The standard is those who think Jesus was divine (in some sense) and accept that he died to forgive their sins. You could potentially add in those who try to live their lives in accordance with what he taught for the sake of this discussion, though I think the first two are all that is necessary. I would certainly still call somebody who believed in Jesus but rejected him a Christian. The label mostly just identifies a person with a particular belief. But, again, for the sake of this discussion, let us throw in 'try to follow his teachings' as necessary.

It depends on what you mean by Christian acts. If it is an act based solely on what that person considers to be part of Christ's teachings, it is certainly the act of a Christian. Not an act that necessarily every Christian would make, of course, but then that is the whole point. Making a label for an act that every Christian would make would be fairly useless, as there pretty much aren't any. I do not blame Christianity itself for anything. I blame people for actions, not ideas.

Deo,

What if Jesus Himself disagreed? Such as in John 8 where He makes His deity a necessary factor?

The only thing with which I have a problem is that your argument is fallacious.

Now you are resorting to what is known as an ad hominem, or an attack of one's character rather than the argument. Whether or not this is true has nothing to do with whether or not my argument is valid. In addition, I challenge this accusation. Provide a quotation from this thread where I tried to do that please.

Yes, Atheism is more than that. And I don't think atheists are rebelling against the misinformation, but their attacks on Christianity are based on that misinformation.

Well we wont agree there either. All organizations and groups have flaws so all deserve some of what you would call attacks but i would call criticism.

What if Jesus disagreed with what?

I'm not talking about criticisms of a group that calls itself "Christian", I'm talking about attacks or criticisms of Christianity itself--the belief system, the theology based on the Bible. When you criticize, you virtually never do so accurately, but you (and I refer to mostly atheists, I suppose, but even most non-Christians in the vast majority of cases) criticize a caricature.

Your seemingly arbitrary standard that I quoted.

Then he is wrong. Jesus does not get to decide who is and is not a Christian. Christian is a label we made up to describe a particular set of beliefs and intentions.

Yes i am well aware that i have to repeat the same thing for pages in order for you to understand. This is not the first thread.
Is this good enough?:
Not from this same thread but i can probably find more quotes from you like this.

As has been clearly shown in this thread, I am not the one who does not understand the other person's argument. I understand your argument. It is just wrong.

And how is that quotation meant to paint Christianity as a disruptor of peace? (hint: read the context of that quotation before you further embarrass yourself).

Haha, that is humorous to me. It is historically false, of course. Christianity did not develop by people arbitrarily making up beliefs they want to hold to and putting Christ's name in front of their views . Christianity developed as a result of Christ's life on earth, fulfillment of the Messiahship, showing Himself to be the Son of God, dying for our sins and raising from the dead. This is how the name, "Christian" arose. The first recorded use of the word is in Acts 11:26:

26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

The disciples were followers of Christ's teachings-to the letter. Christ taught a very strict belief system, not a flexible, changing one. He taught that God's law (the Old Testament) was true and He came to fulfill it, not change it or abolish it. He taught that God's word is true (John 17). He taught that if a person doesn't believe that He is God, the person will die in their sins (John 8). He taught that the Law was not about rules and "being good", but that no person was "good" in and of themselves, but their hearts should seek to honor God. He taught therefore that adultery and fornication were primarily sins of the heart, and lusting in those ways was committing the sin itself (whereas the Pharisees taught strict adherence to the laws, but your thoughts could be evil).

Christianity is very much based on the character, the person and life of Christ.

You may want the name to encompass anyone's beliefs who wants to claim the name, but historically it did not develop this way. And this is why those who have studied the Scriptures on this forum will continue to warn you that many of the views against "Christians" aren't against Christianity at all, but against those who unjustly take the name.

This is an attempt to say that people who follow Christ are not peaceful. If i have to name one person, than you think everyone who follows Christ is not peaceful. Therefore Christianity as it should be , is not peaceful , in your eyes. And now you start with the insults...

Its not possible for non-Christians to criticize biblical beliefs accurately because every believer has their own version of accuracy.

If i say the bible says no man comes to God except through Christ im inaccurate to some. If i say you can get in good with God without accepting Christ as lord but its harder im misinterpreting. If i say all men will come to God im misinterpreting.

It imposable to be accurate with your criticism against Christian beliefs as a whole when the whole has so many different beliefs. Im bound to be inaccurate to someone.

I think a lot of the debate in this thread is missing the point. We can divide the answer into two sections:

1. Who claim to be Christians?

2. Who are Christians in the sense of its historic founding?

I honestly don't even care who's called the name. Since it has "Christ" in it, I prefer it remained as it was at its founding, true followers of the person, life and teachings of Christ. But excepting that, I care more about the substance of what a person believes than what they have as a label. As a Christian you deal with this in denominations as well. Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Pentecostal, etc. They all have varying distinctives and any of them can be a true follower of Christ, or not. I've met Catholics who are truly Christians as they don't believe the Catholic dogma but do believe in the gospel message, and I've met Baptists who clearly don't believe in Christ.

For an atheist-type person who wants to know "Who are Christians?", I still think the most helpful advice is to point them to true disciples of Jesus Christ, His person, teachings and life. This is because when they think of the "Christian God", they have the greatest chance of approaching accurate depiction this way.

This is a common misunderstanding. All non-Christians have to do to criticize biblical beliefs accurately is to read the Bible critically and accurately, and then contrast that to what people claiming to be believers espouse. Pretty simple. The problem isn't that there isn't unity, the problem is atheists tend not to open the book.

But not any who simply read the Bible:

John 14:6

Acts 4:12

It is not without great difficulty that these passages can be dismissed or argued to communicate something other than what they do, and those who attempt such feats blatantly expose themselves. It's just too clear.

Yes, you are misinterpreting John 12:32 due to taking it in a vacuum. But if you read the whole of the Scriptures the true teaching is not unclear:

Matthew 7:21-23

Because for some people, Christians and non-Christians, it is impossible for them to understand what the scripture is really saying. This is because they A. Don't have the common sense needed, B. They really don't have any interest in understanding The Truth, C. Or they understand what it is saying but they twist it around to suit their own wants or needs.

It is not impossible to figure out what the Bible actually is saying, just takes effort and understanding. A large % of people who follow Christianity put little to no effort in understanding the Bible. They just take w/e is told to them by priests, "fathers", pastors, or even people who have zero understanding of the Bible, as truth.

Good post. The argument that the Bible is not understandable or doesn't have a clear meaning or is inherently subject to conflicting interpretations is nonsense and is almost exclusively advocated by people who have never even attempted to understand it.

If it were simple there wouldn't be 100's of interpretations.

I agree with your interpretation on salvation mostly. Therefor when i criticize people who dont hold it im inaccurate to them.

Oh this will be good.

Nobody is arguing that it did.

No disagreement here. This fits perfectly with the definition I gave. They all believe Jesus was divine (in some sense) and accept that he died for our sins. They also tried to live their lives in accordance with his teachings. I am not exactly sure to what it is you are objecting.

I do not want it to encompass anything. However, you do not get to tell somebody that he/she is not a Christian simply because they interpret the Bible differently than you do. That is not part of the definition of Christian.

Well, I tried to give you a chance to save yourself some embarrassment. The quotation you posted was from this thread. In it you wrote

tame_deuces responded by providing an analogy which you did not understand, so I clarified by writing

You responded with

So I wrote

as a request to have you demonstrate how such a thing could be verified by us (which you were not able to do). It should now be blatantly obvious that my quotation had nothing to do with 'painting Christianity as the disruptor of peace.' So, do you actually have an example of where I did this or do you wish to recant your statement?

Sigh, that whole discussion in the other thread arose from Christians being portrayed as not peaceful.

We understand all of this. I wonder how many times I am going to have to repeat this. The problem is that there are a number of different interpretations about what all of this means. There is no consensus. Therefore, you do not get to say 'you are not a Christian because you disagree with my interpretation' because they can just turn around to say the same to you, resulting in a standstill. You can sit here and say 'those interpretations are wrong' all you like. But the bottom line is, the other folks are saying the same thing and neither of you are getting anywhere.

Not by me. Provide a quotation where I am attempting to 'paint Christianity as the disruptor of peace' or recant your statement.

I am so sick of repeating the same thing over and over with you. Do you do this with everyone?

You have pages and pages of doing nothing but arguing that Christianity is not peaceful.