So what do Xians believe?

I'm not a Xian, and I would never presume to tell someone that they were or weren't a Xian. But it seems to me there's a lot of disagreement about who is and who isn't a Xian. So with that in mind, I'd be interested to hear what you think Xians believe.

I'll start.

1) Xians believe in the Divinity of Christ (virgin birth, son of God, miracles worked, resurrection)

2) Xians believe they should follow the teachings of Christ

3) Xians believe in most, if not all, of the New Testament and some, if not most or all, or the Old Testament

4) Xians believe that the condition of their life after death will be based on their faith in Christ and the type of life they lead in this life.

Why do you think there are hundreds of sects and cults within Xianity?

Though it stands to reason.

I'm not looking for a definitive answer so much as opinions. The religious experience is an internal one, so it stands to reason that there's infinite interpretations as well.

Though there were vehement disagreements about the particulars, of course.

Thankfully today they show restraint and don't launch holy wars against each other.

No one can agree on what it means to be a Democrat. People ask this same kind of question all the time about what it means to be a "Progressive" and get all variants of answers. There are multiple different "sects" in the business management world who believe very different things about quality and productivity (analytical school, quality control school, factory school, context-driven school). A couple of examples..

Oh wait I forgot one - there are a lot of different opinions on what it means to be an "atheist" too. No, I'm not bringing up my debate about what should be called agnosticism. I'm just going right to the infidels'org website, and reading their introduction to atheism as they explain in great detail all the different opinions on exactly what that should mean. I'm glancing over at the book on my shelf and recalling the book "Atheism: A reader" and its many essays and responses debating the real meaning of the term and what falls inside and outside its limits....

It's nothing new...

It's the Christians and other believers who try to define atheism for us that we seem to have the disagreements with. And people who arbitrarily decide when a dictionary definition is the gold standard, and when it is not.

Where?

I must have read a totally different post. You gave no specific examples at all, you just mentioned a website and a book - not what that site and book said.

But then, since no atheists have ever killed each other over who was the "better" atheist, you'd be hard pressed to ever equate any quibbling over the particulars of atheism with the incredible wars over Xianity.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... for someone who chastised me for being snarky and sarcastic (and equating that with being "disrespectful")... there's an AWFUL lot of "snark" and sarcasm in that post. Hand-holding? Spoon-feeding? :eyes:

Does this mean that we can expect you to never lecture anyone ever again about what it means to be "respectful"?

-- Allen

PS: I didn't see any specific examples either.

Note that in the original response to him, it specifically said that atheists have *relative* agreement. That point is conveniently ignored and never addressed.

Instead, the attack is directed at a fictional position of atheists being in total lockstep about what "atheism" means. A nice, big, fat strawman.

Did you catch the clever little backhanded insult about Trotsky's intelligence? A comment is made about (book author) Michael Martin being intellectually "weak", therefore Trotsky would probably enjoy him.

And the icing on the cake, of course, is a further attack for "changing the subject."

Good grief. :eyes:

The mods deleted it. I asked them to lock the thread because I just haven't got time for the pain.

Personal attacks are a sign of a weak argument, IMHO. Your POV and opinions should be able to stand on their own without resorting to "Fatty fatty two by four" and "I'm rubber and you're glue".

I long for the day when atheists can actually get together en masse on something. That will be the start of a revolution in religious freedom in the US.

Yesterday, I felt I was out of line, and I apologized. Today I feel no such thing in this case.

In this case, I'm pretty disappointed with how my post was treated. I laughed out loud when it was deleted, seeing as how it was so unbelievably tame compared to so many of the things that are allowed on a daily basis.

I'd like to reiterate the truth: diversity of opinion an internal divisions are an extremely common trait of most if not all institutions, of which religious institutions are but one.

As far as my failure to provide "specific" examples when I said that the same diversity of opinion and internal devisions seem present even within atheists circles, I had no idea that given the name of an organizations website and referencing their FAQ wasn't specific enough. I didn't think I needed to walk through every step together with someone who wanted to take a look at those examples.

But since clearly, that's not the case I gave more specific references:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html - explains some both the agreements and diversity of opinion on atheism from atheists of this particular community
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/non.shtml - a large collection of historical writings heralding both agreements and disagreements of people with different perspectives.

Then I gave reference to the two books I mentioned which including a large range and diversity of opinion when it came to atheism and non-believe, all written by non-believers. The book called, "Atheism: a reader" by S. T. Jott. I mentioned Michael Martin's book: "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" as well for a different perspective. I also mentioned that I thought his argument was particularly weak, though its the argument that is often made so you'd probably like it.

Finally, I said that even if for reasons passing all understanding, you will not accept that difference and even disagreement occurs in the atheist community just like it does most anywhere else, that does not change the original point: different "sects" and disagreements and differences of opinion are a pretty common part of most institutions, and not a special feature of religious institutions.

