Is there such a thing as a Christian?

Haha I know my religion is hypocrisy. But atleast I don't just say something's silly without giving reason. Or wait yes I do. I'd just like to know why in this case it's silly... what are his thoughts from down under?

I think the question of the OP is a good question and something to think about for sure. I just hope this guy's reasoning isn't "of course there is such a thing as a Christian"

 

there r real Christians out there i know a few

 

...

 

the label, christian, is attributed to those who believe in jesus, particularly the jesus who was apparently the son of god. belief is the only prerequisite to be attributed with this label.

the question ought to be: how many christ-like people are out there?

 

the problem with labels is that I can call myself whatever. Dink-weasles are dink-weasles no matter what they or someone else calls them.


Re: better morals
Christianity isn't, at its core, about having the best morals. Certainly it is a big component, but God doesn't call Christians to be "nice people" and to "respect everyone". Why must Christians be the ones who lie down and accept everybody? Partially, I think the thought that this is what Christians are comes from those who were once Christian, and that is what they were taught (probably not directly). Or, it comes from a distorted view of Christians by those who may have read some or all of the Bible, but the general view in the media was that Jesus was a nice guy who preached some pretty awesom stuff and accepted people and whatever.

Basically this rant is to say that, yes, Christians are supposed to love their neighbour, love their enemy, et cetera, but they are also called to be lights to the world. A major part of being Christian, as opposed to many other religions, is converting others. Do some go about it in completely ridiculous ways--sure. Is that a reason to paint all Christians, or all Baptists, or all... in the same brush, no. Similarly, not all atheists are dink-weasles like Dawkins.

I find it very heartbreaking when a bishop stands up for doctrine gets painted in the media as not accepting as Christ was (the lesbian parents in the Catholic school system struck me as a good example from a while back).

In conclusion: 1) being nice isn't wholly what being a Christian is about (although there is that component), 2) Jesus wasn't just a nice guy who talked some good stuff, 3) Even Jesus spoke out against perceived wrongs in the religious and societal norms of the day--often with very firely language, 4) Jesus acctually made the law harder to follow (but to prove a point that the law cannot save), 5) Christians are called to convert (but that doesn't mean being a dink-weasle)

I think I've proved my point (or at least effetively stated it)

 

I will share and I hope everybody is open minded to what I have to say. I am a christian a bad one but I am. I believe Jesus Christ died to save me with every fiber of my being. I just worry about myself I am saved but I am far from perfect I just know I am forgiven. I will not pass any judgment on anybody for that is not my job but that of the Lords and only His job. I love everybody and I would hang out with anybody because I don't think other Christians are passing the word of God like they should. Peace and Love no matter what !

 

im wondering about this thread...

How "bad" of a Christian do you have to be to not be considered a Christian anymore?

I mean if there are REAL Christians, there are fake ones too right?

where is the line...

 

Isn't that a little selfish?

heeh2, the line is unknown, except by God. I, like Christians should be, am a moral absolutist; however, I do think that there are things that remain a mystery. The holy Eucharist being one, but also the notion of salvation being another. Protestants will often speak of being saved as a one time event, but Saved for the Catholic Churches has the notion of a past, current, and future event/process. We gave our lives to God (past), but we currently strive and struggle (at least most of us), and we have the future hope (if everything goes according to plan we will die in grace) of salvation and the Final Theosis.

Who is a real, bad, or fake Christian, on Earth, will be a personal designation (St Francis of Assisi thought he was an ocean of sin)--at the final Judgment it will be revealed to all.

 

I'm sure you understand the reasoning behind protestant thinking. Are you absolved of sin by Christ or not. Can you be lost, save, lost, saved, lost saved and on and on. How many times must Christ be crucified for our sins. We believe once is enough. Who can live the perfect life even after salvation? And that being so - shall you die with a sin not confessed, perhaps not even being aware of the sin - and being condemned eternally? Christ died once. And for the true believer, once is enough even if we should fail later, as we all do.

 

PM sent, didn't want to muddle this forum with theological discussions of the sort.

 

heeh2- i suppose a fake christian would be someone who joins the community and claims to possess christian beliefs so that they can fit in, but deep down doesn't believe. there are likely many of those people out there.

 

That question really typifies your lack of understanding regarding Christianity.

"Sin" is not an action, thought or deed, it is a condition. It is condition of being spiritually separated from God. It is not something we did or didn't do, it just is the way it is. The dissolving of that separation from God by the sacrifice of Jesus was metaphorically shown by the veil of the temple being torn in two from the top to the bottom at the moment of Christ's death. That veil separated the main temple from the Holy of Holies where the ark of the covenant resided and also the spirit of God.

There is no "spectrum" of "goodness" or "badness" as you are implying.
It is a separation from God.

If you are going to try to debate the validity of the Christian faith you should at least take the time to understand it beyond flipping through channels of evangelicals on Sunday morning TV.

There is a wealth of symbol and metaphor in the old testament that directly relates to Christ. The construction of the Temple and all the materials and measurements used are all important symbols.

Don't really know why I rambled off on that tangent, except to show that the Bible is rich with meaning and lessons beyond just what meets the eye and is worth a serious inquiry. Especially by those who would just call it all bullshit and hokum based on the antics of some of it's practitioners.

 

Your petty remarks are designed to produce an emotional reaction. I can
explain how, and I can explain why there is a mechanism that erodes the
patience of another human being.

Your post is so transparent that I almost didn't even respond. I just wanted
you to know that i'm not competing with you.

