Is there such a thing as a Christian?

This is all what matters really. Sure, some people like to think you're not a christian until you love your neighbours like yourself but technically this is what makes a christian. People who follow the ten commandments but do not believe Jesus died for their sins are not christians, since this is the essence of the christian religion. Of course lots of christians have their doubts, it's faith after all.You can still put them on a scale to see which is the trve-est, but I'd say anyone who has this faith in Jesus or is trying to find it is a true christian (no matter if they have doubts).

 

I do not think "Jesus died for our sins". I think Jesus demonstrated a practice for the mastery of our own experience.

 

I don't think he did either. But it's the pillar of christianity nevertheless.

 

But it is morality that determines the worth of things. If we were to see things with no form of morality as measure, they wouldn't have any meaning or value at all.

One can understand math, but without realising its value, what good is it? Just writings on the wall.

If you see a painting or piece of art that particularily speaks to you, would you be willing to pay a little more for it?

Everything in life is valued based upon how it makes us think or feel. We measure this with our morals. You wouldn't choose a partner who makes you feel bad.

 

We do not need judgment in order to organize our lives. Is it right or wrong is the wrong question. The question to ask is what is it for. How does it function.
Is it the same, or is it different.
These are useful distinctions

 

Discernment

 

Intentions and motives determine the morality of a given action more so than the action itself. All outward actions are instigated by some motivation with an intention behind it.

Therefore to really understand the morality of an act, we need to understand the intentions that motivated the actor.

At least that is my opinion.

 

That's fine, but we'd be leading lives mostly of practicality and economic value. It's human nature to need more than that. Love, hate, fear, happiness, etc. Those exist outside of practicality and need to be nurtured. So we invent morals by which to invest in those emotions.

 

Yes, providing discernment doesn't become a codeword for judgment.

 

It could be just that.
If it is I'll never know.

 

Why would you not know?

 

Because if discernment is judgment then I have no way of discerning between the two.

 

I'm calling judgment relative evaluation of a specific thing as being worthy or not, as in good frog or better frog. Discernment I call telling the difference between a frog and a bird.

I am suggesting that there is a difference between the two for purposes of this discussion.

 

Yeah I know, I was agreeing with you, I think there is a difference between the two as well.

Upon being prompted by your insight that discernment can easily become judgment in disguise, I was just suggesting that, if that were to happen to someone they wouldn't be able to know anyways, since they would lose the ability to truly discern.

 

Quite so.
That is why I say belief is a substitute for knowledge. Belief does not put us in touch with truth, it only contends with other beliefs.

Some regard wisdom as knowing what is right. I think it comes from recognizing what is real.

 

Maybe, but it's also necessary and an inextractable part of the human experience I think.
When you set your cup down do you know that it won't float away or do you believe it? Do you know that 5 minutes ago you didn't exist as another person in a different plane of existence, or do you just believe it?
I "believe" that justifiable belief is the best we can hope for, since we can never truly 100% know anything.
Knowledge vs Belief is too black vs white for me. I think they exist in various increments, like a scale. You can have it tipped very favorably to one side, yet still one cannot exist without the other.

 

I make another distinction.

Faith versus belief.

Faith I regard as a willingness to suspend judgment until a thing becomes apparent, or a reliance on those things that are.

Belief, a substitutefor an unknown variable. It takes the place of questions, of inquiring for the truth, substituting the unknown for the known or knowable.

 

I can't follow, faith and belief have always been synonymous to me.

 

I disagree. Morality is socially conditioned to a large degree, but I'm willing to say that Hitler, bin Laden, & company are "evil"--that execution of six million Jews or blowing up the three towers is not just a matter of personal taste. These people are menaces to humanity. I think human reason and instincts are capable of a core consensus on behavior that is threatening to human existence, and that altruism is a functional component of human evolution. Your ideas essentially obliterate morality by making it entirely subjective, like the fundamentalist Christians who are willing to say morality is anything God wants it to be, including genocide. I notice you're a fan of Nietzsche. So was Hitler, and although Nietzsche, to his credit, his sociopathic philosophy was a major influence on Nazi philosophy. Moral clarity is a precondition to avoiding destructive behavior and resisting evil.

 

I am regarding belief as a thing that defends itself despite evidence to the contrary. Along the lines of a superstition.

You have detected a difference between judgment and discernment which for many are synonymous terms, so you do have the facility to make this further distinction regarding the terms belief and faith.