There are only so many questions that can be asked, yes. But the answers you receive are largely a matter of what you're willing to see. If you are determined at the outset that only certain answers will be acceptable to you, or that certain criteria in your own mind must be met -- regardless of their relationship to the actual truth of the matter -- you are 50% less likely to come to the right conclusion. (math isn't my strong point, but you know what I mean)

If I stare at a glass of water and demand that it transplant itself into my stomach in order for me to believe that it quenches thirst, how am I ever going to know for sure?

Are you responding to my last post, right above yours? If so... I'm really confused.

(not directed to anyone in particular)

Why is it that the people who become most strident about discussions over "What it means to be Christian," are usually not Christian?

I can only answer for myself, but I do follow the message of Christ, and I just don't understand what I could possibly have to gain by calling myself Christian. It's fascinating, and a little frustrating, honestly, that I can't seem to get a coherent explanation regarding this. It usually ends up being "something that can't be explained, you just have to feel it in your heart" or whatever. That kind of non-logic just rubs me the wrong way.

A Christian is someone who has accepted Christ as their savior. That's all it means. If you have done this, it will reflect in your life -- but not 100% of the time, because the ever-present condition of sin is too much to be overcome by human willpower. Hence the need for salvation.

What answer are you looking for? What criteria have to be met before you consider the answer complete?

edited for clarity

That isn't exactly what you said it meant before now, so for starters, a criteria would be consistency. Then, we can address the issue that not everyone agrees with your definition, or definitions. So who is right? Not everybody can be right, so there can't be one right answer.

Unless you use the definition I do: Christians are people who choose to call themsleves Christians, and I respect whatever their reasons are.

Next, this would eliminate the sneaky "but those aren't real Christians" excuse which makes it literally impossible to ever criticize Christianity.

It's exactly what I said before. Jesus said he was the son of God and that he was sent to pay for our sins. If you believe the "message of Christ", you believe this. If you believe it, and accept it for yourself, bam! You're a Christian. Convincing anyone else that you are is your own task, of course.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't want a real answer, you only want someone to agree with you that there is no set definition. But there is. And there are only so many ways to say the same thing.

From some etymology site:the passage in question:

No, I believe the message of Christ as I read it, not as a dogmatic construct that has been interpreted by others, and, no I am not a Christian just because you say so. Christianity is a human social institution that I choose not to join, for my own reasons; just like others do choose to join, for their own reasons. And just because you have an answer that you think is right, it doesn't make it right for everybody. It's a real question and it doesn't have an easy answer, even if you keep repeating variations of the same theme.

I'm not convinced that there is a better definition than mine, because it is fair to everybody, and I don't have to impose it on anybody, the way your definition would be imposed on me (if I believed the right things exactly the same way you do). My earth-shattering idea is that if you say you are a Christian I just believe you.

How would you interpret

I believe he is saying that if you understand his message, really understand it, then you are guaranteed of being on the right path.

Sometimes it's a tool because they don't have anything smarter to talk about and since it's a good topic to hook someone in. It's whamy. An Instant star is born.

I might be wrong but for as long as I have watched these kind of supposed talks there's never any resolution so it has to be for something other than understanding? * shrug*


OR maybe it's about showing up the supposid lie inherent in it. There's an axe to grind. *shrug*


I wonder why we don't have threads about 'what it is to be a Satanist, witch or Pagan. Christianity is just a soft target. Like political affiliation.

Personally, I've always wanted to do a 'what is a pagan' thread.

Because Pagans don't get caught doing stupid stuff like this. And if they do, at least they don't come off as hypocrites.

Didn't Mari talk about these guys in a thread somewhere?
This week Bill Maher's joke was "Republicans are against gay marriage, because they know that congressman need to be able to play the field." Maybe that's why this guy was against gay marriage.

I think many so-called Christians pick and choose what they will take literally from the Bible. The parts that are contradictory or impossible are argued to be an allegory or parable. The differences in interpretation are the root of the various religious sects. And each sect insists that they are the ones with the 'truth'. Some say to just live as Christ-like as possible, others say every word in the Bible is accurate. Therefore, I refuse to buy into any one person or group of peoples proclamation that their way is the right way, and that they (and only they) have the correct path to salvation. I submit that I have as much right to my own interpretation as anyone else.

