# What Makes a Christian?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 29, 2014, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009 "2014-01-29T02:12:25Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 9
### Author:  [@WheatCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WheatCat)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/161 "2014-02-02T22:21:49Z")
I did not expect to draw so many replies and I am not sure I want to keep responding to each indefinitely. I’m good for another round though.
(post #149 page #3)
> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> Whether or not you think it’s unrealistic, you’re going to be disappointed.
>
> And when it comes to labels or names of things, there is no unchanging truth. Whether or not you believe that there is an underlying eternal truth, that truth is not locked into place with a label. Language is defined by use.
>
> At some point, the majority of people calling themselves “Christian” might not fit your preferred eternal definition. At that point, it really is moot.
>
> (My use of the word “moot” is an illustration. At one point, “moot” meant “an arguable point.” Now, more often than not, means “a point that is no longer worth arguing over.” When it comes to language, popular usage always wins in the end.)
I am confident that there will always be numerous subjects, many with a provenance of thousands of years such as Christianity, for which shifting definition, if it even occurs, will never be an obstacle to interesting and meaningful debate such as that taking place in this thread. And it would not bother me if no one agreed with any definition of mine: I am the only customer who I have to please.
As for “moot”: “arguable point” remains the primary definition of the first three google-hit dictionaries.
(post #150 page#3)
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> The truth isn’t a popularity contest, but there is no single objectively true meaning to the term “Christian”. Just a whole lot of popular or personal meanings, as this thread and others like it demonstrate.
Acceptance of Christ’s teaching is an objective foundation criterion of any reasonable definition. Expert opinion is not subject to ad populum restriction, so I should be permitted to say I doubt there has never dissent on that point from a professional theologian or philosopher.
(post #152 page#4)
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I have given two different reasonable definitions of Christian so far, and could probably come up with twenty or thirty more that are equally reasonable…to a person that isn’t already emotionally invested in a particular religion or cult. It is, was, and always will be impossible to find a static definition for the term “Christian” for most those who consider themselves to be Christian because of indoctrination from their religious leaders.
[/quote]
You definition from post #13 is static: “…any one who thinks that they are a Christian should be considered a Christian.”
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2014, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/162 "2014-02-02T22:31:57Z")
> [@WheatCat](#):
>
> Acceptance of Christ’s teaching is an objective foundation criterion of any reasonable definition.
There’s no agreement of what those teachings are. People can and do declare that they are everything from “peace and brotherhood across the world and help the needy” to “screw the poor, and America is God’s Chosen Nation”.
And plenty of Christians pretty much completely ignore Christ in favor of the Old Testament or post-Christ dogma anyway. Christ is a symbol of the religion, not the determiner of what isn’t and isn’t Christianity. He’s a symbol like Mickey Mouse is for Disney; an icon of the organization, but not the person in charge.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2014, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/163 "2014-02-02T22:34:30Z")
> [@WheatCat](#):
>
> You definition from post #13 is static: “…any one who thinks that they are a Christian should be considered a Christian.”
The term seen from the outside can have a static definition-the term as seen from the _inside_ cannot. My personal definition was off-hand, and later revised by definitions provided by dictionaries.
---
### Author:  [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2014, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/164 "2014-02-02T23:55:07Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> The truth isn’t a popularity contest, but there is no single objectively true meaning to the term “Christian”. Just a whole lot of popular or personal meanings, as this thread and others like it demonstrate.
Is the same true for words such as “socialist” or “libertarian”?
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/165 "2014-02-03T00:11:46Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#):
>
> Is the same true for words such as “socialist” or “libertarian”?
Pretty much, yes. Right down to endless arguments over whether or not someone is a true libertarian/socialist/whatever.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/166 "2014-02-03T01:34:34Z")
> [@WheatCat](#):
>
> As for “moot”: “arguable point” remains the primary definition of the first three google-hit dictionaries.
I’ll pursue this line in this thread not because “moot” is relevant, but because your idea of how words are used is flawed.
I’m assuming that by “primary,” you mean “listed first.” What do you imagine is the significance of a definition being listed first in a dictionary? Let me just pre-empt some of the back and forth by assuming that you are going to say that the “primary” definition is “correct” or “most accepted” or “preferred” or something like that. It means no such thing. In fact, _every one_ of the definitions in a dictionary reflects a valid (i.e., understood or common) definition. The number “1” does not represent an implication that all the other definitions are wrong or suspect or of less value. Enumeration in a dictionary does not make a winning argument.
> [@Merriam-Webster](#):
>
> [moot](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moot) adjective \ˈmüt
> : not certain : argued about but not possible for people to prove
>
> \*\*: not worth talking about : no longer important or worth discussing
> \*\*
> Full Definition of MOOT
>
> 1
> a : open to question : debatable
> b : subjected to discussion : disputed
> 2
> \*\*: deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic
> \*\*
>
> See moot defined for English-language learners »
>
> Examples of MOOT
>
> \*\*The court ruled that the issue is now moot because the people involved in the dispute have died.
>
> I think they were wrong, but the point is moot. Their decision has been made and it can’t be changed now.
>
> Among the many advantages of legislation requiring a label was that it allowed the industry to insist—in court if necessary—that claims against the companies for negligence and deception were now moot. Every smoker would be repeatedly warned that “smoking may be hazardous to your health.” —Allan M. Brandt, The Cigarette Century, 2007\*\*
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/167 "2014-02-03T03:15:51Z")
It was long the practice in Merriam-Webster dictionaries to place the definitions in chronological order, regardless of “importance” or current usage.
It appears that in the actual definitions, that policy remains in place, although in the on-line versions, a separate supplemental definition for current usage is placed ahead of the standard definitions with a gray background. This is the case for [[sup]3[/sup]moot _adjective_](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moot).
---
### Author:  [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/168 "2014-02-03T13:23:28Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Of course, I cannot prove it was written by God. That is why I refrain from making claims about God, (either his existence or his non-existence), that pretend that my opinion is FACT. If I express a belief, I note that it is a belief. I would encourage you to do likewise.
I do just that! I am not against Religion any religion, because I believe the purpose of a religion is to go by the Golden rule. I have no quarrel with your beliefs and do appreciate your remarks about what I believe, was taught or read. I do not consider myself as a expert or a person of all knowledge.
There are many people in different Religions who do not live by it’s principles, I don’t believe that a true Muslim or Christian who acts against the teachings of their particular religion is acting as they should , I believe for many it is a help to them as a good tool can be used for good or evil. Hope one lives their beliefs, for the good of all mankind. As I once was told there are many paths to the same destination.
---
### Author:  [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/169 "2014-02-03T13:27:26Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#):
>
> Do you mean scientific proof, there’s none to be had. You’ve chosen to not be inspired by God, but of course you can change your mind.
>
> From my dog-eared copy of the New World Dictionary (1980) Deluxe Color Edition:
>
> That should expel Islam, they don’t profess belief in the religion based on Christ.
There is just as much proof that an angel dictated the Koran to Muhammad as the writers of the Bible.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/170 "2014-02-03T13:47:14Z")
> [@monavis](#):
>
> There is just as much proof that an angel dictated the Koran to Muhammad as the writers of the Bible.
So what? This isn’t the “Prove God exists” thread-this is the “What makes a Christian?” thread. If this were a “What is a Tolkien fan” thread, would it really matter if hobbits did or did not exist?
---
### Author:  [@WheatCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WheatCat)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/171 "2014-02-03T16:44:56Z")
(post #162 page #4)
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> There’s no agreement of what those teachings are. People can and do declare that they are everything from “peace and brotherhood across the world and help the needy” to “screw the poor, and America is God’s Chosen Nation”.
>
> And plenty of Christians pretty much completely ignore Christ in favor of the Old Testament or post-Christ dogma anyway. Christ is a symbol of the religion, not the determiner of what isn’t and isn’t Christianity. He’s a symbol like Mickey Mouse is for Disney; an icon of the organization, but not the person in charge.
There is no disagreement about the existence of a body of work which may be appropriately described as “Christ’s teaching.” There is disagreement over the content and interpretation of that body of work, but those are separate issues.
II think acceptance of a teaching canon denotes acceptance of the original teacher as more than a mere symbol, or icon. And resort to caricature (Mickey Mouse?) in a discussion such as the one in this thread has no value other than incendiary.
(post #163 page #4)
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> The term seen from the outside can have a static definition-the term as seen from the _inside_ cannot. My personal definition was off-hand, and later revised by definitions provided by dictionaries.
What do you mean by “outside” and “inside”?
In post #122 you cite the definition given by Merriam-Webster. That is not distinct from your original definition, as you yourself conclude by saying: ‘“One who professes belief in the teaching of Jesus Christ”-pretty much what I’ve been saying all along.’
(post #166 page #4)
[QUOTE=Acsenray]
I’ll pursue this line in this thread not because “moot” is relevant, but because your idea of how words are used is flawed.
I’m assuming that by “primary,” you mean “listed first.” What do you imagine is the significance of a definition being listed first in a dictionary? Let me just pre-empt some of the back and forth by assuming that you are going to say that the “primary” definition is “correct” or “most accepted” or “preferred” or something like that. It means no such thing. In fact, every one of the definitions in a dictionary reflects a valid (i.e., understood or common) definition. The number “1” does not represent an implication that all the other definitions are wrong or suspect or of less value. Enumeration in a dictionary does not make a winning argument.
[/quote]
I am aware that all dictionary definitions are valid unless tagged with some qualifier such as “archaic” or “slang”. I thought the order of listing had to do with the editors’ perception of appropriateness and frequency of occurrence in formal writing. There should be some reason for three dictionaries to list different definitions in the same order.
(post #167 page #4)
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
It was long the practice in Merriam-Webster dictionaries to place the definitions in chronological order, regardless of “importance” or current usage.
It appears that in the actual definitions, that policy remains in place, although in the on-line versions, a separate supplemental definition for current usage is placed ahead of the standard definitions with a gray background. This is the case for3mootadjective.
[/quote]
Chronological order meaning from earliest accepted usage to most recent new acceptable usage sounds reasonable, and easier to pin down than current frequency. I cannot locate a supplemental definition at the link provided, although the “Examples of MOOT” section provides examples only of definition 2.
However, see:
[The Free Dictionary: Moot](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot)
> [@](#):
>
> Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean “of no significance or relevance.” Thus, **a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value**. A number of **critics have objected to this use** , but **59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it** …
So maybe order of listing has to do with degree of consensus among experts, from most accepted to least accepted.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/172 "2014-02-03T18:17:37Z")
And all this leads you to what conclusion?
---
### Author:  [@WheatCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WheatCat)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/173 "2014-02-03T18:26:55Z")
> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> And all this leads you to what conclusion?
To the conclusion that you could have chosen a better word than “moot” to try to make your point.
---
### Author:  [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/174 "2014-02-03T18:32:54Z")
> [@WheatCat](#):
>
> To the conclusion that you could have chosen a better word than “moot” to try to make your point.
Damn, I love the internet!
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/175 "2014-02-03T21:37:37Z")
> [@WheatCat](#):
>
> To the conclusion that you could have chosen a better word than “moot” to try to make your point.
No, it’s exactly the point. The data offered in those cites exactly demonstrates the evolution of the use and meaning of “moot.”
Indeed, it might demonstrate even more than I suggest, which is that the new meaning has become so popular, that “moot” is essentially ambiguous in formal contexts.
---
### Author:  [@WheatCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WheatCat)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2014, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/176 "2014-02-03T22:02:04Z")
> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> No, it’s exactly the point. The data offered in those cites exactly demonstrates the evolution of the use and meaning of “moot.”
>
> Indeed, it might demonstrate even more than I suggest, which is that the new meaning has become so popular, that “moot” is essentially ambiguous in formal contexts.
Context should dispel ambiguity for any careful reader. If you want a really good example of definition shift take a look at the etymology of “awful”.
I think our last few posts comprise what might be termed a hijack, initiated by your moot tangent.
Back on topic there is no reason to believe Christianity is in any danger of ever succumbing to some kind of lexicographical personality personality disorder, and I do not find the hypothetical possibility interesting enough discuss further.
---
### Author:  [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)
#### Post date: [February 4, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/177 "2014-02-04T17:06:45Z")
The meaning of the word “Christ” never changes, therefore the meaning of the word “Christian” never changes. But as **Czarcasm** correctly pointed out, people alone cannot define these words. Different parts are entitled to believe as they are gifted to believe …
… but that doesn’t mean we can’t try …
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [February 4, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/178 "2014-02-04T17:14:55Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#):
>
> The meaning of the word “Christ” never changes, therefore the meaning of the word “Christian” never changes. But as **Czarcasm** correctly pointed out, people alone cannot define these words. Different parts are entitled to believe as they are gifted to believe …
>
> … but that doesn’t mean we can’t try …
…but that also doesn’t mean that there is an actual reason to try. As has been shown in this thread, a common definition is in direct conflict with the need to use it to promote a specific religion/sect exclusively. I therefore claim that the goal of this thread cannot be accomplished at this time.
Anyone have evidence to the contrary?
---
### Author:  [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)
#### Post date: [February 4, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/179 "2014-02-04T19:07:50Z")
Do you consider faith as evidence?
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [February 4, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009/180 "2014-02-04T19:13:25Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#):
>
> Do you consider faith as evidence?
The only thing faith is evidence for is the existence of faith.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009.md?page=8)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-christian/680009.md?page=10)