Christian Atheist?

[Ben Kenobi]

Cause Christians generally wont accept that they are anything less than universal, transcending specific cultures, and atheists of Christian background generally prefer to deny that THEIR particular viewpoints and biases are rooted in Christian civilization, rather than representing a universal truth

Yes, and it's really a misunderstanding that Christianity is a western religion. Yes, the west has a Christian heritage, but Christianity is not bound to european traditions. Most Christians aren't european anymore, so it doesn't make sense to assert that there is a cultural christianity.

The other thing is that Christians define themselves by their creed not their background. You can have christians of every nationality and culture. It's a different relationship then Judaism. Christians aren't united by blood but by creed.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ask yourself, would you doubt an account published of the rise and fall of the third reich written in 1965 by say Winston Churchill before he passed away?

Not at all a fair comparison; Churchill wrote at a time when many other historical accounts were in circulation, and thus was not free to credibly write anything he chose. Here are two better analogies:

1) Would you doubt an account published of the rise and fall of the third reich written in 1965 by say Winston Churchill before he passed away -- once you knew that other, contradictory accounts had been systematically suppressed by Churchill supporters, and proponents of those other accounts had been persecuted?

2) Would you doubt accounts of Jesus's ministry if the only accounts we had were written by Roman officials and scribes in Herod's court?

Discuss.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Well it seems that many many people don't agree with you.

Who, exactly?

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Your example of car does not apply here because it is 2 nouns that happen to have the same word.

Well by that token then the two senses of "Christian" would be 2 nouns that happen to have the same word. The only difference is the two senses aren't mutually exlclusive. The fact is "Christian" has two senses and under the context of personal identity the religious sense is the sense conveyed!

Originally posted by Deity Dude
The context that I use the word is totally acceptable by the definition I intend it for and is accepted in the English language.

You tell a person "I am a Christian" they will understand that to mean that you follow the religion Christianity. It's really that simple. If you want to actually describe what you are, then you won't claim to be a "Christian" except under the contexts where the meaning us understood to be "follower of Christ".

[Blake]

Semantics:

We can accept that if someone says "I am a Christian", then it would a surprise to learn that he is an atheist. Because of the broad context.

But the question is not about people saying "I am a Christian", but people who say "I am a Christian Atheist".
That helps narrow down the context!

And I think we can agree that definition 8 works in that context.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I can remember 20 years back (and am not 30), can't you?

JM

Well, I can remember more than 40 years back, some parts are true, other parts are distorded by time. Wich is what needs proof from others.

Add to that, I'm not talking about extraordinary things like godly interference such as walking on water etc wich certainly would fall into the "I didn't see it, but since I belive, it must have happened" category.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Compared to every other historical work in the ancient world? That's pretty good. It would meet the highest standard of reliability.

Compared to Josephus, he wrote his account in 95 AD

Tacitus wrote about the events in Christ's time in 105 AD

The Gospels if we were to consider them by the same standard are more reliable in terms of proximity to the date.

Ask yourself, would you doubt an account published of the rise and fall of the third reich written in 1965 by say Winston Churchill before he passed away? It's the same here. You have eyewitnesses to Christ compiling accounts of his life and ministry here on Earth.

Ehrm, no offense, but there are written works made before that describes meetings with the both norse, greek, roman etc. gods Why do you consider these documents as lies while you without doubt belives documents just as (un)reliable when it comes to the christian god ?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Blake
Semantics:

We can accept that if someone says "I am a Christian", then it would a surprise to learn that he is an atheist. Because of the broad context.

But the question is not about people saying "I am a Christian", but people who say "I am a Christian Atheist".
That helps narrow down the context!

And I think we can agree that definition 8 works in that context.

Very well put. But even at that I have no problem saying
I am a Christian. I believe people can define themselves anyway they want as long as the definition is somewhat acceptable. That is the reason for more than 1 definition. If I wanted to convey Christianity in a religous sense I would pick a denomination (i.e. I am Catholic or I am Baptist)

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Blake
Semantics:

We can accept that if someone says "I am a Christian", then it would a surprise to learn that he is an atheist. Because of the broad context.

But the question is not about people saying "I am a Christian", but people who say "I am a Christian Atheist".
That helps narrow down the context!