Maybe God is just another name for the 'highest power' (along with Jehovah, Jesus, Yahwen, Elohim, Allah, Brahman, Ekam, Deus, etc.). Maybe the existence of this supreme being is too expansive for our minds to comprehend so we create rules, rituals and symbols to help us feel more in control of our insignificant little lives. Just as with civilization itself, we need for religion to have form and substance. Maybe our narrow-minded views of God and religion stems from the same ignorance and lack of comprehension that spurred the theories of a flat earth, a solitary planet or solar system.

Then again, maybe God did send Christ, his only-begotten son, to die for our sins so that we can gain salvation and go to heaven. Speaking of heaven, what and where is that exactly? Is it a black hole? Another planet? A different plane of existance? Utopia somewhere in space? Or is it a reborn 'earth' (if so, how will we fit generations of the saved on our little earth?)

I find it fascinating that people will put forth impassioned arguements regarding the legalistic interpretation of the Bible and yet expect so much to be taken on 'faith'. How convenient that portions of the Bible such as the Creation or the Flood described in Genesis can be disregarded when it contradicts science or common sense.

apart from transubstantiation, the nature of the trinity has caused more schisms within Christianity than pretty much anything else :P

This is how we're supposed to look at it, IMO. Religion is not the answer, God is. You can go directly to God, and don't need priests, bishops, preachers, or any other go-between. That doesn't mean that church is a bad thing -- far from it. By associating with other believers, you get lots of benefits. You can hold each other accountable, discuss faith, pray for each other. Flying solo all the time doesn't do much for most people; most often, it occurs because churches or church leaders have failed people. This guy in Colorado Springs is a perfect example. He has 14,000 or something people in his church. I would be willing to bet that half of them never enter a church building again because their faith has been so trampled on. If 500 people show up for services next week, they'll be lucky.

The reason is that people are looking for good examples. Especially when it comes to God stuff, which is so difficult to figure out on your own, people want someone to stand up and say "I have it all figured out, listen to me". Unfortunately, there are all too many people who are willing to step into that position. That makes the churchgoer tend to stop at the preacher. Why study for yourself, or make direct appeals to God, when so-and-so is so obviously better qualified? Catholicism is the most egregious example of this mindset, but it extends to every sect.

But the pastor is only human, too. He or she has the same temptations, weaknesses, and proclivities as anyone sitting in the pews or walking by on the street outside. That's why it's so important for a pastor to be a servant, and not some kind of Moses-like figurehead. When you get too much power, and aren't accountable to anyone, and start telling people you are the final expert on all things moral and ethical, you are already doomed to fail, and spectacularly. And all the people who mistakenly put their faith in a person instead of in God will have that faith shattered, and many never recover spiritually. That makes the CO Springs guy's hypocrisy so damaging.

Mostly agree. God is just another name for someone who we lack the ability to comprehend, and our need to have things neatly tucked into cubbyholes is where most religion comes from.

That's what Jesus said, and unless he was perpetuating a giant fraud or was clinically insane, I have no reason to doubt him.

Who knows? Doesn't matter, really, once you have accepted how limited our comprehension of God is.

The legalism is no longer necessary because of Christ. He fulfilled the law and released us from it by his sacrifice. It's just hard for people to let go of. Does that mean that I can do whatever sin I want without fear of consequences? No, it means that if you've accepted Christ as your lord and king, your spirit changes so that you want to do what is right and acceptable to God.

Did creation occur exactly as we perceive, based on the words in the KJV version of Genesis? 7 calendar days, as measured by the earth's rotation? Not likely. It's a convenient way to discount all things of God for people who like to nitpick. It's a convenient way to discount the natural process of evolution for people who are afraid that to think scientifically is an affront to God. But regardless of the validity or lack thereof of the Genesis account, nature itself points to the hand of a creator. Different thread.

There's quite a bit of evidence for the flood, it's not as popular a whipping boy for atheists as it once was.

I dunno. People are weak, God is strong. Put your faith in the latter, not the former. Serve both. The formula has never failed.

I agree, and I add that you don't need to call yourself any special words, or join any special clubs. From my perspective, I see more drawbacks than benefits to approaching spirituality as an organized group activity.How do you reach your "most often" conclusion? Perhaps some people just do things differently, for their own various personal reasons.

Yep, it's the biggest weakness of "church" -- it tends to become clubbish. But no one ever seems to mind joining any other body; go to a sports bar on Sunday afternoon and there are plenty of people wearing jerseys and quoting statistics at each other who didn't go to church that morning because they were so independent minded. :lol:

Agree. But there is a pretty big difference between associating with people who believe like you do (which, again, people do all the time; it's only when the label "church" is applied that they get nervous), and getting your spirituality from someone else. See previous post about trusting God vs. trusting what someone says.

Oh, definitely. This is just personal experience. For every person I've met who says "I don't go to church, I never have and never will," there are a dozen who say "I don't go to church anymore because my parents made me when I was a kid" or "I had a bad experience" or "someone from a church did something bad to me, and therefore I don't trust any of them". It's not universal, just what I've seen in my life.

Point of contention with me: It's okay for people to make a generalization like "Christians just want to force their morals on everyone" -- it's instantly agreed to, or if not, the opposing voice feels he or she has to remain silent so they don't offend, or God forbid, open their mouth and voice their opinion, thus proving the statement. But any generalization that comes from the mouth of a Christian immediately gets a wave of criticism and nitpicking. In milder cases, it's something like "You can't make generalizations like that, see that's what I hate about Christianity".

Occasionally it's more venomous, along the lines of "Oh I suppose you want me to go stone some homosexuals now" or "lol, I saw you sin the other day, hypocrite". That doesn't happen on the Cellar, thankfully. But elsewhere, the argument always plays out the same way: people have done just enough research that the discussion starts with a very few select bible verses that are wielded like foils, used only to parry someone else's out-of-context verses.

Once they've been exhausted, it devolves into, "Well, Christians are narrow-minded, and that's that. I have my own thing, so stop pushing your crutch on me", to which someone replies, "You wouldn't understand, you're hopelessly ignorant of all things spiritual." We work hard to stay civil here and maintain open dialogue, but the phenomenon taints even Cellar discussions. It would be kind of refreshing if people would actually take the time to research the issues beyond trying to bolster their prejudices (both sides). Read the bible, take the whole work in context, and find out if its message is true or false. So few people even attempt it, because they either don't want to be challenged on their faith, are scared of having their mind changed and possibly having to examine their own life, or can't stop being argumentative long enough to be objective.

I understand what you mean, but you're making an assumption that the criticism is made out of ignorance, aren't you?

As you said, this holds true for both sides. A great many Christians are adament that they (aka their church) and they alone have the answers and know the 'truth' about God when in fact, they have absolutely no idea (or have a distorted view via their church's teachings) what other churches, religions or faiths believe.

Too many people are quick to judge and condemn anyone who is outside their circle of believers. They wrap themselves up in their piety and feel smugly superior to the 'uninformed'. If they took the time to actually study and research other beliefs with an open mind, they might just find the basis upon which most religions are based has a similar theme and a great many of the differences are merely semantics.

Stormie

Edit:

I think the biggest weakness/strength of the church is that it prays on the lazy... then creates/encourages lazy people.
Faith takes work, VERY HARD, constant, diligent work... "but it you just listen to me I can cut through all of that and give you the inside line, just help us pay for all this stuff, most of it (less than 10% on average in reality) is going to help others!" is religion's line & it is total BS. (Instead of line I wanted to say schpeal but I don't know how to spell it)

If it were, "we are a group of like-minded/faith(ed) people who want to help each other on our path" that would be fine... "we will only take/use as much as it takes to maintain our infrastructure and no more, there will be no associates that work for the institute, as it will be for all our benefit, we will all volunteer...." you get the idea. (The Mormon Church tries to say that they do this, it is a lie, they are, I think, the fourth richest company in the US, if churches were listed in those rankings. With associates intentionally placed in high ranking political positions, both locally and nationally. As opposite from that ideal as you can get).
Also... if that were true, there would be no dogma, especially stuff like some guy in Europe decides to make-up the rapture and everyone buys it. All the descendants of Calvinism with their Dooms Day shit (Though Watchtower is a blast to read) that never comes to pass and takes the focus off of the word.
It is all smoke and mirrors to INTENTIONALLY take the focus off of your personal relationship with your Savior and God so you are dependent/addicted to the fear/salvation cycle that they get you hooked-on.
The pay off is as much as you will shell out to keep from going to hell. I have never met a preacher in a poor neighborhood that did not live twice as well as his flock, & I have known a lot of them and am related to two.