Understanding isn't a competition.

 

Aside from the comment about flipping through channels, PB offered some valuable information in considering the subject of the thread.
It appeared to me that he was almost contrite and certainly respectful in his presentation. In spending time critiquing his presentation did you take note of the content?

 

Is this more to your liking. I removed any emotionally inflammatory remarks.
Would you now care to address my the intent of it rather than just say it is transparent. That intent being that most often those who denounce Christianity as false and it's adherents as "foolish" often do so from a position of little understanding of the topic.

I still stand by my assertion that your original remark quoted first shows a lack of understanding of Christianity on your part.

 

It is rather an understanding of the category Christianity is in that im speculating from, else everyone would be guilty of not understanding the thousands of religions the world has when they want to mention one.

I also think "Especially by those who would judge it as false based on the antics of some of it's practitioners." showed a lack of understanding and clarity of my position and the actual argument against religion (and racism, sexism, ect).

I'm sure you've seen me ask "If people are willing to pray, what else are they willing to do?". Meaning i'm not concerned with what people are doing, but why they are doing it.

 

To be honest, I have yet to get a clear take on your position. That is most likely due to my lack of complete knowledge of your personal position rather than anything on your part.

I'm not clear on your first statement as the category Christianity is in? What do you mean by the "category" it is in? That would be a valid statement if you considered ALL religions as equally suspect, but you don't.
You consistently single out those that have a Biblical basis.
If you don't agree with Christianity, fine. But when you go the next step and try to tell those who do agree with it that they are mistaken, you should at least have a proficient and working understanding of the religion and it's beliefs beyond what is just popular opinion.

If you are interested in the "why" of it, does it not make sense to study it and try to understand it from the followers perspective?

Frankly, all I have seen from your posts is an adamant disdain of Christians and Christianity devoid of any real knowledge of the topic.

 

I think I agree with both of you, and am having a hard time understanding how the two of you are in real conflict. I agree with hee2 that there must be good and bad Christians. That, to me, is a different question than saved versus not saved. Catholic theologians even tell us that some can be saved through "invincible ignorance". That's how us Protestants make it through. But there are good Christians (e.g., Mother Theresa) and bad Christians (most of the Televangelists who yell at us and bilk old ladies out of their life savings). I won't presume to judge Pat Robertson, Rev. Jones or Fred Phelps as unsaved, but I am ready to say they've missed the point of Jesus. His life and teachings were not just killing time until His sacrifice.

Hee2 seems to attach central importance to the notion that the "irrational" motivation of religious thought carries the potential for evil, which it does. Where I think he goes off the rails is in failing to distinguish nuances of religious belief and degrees of rationality. I think it's obvious that religious thinking has led to non-violent, loving acts, and that there is a fundamental difference between the thinking of a Saint Francis and a Fred Phelps or a Terry Jones.

 

I'm growing more and more confused about what the difference between a
Christian and non Christian is. I mean, there is hardly anyone who refutes an
actual Jesus of Nazareth ever existing. I actually think its quite plausible, but
does that make me a Christian too? I don't think so...

I believe in things like "love thy neighbor" and think that "do unto others" is
the best brief explanation of how human relationships should be regarded, but
I don't believe in those things because Jesus said it. I believe them because I
understand the concepts through logic.

There are tons of things in the bible that don't make sense. That marry was a
virgin, Jesus was the son of god, moses parted the red sea, various
resurrections from the dead. And all of it somehow possible through god which
to me, exacerbates the function of faith.

You cant believe in something you don't understand because it violates its
own proposition.

You are not required to understand something to have faith in it, though,
because faith isn't about understanding. Quite the contrary actually.
Faith is about not understanding.

I'd like to talk more about "distinguish nuances of religious belief and
degrees of rationality." but i don't know how on topic that is.

If the followers understood the "why", they would not be followers.

They are followers in the first place because they accept argument from a
position of authority, hence the phrase "follow the law". Authority is the
power OR right to give orders and make decisions.

scientia potentia est: Knowledge is power.
And understanding is right.

God is famous for demonstrating power, so much power that the fear and love
of it is accepted as right in the stead of understanding.

 

I'm not trying to be rude, but again your comments above exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity, as well as an arrogant bias and assumptions about and against Christians:
"If the followers understood the "why", they would not be followers."
that remark exhibits what I'm talking about here.
I'm not trying to persuade you or convert anyone to any particular belief. Just trying, as I have from the start, to illustrate how biased and oppositional your remarks and logic are.. You appear to be completely unwilling to try to gain a further understanding of the religion and make repeated comments that place yourself in a superior position over those who profess a belief in God or Christianity.
So why all the questions? You have obviously already arrived at your conclusions, even in the absence of full comprehension of the subject matter. You have therefore placed yourself in the position of being ineducable in regards to religious beliefs.
Why not just accept what you believe and move on rather than continually trying to convince others of how ignorant they are because they don't believe what you do.
I know your going to go on about how rational your beliefs are, science supports them, etc. etc.
But from my vantage point you are exhibiting the same narrow minded behavior that you attribute to Christians in that anybody who does not agree with you must be deluded or wrong.

I am done with this line of discussion because you have demonstrated that you are unable or unwilling to set aside your own beliefs long enough to even consider the possibility that you may not be right.
If you had demonstrated even a good fundamental knowledge and understanding of the topic, I would have a different opinion.

Remember, you can quote all the science and logic you want, just as another can quote all the Bible verses and faith statements they want, but until you actually die, neither party KNOWS a damn thing for sure.