WarOne wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Following centuries, when Christianity truly began to spread beyond a localized cult.

For the most part I'd agree with you.

It was all a carefully laid plan by the Emperor of Mankind in his role as Jesus Christ.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Following centuries, when Christianity truly began to spread beyond a localized cult.

For the most part I'd agree with you.

It was all a carefully laid plan by the Emperor of Mankind in his role as Jesus Christ.

All those years as a carpenter really paid off when construction on the Imperial Palace started.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think he simply went with Malcador's suggestion of bedazzling everything that didn't quite fit in.

WarOne wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think he simply went with Malcador's suggestion of bedazzling everything that didn't quite fit in.

And finally in frustration, he would then go on to rant:

BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM!

Emperors Faithful wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think he simply went with Malcador's suggestion of bedazzling everything that didn't quite fit in.

And finally in frustration, he would then go on to rant:

BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM!

Final words of Horus?

kravus master of Horus wrote:Christianity is a religon that follows Jesus Christ, the son of God. He is our savior and died on the cross so that we could get into Heaven. We recognise him as divine. We take orders from God messanger, the Pope (if your Catholic). Apart from that it's corrupt and meaningless. I'm speaking for the Catholics in particular. Being from Ireland pretty much gives you a view on how corrupt and pointless Religon is. There's nothing wrong with beliving in God(s) but theres no point on putting a name on corruption. IMHO.

Kilkrazy wrote:How does an individual judge himself to be a Christian?

Is there any reference to external authority, or is it simply an act of will?

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Belief that:

Jesus Christ was born of a virgin.

Was the Son of God.

He lived a perfect life as a human.

He died for our transgressions, giving us an opportunity for Redemption.

He rose again after three days.

That is what makes a Christian.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Belief that:

Jesus Christ was born of a virgin.

Was the Son of God.

He lived a perfect life as a human.

He died for our transgressions, giving us an opportunity for Redemption.

He rose again after three days.

That is what makes a Christian.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:How does an individual judge himself to be a Christian?

Is there any reference to external authority, or is it simply an act of will?

How does an individual judge themselves to be anything?

Kilkrazy wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:How does an individual judge himself to be a Christian?

Is there any reference to external authority, or is it simply an act of will?

How does an individual judge themselves to be anything?

Normally by reference to some sort of external metrics or concepts.

I don't see how else it can be done, so I question the concept that one can simply decide "I am an X or a Y" and it have any validity.

Wikipedia: Justifications and explanations wrote: Justification is the reason why someone properly holds a belief, the explanation as to why the belief is a true one, or an account of how one knows what one knows. In much the same way arguments and explanations may be confused with each other, so too may explanations and justifications. Statements which are justifications of some action take the form of arguments. For example attempts to justify a theft usually explain the motives (e.g., to feed a starving family).

It is important to be aware when an explanation is not a justification. A criminal profiler may offer an explanation of a suspect's behavior (e.g.; the person lost their job, the person got evicted, etc.). Such statements may help us understand why the person committed the crime, however an uncritical listener may believe the speaker is trying to gain sympathy for the person and his or her actions. It does not follow that a person proposing an explanation has any sympathy for the views or actions being explained. This is an important distinction because we need to be able to understand and explain terrible events and behavior in attempting to discourage it

Wikipedia: Theories of justification wrote: There are several different views as to what entails justification, mostly focusing on the question "How sure do we need to be that our beliefs correspond to the actual world?" Different theories of justification require different amounts and types of evidence before a belief can be considered justified. Interestingly, theories of justification generally include other aspects of epistemology, such as knowledge.

The main theories of justification include:
Coherentism - Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds, each belief is justified if it coheres with the overall system of beliefs.
Externalism - Outside sources of knowledge can be used to justify a belief.
Foundationalism - Self-evident basic beliefs justify other non-basic beliefs.
Foundherentism - A combination of foundationalism and coherentism, proposed by Susan Haack.
Infinitism - Beliefs are justified by infinite chains of reasons.
Internalism - The believer must be able to justify a belief through internal knowledge.
Minority viewpoints include:
Reformed epistemology - Beliefs are warranted by proper cognitive function, proposed by Alvin Plantinga.
Skepticism - A variety of viewpoints questioning the possibility of knowledge.