These snake-oil salesmen prey on the fact that it IS scary that your fate is in your hands alone, that you don't have any talismans or magic yellow brick roads laid-out in front of you..."Don't go astray or you will go to hellllllll!"
It is very easy to fall for that comfort, "perhaps they do know what God wants from me and all I have to do is accept their interpretation of the Bible (even though they do not have a thorough understanding of the historical time period in which it is referring to and they always interpret what it says in today's social framework), that way I don't have to feel like I alone in this."
But, they are not if they truly have faith, God is always with them and their heart really, TRULY, knows what is right, what path to take... that is what meditation and prayer are for. If you believe you know that you have a part of God in you... that will show you the way if you learn how to listen to it, really listen with the Word of Jesus as a guide.
Having a supportive community, there to help you as fellow faithful and one that preys on the insecurity of that relationship in a position of authority and dogma, teaching "Us-&-Them", the farthest thing from anything Christ ever stated, are two different things.... I have yet to find the first.
You just can’t put an individual in a position of power like that, especially one that makes people so vulnerable.
Pride is our one great weakness, that pathway to sin that is greased with our most basic animal urges. All of the Seven Deadlies (though not Biblical) are all sins of Pride, in one form or another.
To place an individual where their ego is between the faithful and God is just so much temptation that one cannot expect that most will succumb to some form of pride…
The solution, there is no one individual that is the interpreter, the authority, the final word on the Word but what you know in your heart to be true and right based on the teachings of Christ (not the OT). If a group forms, it is just that…. A GROUP, all equal in discussion and discourse for the purpose of spiritual kinship and learning, never authority, profit, regulation; or, especially, dogma.

Selective hearing and willful ignorance, many times. Perhaps the unwillingness to expand the discussion beyond the framework of one's prejudices. Both sides can be guilty of this, but I make every effort not to be.

There is a point beyond which there are no further points to be made, though -- that's often misconstrued as victory or defeat for one side of the argument or the other. For me, that point in the argument is: "Do you believe Jesus said this, and if so, was he truthful?" One can manufacture all kinds of reasoning that skirts that question or attempts to apply hidden meaning to his words, or tries to dilute them with modern sensibilities. But if I have a cop-out, that's it: At some point, you have to argue with Christ, not with me. I can't make his arguments as eloquently as he can, and I can't explain the things that he didn't explain himself. Otherwise, I'd have my own bible. I haven't fulfilled many 700 year old prophecies lately, though.

I have nothing to argue with Christ about. I agree with everything he said.

You have just outlined why the first in line for judgement will be the "false prophets" a.k.a most televangelist types.

This was before Benny Hinn. This was within 50 years of the death of Jesus.

Regardless of when and under what context, that scripture describes an inevitable aspect of human nature.

This is why the Thomas books were not included in the Nicene Creed. IMO, that it has to to with the divinity of Christ is BS. There are other references in included text to Christ as a man.
The reason was all the referenced to the individual relationship between the individual and God and how all people are to be lead to God, not just a select few or ANY form of specific inclusion.
Really, this is the core of what pissed-off the Jewish authorities. His teaching that they were not special.
The Gospel, on many levels, threatens the Church's role in faith, Paul's legacy, and the true nature of Christ in the Church's view (it must remain as unattainable as possible to keep the rubes payin'-up and the butts in the pews).

Exactly. And even when the memory of Jesus being alive on earth was still fresh, people were trying to get rich off his religion. But this wasn't a condemnation of the faith then, nor is it now. It's a warning to Christiansagainst those who warp faith for their own greed. It's a condemnation from within the church itself, to the church, and not published for view by outside eyes against falsehood. That disproves the assertion that televangelists, et al, are representative of the faith.

By the time we get to Constantinople, the message is already being diluted, and confusion is already setting in because church leaders are already "forgetting where they came from" so to speak. Paul was a well-respected leader in the Jewish community who himself sought out and killed members of this dangerous new sect of Jesus-followers. After his conversion, he continued to follow Jewish law, although he believed that Jesus had eliminated the need for it. He did it so as not to become a stumbling block (his words) for those who followed it themselves. He considered himself a "Jew's Jew" throughout his ministry.