I think its disappointing that the rest of what I said was apparently deemed to violate the rules - especially considering the amount of garbage that is regularly allowed to remain around here. But it was, so I won't repeat it, except to say that I think we could all stand to act a little more like grown ups, myself included.
Sel

The very idea of atheists trying to out "unholier than thou" each other makes me laugh my ass off. I think to really get violent and hateful you need a god to stir up sentiment and bless your actions.

debate if Jesus was "the son of God" or "God himself"? I seem to remember that ...

They are the remnants of the splinter sect created by Arius and his little spat about this very issue.

Is that a Christian is someone that believes a guy named Jesus was sacrificed and he taught some good ideas.

Origins, nature, and everything inbetween is open to negotiation.

of Christianity. :)

All that matters is that before you die you "get right with
Jesus." All you have to do is accept and believe. What you
actualy do in life doesn't matter, so long as you ask for
forgiveness in the end.

If you act like a little kid who bops a sibling on the head and then says "I'm sorry" with a smirk, no, that's not okay. Your repentance has to be sincere and accompanied by an effort to change your life and make up for the harm you've done.

This isn't to say that some people don't misinterpret the doctrine of forgiveness like a little kid who thinks you can get away with anything as long as you say "I'm sorry."

Most professed believers act pious and judgmental and
don't follow the core principles -- generosity, poverty,
empathy -- outlined in the doctrine anyway.

So it's too easy to just do the asking part and think
you've got it all covered.

You know?

First, many professing christians do not believe some or all of those things, or don't believe them in the way that you might assume.

Second, I feel that the question of "what is the essential non-negotiable element" of calling oneself a "Christian" can be reduced down (more or less) to a fundamental differet perspective of two sects: the dogmatic school and the relational school.

The Dogmatic School
The first school which I will call the "dogmatic absolute" school, answers that ultimate there is one more more core doctrinal assertions/statements of belief that must be held in order to be appropriately called a Christian.

For example, some might say that while there may be a lot of disagreement on various points of theology, one must believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God in order to appropriately be called a Christian. So the divinity of Christ becomes a "deal-breaker" by some people's definition of Christianity: you must accept that doctrine or your can't really call yourself a Christian.

Now naturally, there are many who believe you must affirm all kinds of doctrinal positions to call yourself a Christian -- immaculate conception, original sin, trinitarian doctrine. Are any of you familiar with the Nicene Creed? There are many who would say that the definition of being a "Christian" is affirming by faith one's believe in those creedal confessions. If you don't hold those basic doctrines, you cannot be appropriately called a "Christian."

So that's one perspective. Note that many atheists define Christianity in this way, which is why so many consider Christianity so authoritarian. Is this the right perspective?

The Relational School
There is another school of thought on the question of defining what it means to call oneself a "Christian." This would be the "relational" school of thought. This school answers that we have in the words written about and attributed to Jesus our answer for what the non-negotiable definition of "Christ-like" belief actually is, when Jesus says that the greatest command is to "love the lord your god with all your heart, soul mind and strength. And the second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commands hangs all the law and the prophets."

According to the gospel writers, Jesus himself says that the entire point of all the law and all the prophets hinges on the simple command to love god with your whole heart and love others with your whole heart. In other words, the greatest point and purpose in Jesus' mind was healthy, responsible, joyful relationships with ourselves, God and those around us.

The relational school would argue that, insofar as a person looks at the written stories of Jesus and sees them as often instructional and inspiring to ones life, insofar as a person has a deeply held desire to emulate those characteristics of compassion and empathy, and insofar as a person accepts that the ultimate highest aim of living should be the striving to live in healthy right relationship with God and neighbor (the love with all heart, soul, mind and strength) - then one is appropriately called a "Christian" - one who follows after the teachings of Jesus.

Notice that there is no mention of adherence to any particularly doctrinal creed. The issue of Jesus' divinity is not relevant to a definition of Christianity to this school. Nor is the issue of biblical literalism, immaculate conception, trinitarian doctrine, resurrection, etc. etc. For the relational school, discussions on these subjects may be valuable, but to define being a "Christian" simply has have the "right" answer on any of these things fundamentally misses the point. Being a "Christian" means patterning ones life after what Jesus stated as the two greatest commands, and seeing the written accounts of Jesus' life and teachings as often informative and valuable for daily living.

It is a nice essay discussing this very question

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm

I'm just curious; it's your standard term for Christians, and I'm curious as to why you use it.

The earliest Xians used the Greek letter, X, or "chi" to stand in for Christ's name (Christos, in Greek). The use of the term Xians and X-mas survived into modern day.

Since both terms do the job.

It's like say WTF or LMFAO or IMHO. It's shorthand.

you need all the shortcuts you can get!

Right, MB? ;-)

:P