Wikipedia: Justifiers wrote:If a belief is justified, there is something that justifies it. The thing that justifies a belief can be called its "justifier". If a belief is justified, then it has at least one justifier. An example of a justifier would be an item of evidence. For example, if a woman is aware of the fact that her husband returned from a business trip smelling like perfume, and that his shirt has smudged lipstick on its collar, the perfume and the lipstick can be evidence for her belief that her husband is having an affair. In that case, the justifiers are the woman's awareness of the perfume and the lipstick, and the belief that is justified is her belief that her husband is having an affair.
Not all justifiers have to be what can properly be called "evidence"; there may be some substantially different kinds of justifiers available to us. Regardless, to be justified, a belief has to have a justifier.

But this raises an important question: what sort of thing can be a justifier?
Three things that have been suggested are:
Beliefs only.
Beliefs together with other conscious mental states.
Beliefs, conscious mental states, and other facts about us and our environment (which we may or may not have access to).

At least sometimes, the justifier of a belief is another belief. When, to return to the earlier example, the woman believes that her husband is having an affair, she bases that belief on other beliefs—namely, beliefs about the lipstick and perfume. Strictly speaking, her belief isn't based on the evidence itself—after all, what if she did not believe it? What if she thought that all of that evidence were just a hoax? What if her husband commonly wears perfume and lipstick on business trips? For that matter, what if the evidence existed, but she did not know about it? Then, of course, her belief that her husband is having an affair wouldn't be based on that evidence, because she did not know it was there at all; or, if she thought that the evidence were a hoax, then surely her belief couldn't be based on that evidence.

Consider a belief P. Either P is justified or P is not justified. If P is justified, then another belief Q may be justified by P. If P is not justified, then P cannot be a justifier for any other belief: neither for Q, nor for Q's negation.

For example, suppose someone might believe that there is intelligent life on Mars, and base this belief on a further belief, that there is a feature on the surface of Mars that looks like a face, and that this face could only have been made by intelligent life. So the justifying belief is: that face-like feature on Mars could only have been made by intelligent life. And the justified belief is: there is intelligent life on Mars.
But suppose further that the justifying belief is itself unjustified. It would in no way be one's intellectual right to suppose that this face-like feature on Mars could have only been made by intelligent life; that view would be irresponsible, intellectually-speaking. Such a belief would be unjustified. It has a justifier, but the justifier is itself not justified. In fact, more recent observations have shown that the "helmeted face" does not look the same up close, nor when viewed from the side.

Commonly used justifiers
Abductive Reasoning
Empiricism
Induction
Occam's Razor
Pragmatism
Probability theory
Scientific method

corpsesarefun wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:How does an individual judge himself to be a Christian?

Is there any reference to external authority, or is it simply an act of will?

How does an individual judge themselves to be anything?

Normally by reference to some sort of external metrics or concepts.

I don't see how else it can be done, so I question the concept that one can simply decide "I am an X or a Y" and it have any validity.

External metrics are essentially meaningless if there are so many of them that often contradict, a person could sample any selection of beliefs and depending on who you ask any of those beliefs could be Christian.

Don't forget that validity itself is a matter of opinion which any number of people may see as invalid.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A Christian is someone who endeavors to follow the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Dammit Mum!

Phototoxin wrote:Not all churches have catechisms... some don't even have creeds.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Doesn't it also require, to truly be a Christian, that you have heard God's calling to you?

Example, my Gran is highly Christian and born again. She will sometimes say that we will all (immediate family) become Christian in our lives and she prays for it often. She also says that God called to her, that she heard God's voice in her heart and soul which caused her to become an evangelical Christian and that you cannot be a Christian until you have the Word of God. When she is talking about us or me becoming a Christian, I say that, should God call to me directly, that I would certainly not deny the Word of God and would on that day, become Christian.

This satisfies us both as she is happy I will heed the call and I am happy that the call is fairly unlikely and that if it does happen, then I am hardly likely to ignore the Word of the (suddenly proven) creator being...

Kilkrazy wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Not all churches have catechisms... some don't even have creeds.

I'm having some difficulty understanding how that would work.

How could you know the tenets of a church, if it cannot state them? How would a member know if they are following the correct teachings?

Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, Gnosticism is not a form of Christianity, since it differs in several basic tenets.

Squig_herder wrote:
Jesus did not live a perfect life, nor was he perfect (stated in the bible by himself no less)

The Bringer wrote:

Squig_herder wrote:
Jesus did not live a perfect life, nor was he perfect (stated in the bible by himself no less)

Where in the world did Jesus say that? How would you ever infer that from anything in the Bible?