The passage you're referring to does not have anything to do with the divinity of Christ in and of itself, nor was I intending to purport it as doing so. TBH, I'm having a little trouble parsing your post. What are you getting at?

I did wander....
Basically, IMO, the text was removed because it speaks the most about the personal relationship between the individual and God.
Not what most scholars mouth, that it discussed Christ's manhood (as they were deciding on his divinity at Nicene), because other texts that made it in also mentioned his human side.
The text undermines the foundation of the Church, that people NEED it to get to God.
Ironically, it has the most verifiable direct quotations of His from a reliable source than any other text.

Any of these facts don't appease the argumentative.
 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn1.htm


Range of definitions of "Christian:"

There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`ân). Different people have defined a "Christian" as a person who has:
Heard the Gospel in a certain way, and accepted its message, or
Become "saved" -- i.e. they have trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior), or
Been baptized as an infant, or
Gone to church regularly, or
Recited and agreed with a specific church creed or creeds, or
Simply tried to understand and follow Jesus' teachings, or
Led a decent life.

Following these different definitions, the percentage of North American adults who are Christians currently ranges from less than 1% to about 75%.

Within a given denomination or wing of Christianity, there is usually a consensus about who is a Christian, and who is not. However, there is often little agreement among members of different faith groups on a common definition of "Christianity."

What people can agree on, and what they cannot:

With a bit of effort, one can sometimes collect a random group of adults and have them reach a consensus on a definition of: Who is an Evangelical Christian, or
Who is a Roman Catholic, or
Who is an Eastern Orthodox believer, or
Who follows the Historical Protestant faith, or
Who is a Pentecostal, or
Who is a Mormon, or
Who is a Jehovah's Witness,
etc.


But it is probably impossible to have any large group of adults reach a consensus on precisely who is a "Christian," and who is not.



Problems arising from exclusion and inclusion:

This web site uses an inclusive definition of Christianity -- the same one that is used by public opinion polls and government census offices: Anyone who seriously, thoughtfully, sincerely, prayerfully considers themselves to be a Christian is considered a Christian for the purpose of our essays.

The alternative is religious exclusion.


The percentage of persons who identify themselves as Christian, currently about 75%, is dropping almost one percentage point per year.


What is interesing about the last bold quote is America is becomming polarized in 'pockets' of Christianity. Typically republican states who the republican party pander too.
btw....which I find interesting

What's wrong with that? Isn't that the point of religious difference to begin with, to provide some defining characteristics that separate you from the fellah living alone over the next hill who offers beer libations to trees, and the folks over on that island who face East five times a day and pray to their God-concept?

There's nothing wrong with that - except that lots of people who belong to any particular religion think eveyone else should belong to, or at least respect, their religion. That alone is annoying at best - but in this age of nucular weapons and airplanes, its become downright scary.

Nothing, religions exclude all the time. It was an emphasis about the article itself.
The article included all people who from the original list who thought of themselves to be Christian otherwise it would be exclusion of which for the most part the opinion polls are not biased toward.

By putting yourself in the place of judge "They are ok with God while Those people are not..." you elevate yourself above others. Placing yourself in the place of God.
Not your place.
When you are perfect, then you can do it... until then, shut-up and work on your own shit.

And thats the mistake that many many Christians make. They think oh I'm doing x y and staying away from z to get into heaven yayz!!1!, and you aren't so you're doomed to hell you evil person you. When in fact we are not the ones who decide what happens or where we go or whatever. It is truly not our place to judge or make claims to anyone's destination inside or outside our faith. And in my opinion, just like you said rk, those who do need to shut up and focus on other things.

I am not sure to whom this was addressed. I have to change the 'yourself' to all' institutions of religions' in order to try and put in in the context of my post.

People define themselves by the contraints of thier religion. So when you use the personal 'yourself' as judge I get confused because I was talking about 'religion' as a whole. The original article I refered to did not exclude for purposes of not getting on tangents like this.

I guess I don't know what you are talking about.


But it is probably impossible to have any large group of adults reach a consensus on precisely who is a "Christian," and who is not.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn1.htm

& they don't need to... that is not the point. It is a personal relationship, not a group effort.

A group effort to find a group consensus on what a christain is. Point of this thread.

end of story. Im done with this [edit] flim-flamery.:rolleyes: