SecretMethod70

You're generally correct, but you say it like it's a bad thing. Just because an idea is older doesn't make it better, or worse. Interpretations change over time, and this is where historical studies play a huge role in theology - and why I think any theology that doesn't work hard to take what we know of history into account is not one worth paying attention to.

Let's start with Satan. Just what is he? Well, first of all, "Satan" has many names in the bible, particularly in the old testament. Early Judaism was pantheistic and a lot of the personae that are now mixed in as different names for "Satan," such as Beelzebub or Ba'al, were actually the gods of their enemies. This was at a time when the Hebrew people believed not only in their god, but in the gods of others as well, and as a people constantly put down upon by others, it was important to assert that their god was more powerful than all the others. Eventually, Judaism become monotheistic and all these personae got mixed together as one source of evil. So what is Satan? Well, if you take out the other personae, he's pretty much what you see in Job. Which isn't a very good answer in and of itself, because in Job he essentially works for god. His name means "the accuser" and he is presented as one of the heavenly beings. He's essentially god's district attorney. So, either god and Satan can time travel (a not unreasonable assumption for metaphysical beings, but an assumption nonetheless, not to mention it creates a bit of a feedback loop ), or Satan is not the "serpent" - and, indeed, the bible never says that the serpent and Satan are one-in-the-same. It is an assumption made by most Christians. The point is, when you actually look at it, with historical context and with careful consideration of the meaning of the words used, it is difficult to find any one thread of evil throughout the old testament. Satan, as we know of the concept, is really a new testament construct. No doubt that the majority of people at the time believed in the concept of Satan as an actual person, but that doesn't mean the concept can't change as times change. More on this in my response to abaya....

There's no question about it: different Christian denominations have standards regarding what they consider Christian. That is yet more support for the idea that there is no solid rule though. For one thing, are Catholics not Christian because some Protestants say they aren't? Where is the Great Christian Council on Standards that decides what these standards are? In the absence of such a council, we must go with what all Christian denominations have in common. Which would seem to indicate that you're correct in stating, at the very least, that to be Christian one must believe that Jesus was a) divine, b) crucified and c) rose from the dead to redeem humanity.

It would seem that way, but it wouldn't be true.

We seem, in general, to be fans of saying "this is a new interpretation, so it is less valid" (see UsTwo's criticism of the concept of Hell as a state of being rather than place). The problem is, Jesus as divine is also in a way a new interpretation, and as I mentioned earlier, so is Jesus as being resurrected. I've always found it very interesting that the most amazing and important part of the entire Jesus story was left out of the earliest gospel. If Jesus was resurrected, and if that resurrection is at the core of all Christianity, why in the world would Mark leave it out? It simply makes no sense. And was Jesus divine? Was he the son of god? Was he god? Well, that's something that Christians debated about for centuries. Not to mention that if we accept the Jewish roots of Christianity, the messiah is not to be divine, but a person. Sure, there was a "winning" team that makes up the majority of Christianity today, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were right. And, more importantly, it certainly means that we can't use the argument that worshiping/following Jesus in a non-divine manner is a "new" interpretation or somehow less Christian. Just like Catholics don't fall under some Protestant "standards" for Christianity, these other Christians simply don't fall under the standards of the dominant group.

That so many people today call themselves Christian who hold beliefs most official Christian denominations wouldn't accept is not particularly new. Christianity has always been extremely varied, and perhaps even moreso early on when compared to now. At least now, we don't have Christians who believe that the Hebrew god is essentially a malevolent creator god (the demiurge) along with all the other very different beliefs of Gnostic Christians.

So...what is a Christian? I think the answer lies in the word itself. Christ simply means "The Anointed One." I'll start out with one assumption: to be Christian one must be referring, in some way, to Jesus. That's based entirely on the simple fact that people understand "Christian" to relate to Jesus, but the word doesn't actually require it. So, Jesus is anointed, and perhaps we can even mix being a messiah in there. What being a messiah means on the other hand is subject to interpretation. Clearly, Christians are not totally beholden to the Jewish concept of messiah, since the majority consider Jesus to be divine. In short, to be Christian, it seems to me that one must simply believe the teachings of Jesus are an important part of leading a better life and being redeemed from....something. One must not necessarily believe that that redemption is from original sin, nor must one believe that Jesus is the only anointed one whose teachings are important in such an endeavor.

Religion is and always has been heavily influenced by culture. In fact, it's probably more accurate to state that religion is an extension of culture. This is why there are so many variations of so many religions...Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, even the beliefs of ancient Greeks and Romans. I read an article recently in What is Enlightenment? magazine called "The Death of the Mythic God." It made a point which I have thought myself for some time (though obviously in less educated terms than the former Catholic monk being interviewed), that we are currently in a transition period thanks to our greater scientific understanding, from understanding god as a person somewhere to a new understanding of god. This transition started quite some time ago as religious people like the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin worked to resolve what he saw as a paleontologist (evidence of evolution) with the religious teachings of his time. He was initially shunned, but over time he has become more and more respected, if not for his specific methods of resolution then for having the courage to work towards such a resolution. It will likely take hundreds of years before the "mythic god" is in humanity's spiritual past...but it is coming. Most of us are hard-wired for some sort of spirituality, but we're not hard-wired to ignore reality in order to appease those spiritual beliefs.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling