Not a Christian?

[nazz]

The most significant ones would be those that involving giving me a reason to express an opinion on the matter.

If the person emphasizes his or her self-perception as a Christian while also using it to justify morally questionable paths such as anti-Evolutionism or discrimination against LGBT, odds greatly improve.

Christianity is IMO remarkably ill-defined, but that doesn't always mean that it is better to allow self-classification to go unchallenged.

On what basis do you determine what is true Christian teaching?

I often told I am not a Christian for accepting evolution and supporting gay rights.

 

[LuisDantas]

On what basis do you determine what is true Christian teaching?

For the most part I don't. I prefer to test and judge stances for their internal consistency and moral validity.

Surprisingly often, I can tell that a path is unworthy without having to decide whether it is the "true, pure" variety of its own claims.

I often told I am not a Christian for accepting evolution and supporting gay rights.

Really? Those people are silly. Or worse.

 

[nazz]

For the most part I don't. I prefer to test and judge stances for their internal consistency and moral validity.

Surprisingly often, I can tell that a path is unworthy without having to decide whether it is the "true, pure" variety of its own claims.

Well I understand the idea of rejecting some path as unworthy. That is different from telling a person they are not a follower of a certain path.

If someone says they are a christian I just accept that knowing it does not mean very much as there are so many varieties of Christianity. But I might doubt they are really following Jesus as I understand him.

 

[Khatru]

That would certainly apply to me. But what if a person said they were doing that but believed the teachings of Jesus were found in some other book?

No problem there.

There are the Gnostic Gospels as well as the Book of Mormon.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That would certainly apply to me. But what if a person said they were doing that but believed the teachings of Jesus were found in some other book?

That's rather funny and ironic in light that some Christians use the same argument to discredit another persons references and sources that others use on those very same Christians themselves.

Happens a lot. If you feel an identity with Christianity then it's feasible to regard yourself as a follower of at least form of Christianity.

 

[gnomon]

are you an atheist?

Cottleston Pie.

Back to my question.

It's not a facetious question. It's an important question regarding the basic definition of Christianity. My position on theism is absolutely irrelevant. There is an multicultural recognized basic definition of Christianity that has been used as a base definition of being a Christian for two thousand years. Do you adhere to it?

Or do you believe that being simply inspired by a particular cultural concept that is among the broader definition allows you to make claim to being a part of that group while ignoring the basic underlying definition of that concept. For example, I am very enamored of traditional Irish folk music and tradition. I've done some reading on Irish and Celtic history. But I am not Irish no matter what. I'm an American who has a strong respect for certain aspects of Irish culture. I don't pretend to be nor attempt to make an adoption of their culture. I recognize that I am a member of one culture who has a great appreciation of another culture.

I also respect the teachings of several prominent Buddhists and find that such Buddhist teachings are very practical and attempt to adopt them in my life. But I'm not a Buddhist. I wouldn't even pretend to be one or present myself to others as being one.

You understand?

 

[nazz]

Cottleston Pie.

Back to my question.

It's not a facetious question. It's an important question regarding the basic definition of Christianity. My position on theism is absolutely irrelevant.

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

 

[Cephus]

I don't get hung up on labels. If you want to call yourself a Christian, go ahead. If you want to call yourself a monkey, go ahead. It doesn't bother me in the least. If you want me to agree that you're a Christian or a monkey, that's a different kettle of fish entirely. You shouldn't care what anyone else considers you, it means absolutely nothing. Just do what you want to do and don't hurt anyone else while doing it.

 

[gnomon]

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

Still not an answer. And I won't supply an answer to your response given that evasion questions do not deserve an answer. However, you should be able to piece it together. Even an abductive Sherlock could figure it out.

Now back to my question.

What's your answer?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think everyone who has ever read the bible, regardless of their religious affiliation, has an interpretation based on what they have read that will not mesh with other interpretations.
The way I see it, your religious identification is yours alone. I can't tell you what you see yourself as. So I would not dispute anyone calling themselves a Christian. However, I will have my own interpretation of the scripture and thus will have an arguable opinion about whether or not your core beliefs and actions are biblically supported.

I'm sort of an odd duck because I am an agnostic atheist who sees the bible as pushing a young earth creation narrative. I just also think that narrative is factually incorrect.

So to answer your unasked question: do I think you are a Christian? Yes, if that's how you self-identify. Do I think your interpretation of Christianity is compatible with the bible according to my interpretation? Probably not.

 

[nazz]

Interesting comments!

I think everyone who has ever read the bible, regardless of their religious affiliation, has an interpretation based on what they have read that will not mesh with other interpretations.

Sure, granted. However, just to be clear, I'm not one claiming my views are in harmony with the totality of Scripture. But then, this is true of anyone's views since the bible contradicts itself in many places. Systematic theology is a pipe dream I gave up years ago. My main interest and use of the bible nowadays is for purely personal inspiration.

The way I see it, your religious identification is yours alone. I can't tell you what you see yourself as. So I would not dispute anyone calling themselves a Christian. However, I will have my own interpretation of the scripture and thus will have an arguable opinion about whether or not your core beliefs and actions are biblically supported.

They very well might not be. As a gnostic I am most interested in knowledge but of course I have beliefs like anyone else. Those beliefs are based on experience and reason but might just happen to also coincide with parts of the Bible.

I'm sort of an odd duck because I am an agnostic atheist who sees the bible as pushing a young earth creation narrative. I just also think that narrative is factually incorrect.

I think it really depends on whether or not one sees Genesis 2 as a retelling of Genesis 1. I personally don't see it that way. Genesis 1 has no timeline other than its own internal 7 day cycle. Genesis 2 does connect to a timeline bout 6000 years ago but doesn't indicate that as the beginning of things.

 

[Iti oj]

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?

your a Christian.

 

[Marsh]

In another forum I have been told recently by two atheists that I am not a Christian.... 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 say you are a Christian until you decide you are not. In fact, I would say the earliest Christians were Jews until such time they decided they were not.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think it really depends on whether or not one sees Genesis 2 as a retelling of Genesis 1. I personally don't see it that way. Genesis 1 has no timeline other than its own internal 7 day cycle. Genesis 2 does connect to a timeline bout 6000 years ago but doesn't indicate that as the beginning of things.

Without derailing the subject too much, I'll say that I think there is more reasons that I think the bible is YEC than just Genesis. Including the significance of the fall of man to the need of Jesus' redemption and the genealogical records from Adam to Jesus via Noah, Moses, Abraham and King David.

As for Genesis 2, I take the Adventist approach that it isn't a second story but a continuation of things that were created after the heavens and the Earth.
ADVENTISTS AFFIRM : Genesis 2: A Second Creation Account?

 

[nazz]

Without derailing the subject too much, I'll say that I think there is more reasons that I think the bible is YEC than just Genesis. Including the significance of the fall of man to the need of Jesus' redemption and the genealogical records from Adam to Jesus via Noah, Moses, Abraham and King David.

As for Genesis 2, I take the Adventist approach that it isn't a second story but a continuation of things that were created after the heavens and the Earth.
ADVENTISTS AFFIRM : Genesis 2: A Second Creation Account?

Threads drift, no worries. It's an interesting subject. Perhaps start another thread on it?

I see a number of reasons to not see them as connected. One is that the Documentary Hypothesis sees them as coming from separate traditions. I know there has been challenge to the DH but I'm not well read on that subject.

Another reason is that in Genesis 2 we see a man, Adam, made and then animals are brought to him. If this refers to an original creation of animals then it contradicts Genesis 1.

Also there are other people in existence besides Adam and Eve and their first children. This is made clear when later in the story Cain is driven away where he marries a wife. Simply said, nowhere in Genesis 2 are Adam and Eve said to be the first or only human beings.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Threads drift, no worries. It's an interesting subject. Perhaps start another thread on it?

I see a number of reasons to not see them as connected. One is that the Documentary Hypothesis sees them as coming from separate traditions. I know there has been challenge to the DH but I'm not well read on that subject.

Another reason is that in Genesis 2 we see a man, Adam, made and then animals are brought to him. If this refers to an original creation of animals then it contradicts Genesis 1.

Also there are other people in existence besides Adam and Eve and their first children. This is made clear when later in the story Cain is driven away where he marries a wife. Simply said, nowhere in Genesis 2 are Adam and Eve said to be the first or only human beings.

I'm not well read on DH either. It would not be surprising to me to learn that what started as oral tradition had some warping. Though to separate the Genesis account would contradict Jesus assertion that it was written by Moses. As far as the age and authenticity of law scripture, you'd have to take it up with Creation Minostries, they do have a big rebuttal page on DH.

As far as I'm aware the bringing an animal to Adam to name was similar to the flood for literalists. He went to religion all animals and non-regional animals came to him. Again I'm not very read up on that particular contention.
Cain's wife, however, was believed to be one of his younger sisters some hundreds of years after. Literalists reason that humanity being closer to perfection would not have suffered from incest at that time (or much of anything, hence the long lives).

I do not deny that there are many contradictions in the bible. But I still believe the overall narrative intent and the belief of the authors (including Jesus) was a YEC story.

 

[nazz]

I'm not well read on DH either. It would not be surprising to me to learn that what started as oral tradition had some warping. Though to separate the Genesis account would contradict Jesus assertion that it was written by Moses. As far as the age and authenticity of law scripture, you'd have to take it up with Creation Minostries, they do have a big rebuttal page on DH.

As far as I'm aware the bringing an animal to Adam to name was similar to the flood for literalists. He went to religion all animals and non-regional animals came to him. Again I'm not very read up on that particular contention.
Cain's wife, however, was believed to be one of his younger sisters some hundreds of years after. Literalists reason that humanity being closer to perfection would not have suffered from incest at that time (or much of anything, hence the long lives).

I do not deny that there are many contradictions in the bible. But I still believe the overall narrative intent and the belief of the authors (including Jesus) was a YEC story.

Well of course people have convoluted explanations for all these things. I call it hermeneutic gymnastics. It ought to be an Olympic event I am no longer tied to the notion the bible is the inerrant, literal word of God so I have no need for that kind of stuff.

Where does Jesus claim Genesis was written by Moses?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well of course people have convoluted explanations for all these things. I call it hermeneutic gymnastics. It ought to be an Olympic event I am no longer tied to the notion the bible is the inerrant, literal word of God so I have no need for that kind of stuff.

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.

Where does Jesus claim Genesis was written by Moses?

That would be part of that Adventist link.

"Especially interesting is Jesus’ comment to the Pharisees about the permissibility of divorce (Mt 19; Mk 10). Jesus asked, “‘What did Moses command you?’” (Mk 10:3). When they replied by quoting Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Jesus countered by quoting from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 (Mt 19:4, 5; Mk 10:6-9). Clearly, Jesus’ counter-argument was based on the assumption that Moses authored these passages—otherwise His argument would have been devoid of authority.

 

[Marsh]

I'm not well read on DH either.... As far as the age and authenticity of law scripture, you'd have to take it up with Creation Minostries, they do have a big rebuttal page on DH.

They also claim to have destroyed the case for evolution. I wouldn't trust a word they write.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

They also claim to have destroyed the case for evolution. I wouldn't trust a word they write.

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.