why would you care if it was accepted by Muslims and Jews? The point of a statement of faith/core beliefs/creed is simply to outline what you believe, not what others think you believe.
But what's at hand is not just a statement of faith, it's a statement of faith that will distinguish. In order to distinguish, you need to describe (at least indirectly) what you're trying to distinguish from. The polite way to describe adherents of a religious belief is to use the way in which they describe themselves.
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
Your list would exclude many people who reasonably consider themselves Christian, including, I'd wager, many of your fellow church-goers. For instance, while I believe in the virgin birth, I don't think I'd be quick to de-Christianize someone who doesn't. If it were my call, that is.
With a nod to the Epistle to the Romans, how about a Christian is someone who confesses "Jesus is Lord" and believes that God raised him from the dead?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
...In order to distinguish, you need to describe (at least indirectly) what you're trying to distinguish from. The polite way to describe adherents of a religious belief is to use the way in which they describe themselves.
Those who look for counterfeit money don't study counterfeit money, they study real money. If it isn't real money, it is, by definition, counterfeit.
The same can be said of Christianity: If you define Christian, all who don't meet that definition are not Christian.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
...In order to distinguish, you need to describe (at least indirectly) what you're trying to distinguish from. The polite way to describe adherents of a religious belief is to use the way in which they describe themselves.
Those who look for counterfeit money don't study counterfeit money, they study real money. If it isn't real money, it is, by definition, counterfeit.
The same can be said of Christianity: If you define Christian, all who don't meet that definition are not Christian.
But the question was not to distinguish Christians from faux-Christians, but rather to distinguish Christians from Jews or Muslims. One can learn to distinguish USD from GBP a lot quicker if one has samples of both.
[ 06. April 2011, 20:23: Message edited by: Fëanor ]
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
...to distinguish Christians from Jews or Muslims. ...
That difference should be obvious, then:.
"Jesus is God" does the trick.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
The problem with this approach is that it runs afoul of the way humans actually categorize things--the setting up of Venn diagram-like criterion sets is very ex post facto. What we really do (there is psychological research on this) is form a prototype image of "Christian" (usually, if we are Christians, this means "someone like me." If we aren't, it may mean "someone like Ned Flanders," "someone like Rowan Williams," "someone like Fred Phelps," or "someone like Billy Graham") and group people according to how nearly they resemble our prototype. Having created this very fuzzy set, we may then try to draw clear lines around it. All very well until we try to get agreement on those lines with people who have different prototypes, even though they themselves may fall very close to our prototype. This seems particularly fraught in the case of Christianity, since there seems to be an implicit assumption by many that part of being on the inside of the circle is being in agreement on who is inside. IMHO, it's a fool's errand.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...If you want a definition of "Christian" that will distinguish Christians from Jews and Muslims, and which is likely to be accepted not only by Christians but also Muslims and Jews too - then you're stuck with one thing. ..
But, why would you care if it was accepted by Muslims and Jews? The point of a statement of faith/core beliefs/creed is simply to outline what you believe, not what others think you believe.
Not according to the OP it isn't. I quote:
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
If you want a meaningful definition of being a Christian means that allows you to differentiate Christians from Muslims, Jews and Hindus - then Muslims, Jews and Hindus need to agree on that definition. If they don't, then there's no point in having that definition.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Those who look for counterfeit money don't study counterfeit money, they study real money. If it isn't real money, it is, by definition, counterfeit.
The same can be said of Christianity: If you define Christian, all who don't meet that definition are not Christian.
Yes - but it doesn't follow from that, that anyone who doesn't meet the definition for Christian is a candidate for being considered a Muslim or a Jew. Remember, the question the OP asked was about how to distinguish Christians from Muslims and Jews. This presupposes that there is actually a difference, that can be identified by both Christians and Muslims.
If Muslims do not agree with Christians on what it means to be a Christian, then they are not qualified to pronounce on whether anyone is a Christian or not. Likewise, if Christians do not agree with Muslims on what it means to be a Muslim, then Christians are not qualified to pronounce on whether anyone is a Muslim or not. This means that Christians cannot assume that just because someone is a Christian, they are automatically not a Muslim - because it's possible for someone to be a Christian under Christian definition, yet also a Muslim under Islamic definition, at the same time.
If both parties are not agreed on how each party is defined, then it's possible for each of the parties to change their self-definition so as to fit the other guy's self-definition. In other words, if Christians and Muslims don't agree on what it means to be Muslim, then Muslims can change what it means to be Muslim so as to fit what Christians previously thought it meant to be Christian. What would Christians do if that happened? Will they change their own definition of what it means to be Christian, just to prove a point about how different they are from Muslims?
Muslims need to be agreed with Christians on what it means to be a Christian too - otherwise, they can rightfully accuse Christians of being shape-shifters.
Of course, that does beg the question of how important it really is to distinguish Christians from Muslims. Personally, I don't think it's important at all; if the meanings of words and language should alter to the point that the definition of Christianity and Islam should happen to coincide at some point in the future, then it's really not that big a deal. There's nothing in the Bible that says you mustn't be a Muslim if you want to be a Christian.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
What has belief got to do with it? Isn't a Christian one who follows Christ and seeks to be transformed by the Spirit of Christ, demonstrating the fruit of that same Spirit and continuing the mission and mandate of Christ to declare, demonstrate and deliver the Kingdom of God. Do terms like 'follower of Jesus' or even better 'disciple of Jesus' sum it up better? The bottom line is it's not so much a matter of right belief, cos we'll all believe different things - hence the divisions in the Christian church. It's much more important who you're following. (IMHO) Brian McLaren puts it so much better than I ever could in his book "A generous orthodoxy"
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
What has belief got to do with it? Isn't a Christian one who follows Christ and seeks to be transformed by the Spirit of Christ, demonstrating the fruit of that same Spirit and continuing the mission and mandate of Christ to declare, demonstrate and deliver the Kingdom of God.
I agree with you, belief has got very little to do with it.
But I still think that doesn't answer the question the OP appears to have asked - about distinguishing Christians from followers of other faiths (which I don't think it's that important to be able to do anyway).
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Isn't a Christian one who follows Christ and seeks to be transformed by the Spirit of Christ, demonstrating the fruit of that same Spirit and continuing the mission and mandate of Christ to declare, demonstrate and deliver the Kingdom of God.
If pushed, I wouldn't think Pope Paul IV (Giovanni Carafa) did a good job of following Christ as I understand that or demonstrating the fruit of that Spirit. But if I can't call him a Christian what am I to call him?
To be honest, it's not up to me to judge. I'm in no position to decide who is or isn't following Christ or demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit. On the other hand, I may find it useful to talk about whether someone identifies themselves as part of the Christian tradition and community. (And I might also want to say that some such identifications stray far from that community as I understand it, such that I can't understand what such a person means by calling themselves Christian.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
I don't think it is good to try to be definitive. It causes us to look for the things that divide us rather than the things that unite us.
It may be useful for churches to do this in determining their membership, but not for membership of the church.
I think it was a good thing that scripture does not lay down a definition. Perhaps there is a message that we should not try to define this too closely.
And Felafool has reminded us that there are expectations of how to act as well beliefs and rituals.
In Italians Neighbours Tim Parks relates how Italians use the expression "He's a Christian" that implies the person is not an animal (and should be treated with human respect). I like this perspective.
Perhaps this should be another thread, but how about looking at how Christians are like Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Taoists, etc?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
Your list excludes Quakers, Salvation Army, and Baptists - among others.
Personally, I'd just go with an ichthus:
Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.
Believe those points, and I'll say you're a Christian. Anything else is open to interpretation.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
I vote for:
Believes that Jesus is God/Son of God
Believes that Virgin Mary was a virgin when she conceived JC(not necessarily stayed a virgin)
Believes that JC was crucified on a cross, died and was resurrected from the dead, BODY and SOUL and then returned back to heaven
Believes in some form of Baptism (sprinkle, immerse, whichever)
Some form of Communion/Eucharist/Lord's table/supper (consubstan-transsubstna-emblems-symbols,whatever) which must be consumed in communion with other believers
Believes in some sort of ordained ministry
Recognizes the Bible alone as Scripture. This doesn't mean that all religious practices have to be directly from the bible, but rather that there are no other books that determine belief.
Believes that the Holy Spirit is present today in the world as God.
Lists like this are wonderful for identifying heresy, but they are pointless for defining the religion itself. The very definition of "heretic" is someone of the same religion who holds false beliefs.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
By their fruits you shall know them, not by their theology you shall know them.
Maybe God doesn't care nearly as much what labels by which we self-describe, what religion's books and rituals we use, nearly so much as whether we pursue being loving to others and understand God as love. The rest is semantics.
"Fruits" may put some self-described non-Christians (and atheists?) in God's camp and leave some baptized/ordained/Bible reading/etc Baptists/Episcopalians/Catholics/Home churchers outside God's camp, yes?
Some will say "Lord Lord" and God will say "depart, I never knew you"; others will be welcomed who didn't know their reaching out to others in need was viewed by God as "in his name."
It's about who you are and who you seek to become, not a checklist of rituals and beliefs.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
... Remember, the question the OP asked was about how to distinguish Christians from Muslims and Jews. ...
Wrong.
Differentiate Christians from "jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc." is better read "from non-Christians".
So, your argument dies because you didn't read the OP which you quoted.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...
If Muslims do not agree with Christians on what it means to be a Christian, then they are not qualified to pronounce on whether anyone is a Christian or not. Likewise, if Christians do not agree with Muslims on what it means to be a Muslim, then Christians are not qualified to pronounce on whether anyone is a Muslim or not.
Exactly. I will not allow a Muslim to pronounce on whether I am a Christian or not, only that I am not a Muslim.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
This means that Christians cannot assume that just because someone is a Christian, they are automatically not a Muslim - because it's possible for someone to be a Christian under Christian definition, yet also a Muslim under Islamic definition, at the same time.
...
This shows a total lack of understanding of Christianity and Islam. They are incompatible, so you cannot be both Christian and Muslim.
The key is, as I said before, "Jesus is God" is not a belief that a Muslim can hold, but it an essential belief of a Christian.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I'm trying to arrive at a definition for what being 'a christian' means. I don't mean little nitpicky details (which I love) but just pretty basic, easily identifiable practices/beliefs that can be used as a guideline pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
... Remember, the question the OP asked was about how to distinguish Christians from Muslims and Jews. ...
Wrong.
Differentiate Christians from "jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc." is better read "from non-Christians".
So, your argument dies because you didn't read the OP which you quoted.
Your interpretation of the OP flounders on the fact that the OP specifically named other religions rather than making an "us and them" division. There are many ways in which Christianity is similar to them.
NB. I did read it as quote:
a guideline to pretty much diferentiate between say, a jew, moslem, hindu, taoist, etc....
as I assumed the missing 'to' was a typo.
I suppose you are reading it as 'differentiate from' rather than 'differentiate between'.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
The OP raises an odd (and rather pointless) question, because I've never noticed anyone having any difficulty differentiating between Christians and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and Taoists--you just ask them, they'll tell you what they are. I have never once heard anyone say "you claim to be a Christian but you're really a Muslim (or one of those others)." Nor have I ever heard anyone say "I believe there is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet, and I'm a Christian."
The question of core Christian beliefs only comes into play when you're trying to exclude people who claim to be Christian, but who disagree with you about what that means.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
What has belief got to do with it? Isn't a Christian one who follows Christ and seeks to be transformed by the Spirit of Christ, demonstrating the fruit of that same Spirit and continuing the mission and mandate of Christ to declare, demonstrate and deliver the Kingdom of God. Do terms like 'follower of Jesus' or even better 'disciple of Jesus' sum it up better? The bottom line is it's not so much a matter of right belief, cos we'll all believe different things - hence the divisions in the Christian church. It's much more important who you're following. (IMHO) Brian McLaren puts it so much better than I ever could in his book "A generous orthodoxy"
I looked up the book, Felafool. In the blurb it says -
quote:
Brian McLaren takes us across the landscape of faith, envisioning an orthodoxy that aims for Jesus, is driven by love, and is defined by missional intent.
...<snip> ... "A Generous Orthodoxy" draws you toward a way of living that looks beyond the "us/them" paradigm to the blessed and ancient paradox of "we."
Which sounds great.
I don't like the exclusive tone of the OP.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
This means that Christians cannot assume that just because someone is a Christian, they are automatically not a Muslim - because it's possible for someone to be a Christian under Christian definition, yet also a Muslim under Islamic definition, at the same time.
