In reply to TheMonk (msg # 495):

I don't doubt that your person is an expert on linguistics.  But that deals with the structure of language, not specific meanings.  If you want to know what a medical term means, you go to a medical expert, not a linguist.

In this particular case, there are two fields where the experts agree on nothing: religion and philosophy.  Even economists at least have a shared terminology base.  But in the hot two, its wide open, hence why dictionary defnitons are useless.

I disagree. If Christian was a jargony term, like what you find in medicine, your argument would be true. It is not, however, since the average schmuck can use the term Christian and reasonably expect to be understood.

Hence Priests, The Pope, random Mullahs, Buddhists, Pastafarians, Padres, etc can toss any thought of superiority with regards to their definition of "Christian." It's a term meant for general usage.

Which is why I'd go to a linguist. Or someone with a PhD in English.

Well, even though an average schmuck uses a term, that doesn't mean they're using it right.  For example, I hear people refer to others as "OCD" all the time.  However, what they really mean is "excessively neat"; people who really have Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder don't always clean compulsively.

Or, here's one your linguist friend can confirm: when people say something is "terrific", they mean to say that it's really good.  But that's not what it means.  Terrific is derived from Terror, and it means its terrifying.

The point is, the general use of a word does not necessarily jive with its actual meaning.  Sometimes there's a disconnect, as in the case of the term "christian".  In this particular case, the meaning has expanded and fractured so many times, it's basically just an umbrella word: it's a dumping-ground category, not an actually meaningful definition.

There are many words with multiple definitions. The initialism "OCD" is one.




That was the original definition, but that is not the popular usage of now. Those people who use the word "terrific" to mean "terrifying" are not using the commonly accepted definition. There are also many words like this in the dictionary.



See, if a Jesuit Priest told me that they (Jesuit Priests) use the word "religion" differently, that wouldn't invalidate the definition in the dictionary... it's just a different definition (jargon, in this case). The popular usage of the word is pretty much the "right" definition because that's how we communicate.

"Popular usage" does not equal "right usage".  There are many terms in popular usage that aren't used correctly, and sometimes leads to confusion.  Additionally, this is highly cultural: your friend specializes in the differences between British English and American English, for example.

There's even variances here in the US.  For example, when someone from the West Coast says "Pop", they mean a carbonated beverage.  But for someone from the Midwest, "pop" means to pop a balloon; their word is soda.  Elsewhere, they call it all "coke", even when they don't mean a cola.  There isn't one standard term in use, which means they're all right, and they're all wrong.  Language can be funny like that.

That wasn't my friend. That's an expert in language that works for the OED (a dictionary). The point there is that they hire experts to work on dictionaries.




Nono... none of them are wrong. Even if a Southerner travels to Colorado and orders a Coke and gets a Coca-Cola instead of the Dr. Pepper they'd hoped for, they still aren't wrong. They're speaking a dialect of English that simply isn't understood as well.

In reply to TheMonk (msg # 501):

I apologize, I'm using Tycho's example.  He doesn't believe two differnt things can both be right at the same time.  Well, in language it can.  Multiple correct (and incorrect) terms can be in use at once.  The soda thing is one example of that, how words can mean many different things.

I think they're wrong.  Granted, I'm not from that area, so didn't grow up with that.  I think if you want to abbreviate soda-pop to soda or pop, fine, whatever.  But calling a Sprite drink a Coke is just, well, I don't want to say that all those people are stupid, and perhaps brainwashed would be a better term.  I have no idea how someone got all those people to agree to start calling cows "horses".

Bart,

It's simply a case of a brand name being used in place of a generic item.  Happens a lot.

Let's google that and find out (even if you use Bing to search)
Just Xerox that piece of paper (even if you're using an HP copier)
Can you grab me a piece of Kleenex (instead of just generic facial tissue)

I grew up in the South. Mostly the cause is the popularity of the Coca-Cola products... they really are Coke! (Only Yankees drink Pepsi products...)

In my view, they're both right, and they're both wrong.  Language is funny that way.  Clearly, the argument can be made that calling all carbonated soft drinks "coke" is wrong, bart just did it.  Monk and Doulos have countered that it's right, once you take things into cultural context.  I think you are all correct, as far as it goes; language isn't fixed, it's flexible, and constantly evolving.

Taking us back to religion, we now have the classic analogy of three blind men and an elephant.  It goes something like this: three blind men are taken to an elephant, and each places their hand on something different.  One grabs the tail, another touches the side, and the third touches the trunk.  When they leave, you ask them what an elephant is like.  One says: "it's long and thin", another says "It's tall and wide", and the other says "it's thick and curled."  The thing to realize here is that all three are equally right.  They're also equally wrong.  An elephant is all those things, and more.

This is commonly used for an analogy for god, but it applies to religions as well.  We view religions to be the part we've personally experienced, not thinking there might be a lot more to the elephant.  So, when people refer to christianity, they don't mean the worldwide mishmash of beliefs that actually exists, they mean the little churches we went to.

I went to every church I could, and I traveled the northern hemisphere pretty thoroughly. (I will get to the southern one! I haven't forgotten about you!)

I have, however, missed some of the major historical points, so maybe that element is missing.

This is why a very broad definition has to be the answer... there's too much in Christianity.

I haven't been to every church I could, but I have been to a fair number.  I wouldn't call myself an expert by any means, but I would say that I've experienced a fair amount of the variety American christianity has to offer.  That's why I find is silly that any one definition can possibly encompass even what I've encountered, let alone what is all out there.

Well then, why not multiple definitions? If one won't fit, why can't we use a few more to cover that ground?

People do use multiple definitions.  Roman Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, LDS, etc... people can and do use more specific terms.  The first problem is, even with those categories, there can be controversy.  FLDS and LDS both claim to be Mormons, for example, or Westboro Baptists and Southern Baptists.  Outsiders are seldom qualified to judge who h as a right to what term.

But this whole argument started when Katisara asserted that only mainstream believers had a right to the term christian.  Non-mainstream believers should be made to qualify themselves.  Christian belief is such a diverse area, you can't fairly point to any group and say they have a lock on the term.  And when people have tried to lock it down, the usual result is religious bigotry and intolerance.

If that's Katisara's stance, I would disagree with it. I also don't completely disagree with you. Religion is a diverse concept, and Christianity is just as complex (as a subset it can't be more complex, but it's pretty up there). As a person that uses English I feel qualified to have my own personal definition (again with the signs and signifier stuff) that is close enough to yours to be understood.

But is Christianity a religion? If so, we have some part of a definition. If not... I'm not sure what we're talking about.

That is the crux of the matter and it's where the two main camps lie.  Some say "Christianity" is a diverse body or incorporates certain schools of thought or different modes or worship, some point to the Council of Nicaea and say, "Whatever they decided back then as we interpret it today."

But do those diverse groups have anything in common? If we work with the multiple definition thing, I still think "Christ" fits in there somewhere. (Including Christian Scientists).

Starting a definition would then include those two schools of thought.

A functional definition is probably impossible.  You can use christian as an umbrella term-- it covers a lot of stuff-- but there's so much diversity, I can't think of much common ground that wouldn't start including non-christians.

We could start by saying:

1)People claiming to believe Jesus Christ was a divine being.
2)People following a philosophy espoused in the New Testament.

If non-christians are labelled as Christians, couldn't they simply say, "no?" I got called a Satanist the other day and simply corrected the people.

2) is tricky.  There's a lot of people who base their moral philosophy on things Jesus taught, some of whom are decidedly not christian.  Muslims, for example, acknowledge Jesus as a prophet of the Book.  Also, many others have absorbed select teachings, such as the Golden Rule.  Convergent evolution occurs in philosophy too, so it could get sticky figuring out what idea came from where.

1) is where things get confusing.  There is a small segment of people who identify as christian who don't think Jesus was divine, and the resurrection was a metaphor of some sort.  More on the borderline are people who think that while Jesus was divine, so is everyone else, so he's not all that special.  Christian Scientists think Jesus was the best expression of the divine mind in everyone; certain esoteric believers think Jesus's miracles were just a result of faith, which anyone can have.  (Many of the last type are fringe, but not all-- faith healers, snake handlers, and the like.)

Those conditions include Messianic Jews.  While many Christians, and some Jews who are not Messianic (see http://wwrn.org/articles/21820/) consider those Messianic Jews to be a part of Christianity, those Messianic Jews say that they are actually a part of Judaism and are not Christian.

1) Why care about where something originates? There are several philosophical underpinnings of Christianity that occur elsewhere, but are central teachings of that faith. The question is more about the faith than the origin of the thought.



This is what the test is for. It doesn't matter if everyone else is divine. If Jesus is considered divine we can count them as Christians, especially if they consider him central to their faith. What kind of metaphor do they think he was going for?



And typically they quote the bible to support that claim. Whether it's true or not doesn't matter... simply that they are trying to follow Christ as they understand him.

Because otherwise, we get Buddhists classified as christians.  Some of the behavioral teachings, like the Golden Rule, are key to them as well.


As a prophet of the book, Islam considers Jesus to be divine, or at least divinely inspired.  Baha'i consider Jesus to be an important figure, but not the only one.  There are many religions that acknowledge Jesus as a wise teacher and divinely inspired prophet, and a couple christian denominations that don't think he was divine at all.

I'm sorry... who would consider themselves Christian who wouldn't pass one of the proposed definitions?