What is it to be Christian ?
 

I am a Christian .

you're also an asshole. are these things related?

:haha:

Just because you say you are, doesn't make it so.

Claiming you belong to a certain religious sect is meaningless unless you behave in accordance with the actions expected of such members as taught by the religious leaders of said organization.

I know 'muslims' who do not pray 6 times a day and who scarf porkchops. I know 'christians' who are judgemental, hypocritical, and abusive. I know 'catholics' who do not go to confession or who have been divorced.

Actions speak louder than words.

Stormie

I think that the only common thread among all Christians is the belief that Jesus is on a supernatural level above prophet.

I wonder if that common thread could be defined simply as: believing in the message of Jesus?
That would shift the question of supernatural status to the level personal interpretation.

just say no to spam and trolls

More than that, he's the son of God, and he offered himself as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sin. The important distinction is the oneness with God himself.

is he the son of god, or god, or both?

I don't think all Christian sects agree on that. Mormons certainly don't. Though I don't disagree that many sects who do agree with that would say that those that don't aren't real Christians.

Trinity: Son, Father, Holy Ghost

Holy Ghost: The spirit of God that lives within you.
Father: The being in which the holy power is derived or contained.
Son: The sacrifice that opened the connection between humans and the Father.
That the best explanation I know, but they are all three are really one, they are just seperated to show different purposes.

Of the three parts of the Trinity, which one did the "Intelligent Designing" of biological mechanisms?

I thought Jesus and the Holy Spirit acted as the agents of the power of which the Father is a vessel.

Well, that's helpful. :eyebrow:

Christianity for the Complete Idiot:

As a child, I was forced to make quite the study of Christian theology, and IMO, all Christians believe in original sin (cuz your parents had to do the nasty to conceive you). Christians believe that God sent his son, Jesus to save mankind from the consequences of being born in original sin, and, finally you must be baptized and take Jesus as your savior, otherwise you could get a spanking after you die.

There are eleventy zillion Christian sects who argue the finer points of these details, and each sect is the only true one.

The end.

Original Sin:
Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.

Also: Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan's temptation.

/shrug, does it really matter? doesn't to me. that is just my view of the trinity. the trinity isn't that important to me seeing as how all three are really one anyway and i'm not christian.

@morethanpretty: I'm just exploring the idea here, if one has the Trinity concept in one hand, and Intelligent Design in the other, and they don't fit together well, then that indicates a problem with one or both. Standard rebuttal: "logic doesn't apply to some things" . . .

Right. Logic doesn't apply to things that are rubbish.

marichiko, being baptized has nothing to do with being saved. It's a public ritual that shows others that you have accepted Christ. Original sin is the natural state of humanity, and has nothing to do with the fact that you were conceived via sex. :lol: Only a handful of sects believe that all the members of the others are going to hell. If you believe Jesus is the son of God and that his death pays for your sin, you're a Christian.

When you start getting humans monkeying around with the original message, that's where trouble starts. Catholics say you have to go through a priest to talk to God. Mormons say that God is just a man who's reached a higher plane of existence. Lutherans sprinkle, Baptists dunk, Assembly of God gets hung up on prophecy, faith healing, and speaking in tongues. Some of that stuff is not critical to what they believe re: Christ and salvation. Some of it is. But belonging to one denomination or the other isn't what defines your relationship with God. Being "a good Catholic" is not the same thing as following Christ, although millions use it as a substitute. One branch of the Church of Christ doesn't allow musical instruments in church, and doesn't allow women to wear pants. That has nothing to do with the message of Christ.

There are a lot of people who were raised in religion, but never got around to the actual point of Christ. Religion is a minefield of bad doctrine, legalistic but empty regulations, and self-proclaimed experts. That's what happens whenever you get a bunch of people together -- they want to organize things and micromanage each other.

It's not about religion though. It's about the message of Christ. People should examine what Christ said and did, and decide his validity based on that alone, not on the actions of a bunch of flawed men and women. Christianity is a personal experience. Fellowship and friendship with other Christians is how we strengthen our own faith, hold each other accountable, and help each other through tough times. Unfortunately, "religion" often results.


Flint -- I don't think that the concept of the trinity and the concept of ID have much of anything to do with one another. I'm not much of a biblical scholar, but I think the whole trinity thing is from Catholicism. I'm not convinced that it's anywhere in scripture. I realize you're not really asking, just taking shots, but you should know that it's possible that if there is a God, he might be smarter than you. He might even be capable of doing things that you can't explain. Just saying.

:lol:
You'd think, wouldn't you?

Go in peace to love and serve the lord...

No, I really am asking, not taking shots. If a theoretical person (whoever this may be) believes in the Trinity and they also believe in ID, how would that work? I ask because the way I manage my belief system is by hashing things against one another to find discrepancies, which in turn indicate a resolution is required in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.

I guarantee there are forces at work that it is literally impossible for me to ever understand, but, as far as my personal understanding goes, I want to make sure I at least agree with myself.

M. Noodle...the Trinity originated in Catholism when Constantine was the Roman Emperor. He legalize Christianity and held two councils to determine what the basic beliefs of Christanity were. It was decided that Jesus resurected from the dead, Mary was a virgin, and the Trinity was established. The first two are in the Bible but I have never found direct evidence of the Trinity in the Bible, I think perhaps they were tryin to explain how you could have God and the Son of God and they both be God. BTW awesome explanation, reminds me why I love Jesus but hate modern 'christians'.
Flint...Its not a puzzle, there are no "pieces" or comprehesible picture in the end. You don't have to accept the Trinity, and I don't think that it is meant to describe the entire being of God. You have to remember that God is omnisecent, so He doesn't fit within the boundaries we humans place Him in. We place those boundaries so that we are better able to comprehend Him.

I don't see why they are mutually exclusive. If God is all powerful, all things become possible. Trying to figure out "which member of the trinity did the creating" is based on a human construct of the trinity. We think in terms of easily separated, individual parts, or three ingredients of a whole. God's paradigm is likely to be infinitely more complex and/or more simple than our crude attempts at categorizing.

the thing that you have to account for is that human understanding cannot grasp -- or possibly even envision -- the magnitude of God. Even to say that God is in "everything" limits him to the "everything" that we can imagine.

So the issue isn't really the trinity vs. ID. It's whether or not God is God.

edit: morethanpretty beat me, and said it more concisely

I believe that our philosophy, for what it's worth, should be coherent. It isn't intended as a complete description of reality, but it should be neatly self-contained at a bare minimum. If the boundaries we place, to aid in comprehension, are incongruous, we haven't done ourselves any favors.

Correct. I am asking specifically about human constructs.
That's an interesting issue, but it's not the issue I'm addressing.

It's the answer to your question, actually. Here's the original:
The answer is that God designed biological mechanisms. "The trinity" is a crude, probably inaccurate reflection of the vast complexity of God. The answer that you're looking for is "the father", but it's not exactly accurate.

Again, this is a crude example. If I asked what held the hammer that pounded in the nail, the answer is, simultaneously:

a person
a carpenter
a hand
a glove
5 fingers
a man (or woman)
Bob (or whatever name is accurate)

Each of these has a different definition, but they're all part of the same. Also, you are probably not asking about a single nail, but about the building itself. Or maybe the entire city. So the answer then expands to include the architect, the planner, the government. Every question you answer reveals a wider scope and changes the question subtly.

God is God. He is the answer to all of the questions. That is, of course, absolute nonsense if it's approached from a direction that, being human, is inherently flawed.

So would you say that the attempt to hash the concepts of ID and the Trinity together has revealed that the Trinity is the faulty concept?
This is exactly how a productive resolution of cognitive dissonance between man-made philosophical constructs is supposed to work.

Any attempt to cram God into manmade limitations is faulty. But I'm still not sure why the Trinity and ID must be mutually exclusive.

I agree, and I'm not picky about where I apply that. (Bible, I'm looking at you...)

I'm not sure they are, but I've never heard an explanation of how they relate to one another.

Ahh, but there's a difference between the bible and selfmade philosophies. The bible is a collection of writings that spans many hundreds of years and purports to be the inspired word of God. People have been tortured and killed for even possessing it. Horrible things have been done in its name, but those things directly contradict the message contained within.

There are older documents and there are other documents that have been the basis for religions. But nothing else has had the longevity and impact combined. In the absence of any quantitative "proof" of God, the fact that so many people have tried to stifle the gospel over the last 2,000 years and failed so miserably to stop its spread is evidence that the message in it contains real power. I hardly think that so many authors over so many centuries could have successfully pulled off a hoax of that magnitude. In the end, the only thing that proves the scripture is itself, and the impact that it has on individuals.

As far as how the Trinity and ID relate to each other, I don't know if they do, or how. I don't know of anything in either concept that precludes the other, nor that proves the other.

What you've said is exactly what most organized religions claim.
And it perpetuates a situation where they are always trying to kill each other.

People who pervert and twist their religion for some sort of benefit to themselves are the ones who are always trying to kill others.

With the support of the "moderates" who give them a legitimate platform and foot the bill. - jinx

Oh yeah, I forgot about my donation to the Lebanese Forces last month :rolleyes:

What I've said is in the bible. People who kill in the name of God are not following Christ. End of point.

Really.

NOTHING in the gospel of Christ perpetuates war among humans. Not a single word.

There's no more to be said about it.

Whenever anyone gets to the point that they have nowhere to look but at the pure doctrine itself, they get nervous and start shotgunning out the atheist talking points about the crusades, witch burning, and all that. Christ forgave. Every time, no matter what was done. That was his example. When confronted with the person of Satan himself, Christ simply resisted. In fact, his peaceful nature is the reason why the Jews didn't believe he was Messiah. They were looking for a Mohammedlike military leader.

And what I said is not said by any other religion. There are messianic figures in several. Lots of origin stories, etc. But only one offers a 1-to-1 relationship with the creator of the universe, without intermediary, without limit, without strings.

I suppose that Americans have heard of metaphors ?

While Christ was remarkably peaceable, he was no pacifist. It's clear He knew perfectly well what He was doing would make serious trouble, and it's evident He thought it worth that trouble; for instance see Luke 21:5-10 and other verses. Luke 22:36 also: "Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." (RSV) -- though here the context seems more one of armed self defense, with an aside glance at what a sword was going for in the Palestine army-surplus market. And there's Matthew 10:34: "I have not come to bring peace but a sword."

History tells us none of this was exactly metaphorical, but about as bloody a reality as anyone would care to, uh, enjoy. It works as a metaphor, and as well as history.

Give me ONE example of Jesus fighting and drawing blood .

Chucking the traders from the temple doesn't count .

The sword he speaks of is that of a divide. The division of people that follow him, and those that do not. In the end there are only two sides, two camps, just as when a sword cuts it is a clean dividing cut with a clear picture of both halves.

Judas followed him, but did not, all at the same time. Where is the clear divide there?

It does too, bloody or not, and I shall not accept arbitrary bullshit from you or anyone. The scene is hardly imaginable without at least one skinned knee. NOT the action of a pacifist. Understandable as the action of one driven by a necessity.

Bullitt, I'd say it's a mistake to insist that this is solely metaphor. I think that does violence to history -- a vandalizing of the Big Picture, as it were (metaphorically illustrating history, yes).

Interesting that the only time he went past words was to separate religion and commerce...

I didn't mean to paint it as soley a metaphor, but I think that part was the majority of his message there. That the people of this world will be greatly divided because of this one man's life and actions. We are each responsible to make our own choice of which side of the divide we are to be on.

Part of the reason that I hate "Christian" music.. rap and rock and whatever. In the end it is people making more than a living off their supposed worship of God. It is disgusting to me.

That is a Christian... a follower of Christ does their VERY BEST to live by his teachings. A very different person all together.
One is the politics of faith, the other is a faithful.

Jesus' word is very clear on many things, but in the US you will find the worst hypocrisy on many levels... most "pro-livers" will line up howling for blood ready to cast that first stone every time there is an execution because they just love to support and sanction state murder. A clear hypocrisy of many of Christ's teachings... but they will always cite the OT, just like with homosexuality, an abomination, not even a sin, same as eating shrimp, wearing a polyester/cotton blend shirt or planting peas and corn in the same field.
But, they will wash their car on Saturday, the sabbath, a MORTAL SIN, every damn weekend, without blinking an eye even though Christ clearly stated to obey the Commandments.
I think it's cute, it shows where the priorities clearly lay.

Urbane Guerilla , you know how to make me smile . I bet there was more than one skinned knee when Jesus told his overly-serious disciples to let the children come to him .

You know what bugs the hell out of me? This statement is really, really bad analysis of both the bible, and of the theology that comes out of it. But you won't waste 3 minutes of honest-to-god attention to unravel any of it, because the conclusion you've already come to fits too well with your existing view of the world. Let's start with just this:

!) There are many pro-lifers who are ardently anti-death penalty. You just don't want to see them, because they don't fit your conception of how things are.

2) The injunctions against homosexuality aren't limited to the Old Testament, they are repeated in the New Testament. And just what do you think "abomination" means, that it's somehow a separate category from "sin"?

3) The command to obey the Sabbath was specifically, emphatically overturned by Jesus.

I'm so f*%king tired of being lectured in biblical exegesis by hacks and drive-bys.

Citations? References?

RK probably sees anti-choice and pro-death penalty linked because they are both supported by conservative repubicans.

Hey, if you are anti-abortion and anti-death penalty you are truly pro-life, no sweat.
The reference in Romans was specifically referring to the OT and it is still an abomination and not a sin. Yes, an abomination is separate from sin... I learned that in seminary prep in college, it is pretty basic stuff. I am not a hack. Do you think eating shrimp is a sin? Being in the same house with your wife during her time of the month? Boy, we sure have a lot of stoning to do!
I was not lecturing you or anyone else... I don't know you... who the hell are you? I was addressing common conceptions and nothing else.
If you are so tired of it, leave it alone.

smoothmoniker will pwn you on this. He is better than me at explaining the faith, and from what I can tell, he is much better at walking the walk as well. If he wants to weigh in, and you actually listen to him, you might lurn somethin.

no pressure, sm.

Skeptics annotated bible says in 1 Corinthians 6 says 6:9-10 means
6:9-10:
Nor effeminate? Not only are the homosexuals banned from heaven, but the metrosexuals as well! Pretty harsh.

In that case, nice goin Nood, with your manly approach you are certain to make it.

Oh... it "mean" that in their "translation" does it?

The NIV, that tract, says a lot too.

You cherry pick out the homosexual reference, but that list included more. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" is important, yes. But so is this passage from Romans (which quotes Psalms), written by the same author (I think).

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."

So, although single verses throughout the Bible make convenient strawmen for people to attack faith, it's important to get the whole picture.

edit: also, Galatians 3:10-12

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."

Edit 2:

Thanks for your vote of confidence, btw. But my sins are pretty obvious to anyone, as are everyone else's, and "being manly" isn't going to erase them. It's not the point.

I'm not entirely sure that anything is macho enough to erase the fact that there is a mrnoodle/Ann Coulter fetish pic on the internet.

And you said she liked it.

She didn't try to stop me.

Personally, I don't think anyone's going to heaven.

I smell a new tag line - The Cellar - This ain't the way to Heaven

Unless you're planning a trip to Australia of course. :)

You haven't understood my point: any "one true book" claim facilitates something that is worth dying for, worth killing for. See: history of mankind.