...
This shows a total lack of understanding of Christianity and Islam. They are incompatible, so you cannot be both Christian and Muslim.
This shows a total lack of understanding of the concept of incompatibility.
The incompatibility of Christianity and Islam is dependent upon two things: (1) how Christians define Christianity, and (2) how Muslims define Islam.
If any one of those two things change, then Christianity and Islam may cease to be incompatible.
Last time I checked the Nicene Creed, it started with the words "We believe in One God, the Father .." and ends with the words "... and the life of the world to come". No where does it contain the words "And we also believe that we are not Muslims."
Likewise, last time I checked the Shahada, it said words to the effect of "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet". The Shahada is not "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet, and neither I nor Muhammad are Christians."
The supposed incompatibility you say exists between Islam and Christianity has never been formally codified into the creeds of either religion.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The key is, as I said before, "Jesus is God" is not a belief that a Muslim can hold
Why not? And who says? Is it the Christians who say that - or is it the Muslims who say that?
If it's the Christians who say that, then what gives Christians the right to say what beliefs Muslims can and can't hold?
But if it's the Muslims who say that, then how do you know that they're not going to change their mind on that issue one day? And what would you do if they did?
Religious traditions do change their minds about how they define themselves from time to time. After all, if they didn't, then what would be the point of us debating in this thread what it means to be a Christian? Is the issue about what it means to be a Christian cut and dry, or isn't it? The fact that we're even debating this issue suggests to me that it isn't. So if the question of what it means to be a Christian isn't cut and dry, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the question of what it means to be a Muslim isn't cut and dry either.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Your list excludes Quakers, Salvation Army, and Baptists - among others.
Personally, I'd just go with an ichthus:
Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.
Believe those points, and I'll say you're a Christian. Anything else is open to interpretation.
I'm really tempted to go with this myself, St Deird. Can it work in reality, though?
And nice to see Brian McLaren's work get a mention. I'm making my way through 'A New Kind of Christianity' at the moment and finding it enthralling. I love the picture that McLaren paints of what the Christian faith could look like.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
I'm tempted to go with St. Deird's definition too.
There are Unitarians (albeit not very many) who consider themselves Christians. Ditto many Quakers. And if we're going to cast a really wide net, why not include the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons as well? I'll readily admit that their christology is heterodox by the Church's traditional standards, but if they claim to be followers of Jesus and believe him to be in some way the definitive revelation of God, who am I to say that they're outside the pale of salvation?
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The incompatibility of Christianity and Islam is dependent upon two things: (1) how Christians define Christianity, and (2) how Muslims define Islam.
Last time I checked the Nicene Creed..., No where does it contain the words "And we also believe that we are not Muslims."
Likewise,... The Shahada is not "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet, and neither I nor Muhammad are Christians."
The supposed incompatibility you say exists between Islam and Christianity has never been formally codified into the creeds of either religion.
I wouldn't expect a creed to codify reference to an outside group. Boy scouts don't define themselves as "we aren't girl scouts, we aren't a church, we aren't a literary society, we aren't a political party, we aren't...."
Christianity is based on "Jesus is God, Jesus is Lord, Jesus is God's most complete revelation to us, Jesus is resurrected from the dead" (pick a wording). Islam specifically states that none of this is true, Jesus was just another prophet, and the Prophet Muhammad was a greater prophet than Jesus.
Direct conflict. One says Jesus is top, the other says no, Muhammad is superior to Jesus.
Logically impossible to believe both at once.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Good luck. The Church has been arguing over what the Core Beliefs of a Christian are for 2,000 years (cf. the book of Acts, pretty much every epistle).
And posters on the Ship have been arguing about it for as long as I've been a member, as well.
Have a look at Timothy's good post.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
...Last time I checked the Nicene Creed, it started with the words "We believe in One God, the Father .." and ends with the words "... and the life of the world to come". No where does it contain the words "And we also believe that we are not Muslims."
...
However, as Belle Ringer has already said, the Nicene Creed contains the part you left out; specifically quote:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
No Muslim will consent to that.
As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.
These things will not change.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
No Muslim will consent to that [that Christ is the Son of God].
As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.