And I think we can agree that definition 8 works in that context.

Well, Deity Dude has stated that both "Christian" and "Christian agnostic" (which I'm treating about the same as I do Christian atheist") were acceptable. I was arguing both aren't (althought I'll admit "Christian athiest"/"Christian atheist" is borderline).

My rationale for the second is that it still seems to smell of the 2nd definition given it's usage as a religious identity. I'd reccomend using different terminology.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Very well put. But even at that I have no problem saying I am a Christian. I believe people can define themselves anyway they want as long as the definition is somewhat acceptable.

You can define yourself to be whatever you want, it doesn't mean everyone has to go along with it or use it when describing you.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
That is the reason for more than 1 definition. If I wanted to convey Christianity in a religous sense I would pick a denomination (i.e. I am Catholic or I am Baptist)

The reason for more then one definition is not so that you can hand pick any one regardless of context.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Perfection
You can define yourself to be whatever you want, it doesn't mean everyone has to go along with it or use it when describing you.


The reason for more then one definition is not so that you can hand pick any one regardless of context.

I'm picking specifically because of context. I choose the definition which makes sense for what I am trying to express. In this context I am expressing definitions 1 and 8 because of their meaning. You, on the other hand say, that unless I use definitions 2 and 7 regardless of what I am trying to express I am misusing the word.

If you exclude all people who QUESTION the supernatural religous elements of Christianity then your definition is much narrower than mine - but still is acceptable I suppose. I think most Christians, if honest, question the divinity of Christ to some degree.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

If you exclude all people who QUESTION the supernatural religous elements of Christianity then your definition is much narrower than mine - but still is acceptable I suppose. I think most Christians, if honest, question the divinity of Christ to some degree.

I don't think so actually. If you said a significant portion I would agree with you. But mostly only because a large number of people who aren't practicing christians still call themselves chrsitians. If you only include the ones who consider themselves serious christians it would be a small minority I think (and heavily peopled by groups that are often not thought of as Christian).

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Deity Dude I'm picking specifically because of context. I choose the definition which makes sense for what I am trying to express. In this context I am expressing definitions 1 and 8 because of their meaning. You, on the other hand say, that unless I use definitions 2 and 7 regardless of what I am trying to express I am misusing the word.

Nope, there are plenty of instances where the term "Christian" could be used in those definitions, it's just as a religious label (especially naked) isn't one of them.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
If you exclude all people who QUESTION the supernatural religous elements of Christianity then your definition is much narrower than mine - but still is acceptable I suppose. I think most Christians, if honest, question the divinity of Christ to some degree.

Merely questioning the divinity of Christ doesn't preclude being Christian in my views and I never stated that it did.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by BlackCat

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
20 years are still half a generation in a time where the average life expectancy was around 30 years.

I can remember 20 years back (and am not 30), can't you?

JM

Well, I can remember more than 40 years back, some parts are true, other parts are distorded by time. Wich is what needs proof from others.

Add to that, I'm not talking about extraordinary things like godly interference such as walking on water etc wich certainly would fall into the "I didn't see it, but since I belive, it must have happened" category.

I think Blackcat expressed it very nicely.
With a life expectancy of 30 years average one can expect many (maybe even most?) of the people that were around with Jesus himself to be already dead (especially considering that most of Jesus followers were probably already around 20 or older when they became his disciples).
This makes it easier to combine things of which you were eye witness with other things you have only heard of by others (and claim to be an eyewitness of both) without encountering real eyewitnesses of the second things who contradict your story.

The timespan (compared to the avg. lifespan) also makes it more probable that the author of the Gospel of Mark was no eyewitness of most (or even all) things written therein himself, but rather had his knowledge from secondary sources, just writing the things he heard down (same goes for the later gospels which may even have used the gospel of Mark as their own source)

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Perfection

Merely questioning the divinity of Christ doesn't preclude being Christian in my views and I never stated that it did.

Well as an Agnostic I question the divinity of Christ. So I guess you agree that I am a Christian Agnostic.

[Nikolai]

Proteus: The time period the experts use on the time of the eye witnesses, is from Jesus' death to ca. 100 AD. Remember, average life expencency does not tell how long most people lived, it also reflects all those who died as children, and those were many at the time.