Certainly, your first point is on-target. But I wonder to what extent a Christian cannot see Mohammed as a prophet. Last Sunday, we had a missionary give a talk at our church. His particular calling was bringing the Gospel to Muslims. What he said was that there was a great interest in the country where he worked in hearing about Christ, because Islam recognizes Christ as a prophet and many Muslims want to know more about him. It strikes me that, in an interesting sense that is lost in the current political climate, Mohammed may well have been preparing the way of the Lord...
--Tom Clune
[ 07. April 2011, 16:08: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.
Really? I have been a Christian for 50 years and believe that Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet.
I'm not stalking ya, bruv, and I know we've had this discussion before, but I don't ever remember how it ended: in what way could Mohammad be said to be a "prophet" that would be consistent with Christianity's claim to the ulitmate revelation of God in Christ Jesus?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
I'm tempted to go with St. Deird's definition too.
There are Unitarians (albeit not very many) who consider themselves Christians. Ditto many Quakers. And if we're going to cast a really wide net, why not include the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons as well? I'll readily admit that their christology is heterodox by the Church's traditional standards, but if they claim to be followers of Jesus and believe him to be in some way the definitive revelation of God, who am I to say that they're outside the pale of salvation?
I suspect plenty of people would agree with your final comment (that I've put in italics) but how about we go further? What about if 'mainstream' Christians sought to include folks like JWs and Mormons in city-wide missions, leaders' prayer meetings and the like? They may well turn down the invitation but I'm imagining what a positive message it could send out. I wonder if such an invitation could be extended while not losing sight of the major disagreements between all the different camps.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
This thread shows us the difficulties in trying to define "Christian" in terms of core beliefs. Are there other ways to define "Christian"? For instance, is it possible to define the term in terms of behavior? Is it possible to look at someone's behavior (in general, not just in a worshiping context) and say "This person is or ought to be considered a Christian"?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BalddudePeekskill
Shipmate
# 12152
|
Posted
Wow!! didn't realize I'd generate so many responses.. Thanks to those who understood my OP.. I guess my list did exclude JW's and Mormons (my own personal belief, I s'pose) But I am willing to go with the Jesus is God as the definitive statement... But if I'm not mistaken That still excludes JW's and Mormons
Posts: 308 | From: Peekskill, NY | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Matthew 7:15-20
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."
Muhammed was a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief. Sounds like bad fruit to me.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
... For instance, is it possible to define the term in terms of behavior? ...
No.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
... But if I'm not mistaken That still excludes JW's and Mormons
So be it.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.
Really? I have been a Christian for 50 years and believe that Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet.
I'm not stalking ya, bruv, and I know we've had this discussion before, but I don't ever remember how it ended: in what way could Mohammad be said to be a "prophet" that would be consistent with Christianity's claim to the ulitmate revelation of God in Christ Jesus?
I do not believe that Christianity has a unique claim on revelation.
Therefore I do not have to reconcile it with Muhammad pbuh
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Muhammed was a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief. Sounds like bad fruit to me.
You have been reading too many Islamophobic websites. To answer this slur of yours would be a tangent but suffice it to say that if Muhammad was a paedophile then so were many of the characters, including prophets, in the Old Testament and, arguably, God himself in the New Testament.
[ 08. April 2011, 11:12: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Muhammed was a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief. Sounds like bad fruit to me.
You have been reading too many Islamophobic websites. To answer this slur of yours would be a tangent but suffice it to say that if Muhammad was a paedophile then so were many of the characters, including prophets, in the Old Testament and, arguably, God himself in the New Testament.
If you want to consider the Hadith of Bukhari a slur, I guess that's up to you. It is there, from the USC website where I read
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
I believe a guy in his late 40s marrying a 6 year old little girl and humping her at 9 is pedophile. Maybe your cool with it.
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I do not believe that Christianity has a unique claim on revelation.
Therefore I do not have to reconcile it with Muhammad pbuh
But, leo, you're a Christian minister! Surely you do have to reconcile the flat-out contradictions of the core beliefs of Christianity (Incarnation, Trinity) contained in the "prophecies" of Muhammad with your own faith - upon pain of contradiction and worse.
By the way, what honorific do you accord the name of Jesus?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Katherine777
Apprentice
# 15517
|
Posted
Balddude,
I have wondered about the same thing, and the options seem to be to either hitch your wagon to a group that lays out the rules very clearly and then struggle with yourself over whether you really accept it all, or struggle with uncertainty about what other people think and what the right answer is anyway.
"On the other hand, I may find it useful to talk about whether someone identifies themselves as part of the Christian tradition and community. (And I might also want to say that some such identifications stray far from that community as I understand it, such that I can't understand what such a person means by calling themselves Christian.)"
What's a example?
Posts: 10 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.
Really? I have been a Christian for 50 years and believe that Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet.
All sorts of people are prophets. I know peopel who think that RH Tawney or George Whitefield or Martin Luther King or John Paul II or Dorothy Day are prophets (maybe not the same people for all of them though!)
The question of Islam is whether you think Muhammad was the last and final prophet of God, superseding all others. I suspect you don't. Its har dto see how anyone could stand up in church and say the Creeds if they did, because Muhammad specifically and deliberately contradicted and denied them.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Muhammed was a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief. Sounds like bad fruit to me.
So was King David. But God still loved him.
Well, three out of the four at least. And I bet some of all those women he had would have been below the legal age of consent in your state.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
However, as Belle Ringer has already said, the Nicene Creed contains the part you left out; specifically quote:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
No Muslim will consent to that.
As to Islam , no Christian will assent to the "and Mohammad is his prophet" part.
These things will not change.
Yes - but how do you know they will not change?
Does Christianity require you to have a crystal ball?
Does the Nicene Creed say "We also believe that Muslims do not believe these things." ?
And does the Nicene Creed say "We also believe that Muslims will never change their mind on this issue." ?
Imagine the following scenario. A person fully assents to all the content of the Nicene Creed. However, in addition to believing the things it says in the Nicene Creed, that person also believes there's a possibility that Muslims might change their mind about what they believe.
Would such a belief disqualify that person from being considered a Christian?
If the answer to that question is yes - then why is it not formally codified in the creeds?
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
This thread shows us the difficulties in trying to define "Christian" in terms of core beliefs. Are there other ways to define "Christian"? For instance, is it possible to define the term in terms of behavior? Is it possible to look at someone's behavior (in general, not just in a worshiping context) and say "This person is or ought to be considered a Christian"?
I think there are.
Personally, though, I think that a large part of the problem is by trying to distinguish Christianity from other traditions. To my way of thinking, that smacks of pointless tribalism. I for one feel alienated by it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I would be much happier to follow a tradition that defines itself in terms of aspiration to an exemplary ideal (such as Jesus), or in terms of a shared hope for the future (such as the New Jerusalem). If Christianity is able to do that - great - but if not, it's no big deal, I'll just call myself something else instead.
Perhaps part of the problem is that it's difficult for any religious tradition to define itself at all without at least some form of tribalism. Even with the creeds as they are, it can often be difficult to say exactly who's in and who's out. Hence this discussion.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What about if 'mainstream' Christians sought to include folks like JWs and Mormons in city-wide missions, leaders' prayer meetings and the like? They may well turn down the invitation but I'm imagining what a positive message it could send out.
Not sure what positive message you mean to send out but does the invitation extend also to the Jonestown bunch, that Phelps bunch, "You are one with us and we with you"? How about inviting Jews (whose scriptures are our scriptures and who worship the God of Abraham but reject Jesus), Muslims (who honor Jesus as a prophet even if not as God, but apparently so do some church-goers)? Is the positive message "anything you believe is good so long as you plop the word "Christian" on it"?
A lot of people I know who believe Jesus is Lord and God don't call themselves "Christian" because the word "Christian" is claimed by such a wide variety of belief systems that the word no longer says anything about what *you* believe. I know agnostics who call themselves "Christian" because they celebrate Santa Claus and Easter Bunny instead of Jewish or other holidays.
At some point others do not share a religion and God with believers that Jesus is God and God is Love even if they usurp the word "Christian" and pretend the word means them (and not us) in spite of their redefining everything from "virgin birth" and "resurrection" to the character of God or the nature of God's eternal goals.
"Christian" is an almost meaningless word now. But then, IIRC the word was invented by non-followers of Jesus, so let them have the word. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Let's find something to define that is capable of meaningful definition.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
