What makes one a Christian?

Post Reply New Topic

Right - that is how we are designed - different instruments which in concert are more than the sum of the parts. Unfortunately, there is a strong temptation - which even I feel but which is most obvious in the pressure toward uniformity of the Organizing classes - to think the sound of one's own instrument is the only fit music.

And of course often and often the organizations reflect the uniformity drive of the Organizers.

The universities have in the past resisted it and may again even though it seems as if the Organizers have a stranglehold.

And organizations of the size and complexity of the Church of Rome and - at least until the great leap in communications - the US - have historically harbored unhomogenized niches.

Doin' the stuff Christ did.

Whether I am a man or women is _defined_ by my genetic makeup. Under this definition putting on a dress and calling myself a woman does not make me a woman.

If you think my objection is unfair, maybe you should think about how to define who is a Muslim, Hindu, or follower of an religion.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3766632.html#3766632

I have not said your objection is unfair. I do say that your understanding definitions are wrong. You have not responded to the second proposition, but we will see what we can do only with the first.

You will be so good as to recognize that I am trying to interact with you as objectively as possible.

I am NOT in a position to define what makes a Hindu a Hindu. I have a pretty good idea of how to define [not always to identify] a woman, an honest person, a Christian, a Muslim, and several other categories.

The woman, as you say we may define on the basis of genetic structure. The issue of whether Leslie is a man trapped in a woman's body, or Pat a woman trapped in a man's body we will not touch. The issue is, is this a man's body or a woman's body, asnd the genes tell us.

For the honest person, the critical question is, does he knowingly proclaim falsehoods? If - having sworn to tell the truth - I say I never entered the bank that was robbed in my life and I was in Fiji at the time, we check it out. If my fingerprints are found in the bank, if the hotel in Fiji where I claim I stayed has no record of me, if three people saw me enter the bank and marked bills are in my wallet, you might agree there is a high probability I am NOT an honest man.

In the case of Christianity and Communism, there are two principle states with corresponding criteria. One may be a member of a Christian organization or a Communist party. Evidence for this may be found in the records of the organization, or in less formal cases it may be enough to show the person regularly attends meetings.

This is the criterion generally applied outside Christianity - probably outside Communism - and by this criterion I am more than happy to stipulate that Hitler and Stalin may be counted as members of Christian organizations.

The other state, however, is that of the person who accepts and follows the essential principles of Communism or Christianity. Jesus at least made it very clear what the criteria are, and states emphatically that one may belong to a Christian organization and not be a Christian in this second sense, and that one may be a Christian in this sense though affiliated with no organization.

I do not doubt that you would find Communists telling you the same - that the (if you ewill permit me to say it) "true Communist:" is defined by principles and and actions, not by membership.

It is this second state that most of those Christ considered Christians define themselves and others. Most of the misunderstanding comes from the failure to recognize that there are two states - simply because the languages does not let us express the diffderence succinctly save by saying "True Communist", "True Scientist:", and the like.

Being male/female is a different issue from being masculine/feminine.

ruveyn

I believe I am Christian only because I was baptized and born to parents who are also Christian. My mother says baptism was something you just did when a kid was born back then, that it was really just more of a social event where friends and family would gather just to see the baby and the parents, not because of its religious meaning or because they were afraid we wouldn't get into heaven if we died young. We never really went to church and my mother said we didn't need to, although I had a friend who came from a large family who told me her mother said it was a sin to not go to church. My mom is Catholic and my dad is Baptist. Before they were married the priest wanted dad to also become Catholic before they married because he thought they wouldn't be happy together if they didn't. But my dad kept his religion and my parents are still married 40 years later. Also my mom only had my brother and me. So she's either gone against her religion
and used birth control or she's only done it twice with Dad our whole lives! I believed in God as a kid I thought as long as I prayed each night that was okay. But when I got older I began to question, especially in the 90's with all the garbage about Y2K. As a young adult my fears and anxieties about the world ending made me miserable. Who wants to believe in a god who wants to kill you and send you to hell because you didn't go to church even though you weren't out murdering, stealing or adultering? And the more I tried to figure out my religion the more confused and anxious I got. Now I'm pretty much back to just not making a big deal about it. Unlike some other people who seem to think people like me must be prostitutes or serial killers!

"A Christian is still a sinner" Well DUH! All human beings are sinners! Human beings can't be perfect, it's impossible. And not all Christians are bigoted Bible-thumpers who go around telling everyone else they're going to hell because they donated one of their organs or "chose" to be gay and the rest of that garbage! I'm half-Catholic and half-Baptist. Guess that makes me a Captist!

And a fork has more points than a knife. Did I miss something that makes this a sequitur?

Believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour and wanting to change for the better. He has helped me change my heart so I care more about the needy instead of being greedy and he is helping me love others more then myself. Not because I am aiming for an reward in Heaven or admittance but because I want a kinder more loving heart. Our religion is about LOVE and kindness.

There have been times my life where I have been very depressed because of bullying about my Aspergers. When I was at my lowest point and got abandoned by everyone else I had a dream of Jesus hugging me. Then I tried to commit suicide another time and I had a dream I was a nurse at a ward that had been given bandages the cover over the hole Jesus had in his heart. So whatever I was going through, Jesus also felt the pain too. As they mocked and isolated me he was there with me through all of it. He put me on his shoulders and carried me through it and if he hadn't of done that I wouldn't be where I am now.

PS. Yes us christians are sinners. We are the worst. Never be fooled to think we are better people. But we rely on God's love in order to make us stronger people and overcomers.

Well said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

thanks

That is just false, especially regarding how these principles are to be applied in real life. As evident by the number of 'Christian' sects. Feel free to argue those pro / anti abortion or stem cell research or the Westboro Church Christian or not. The same is true even in Jesus' time - what Paul wrote in the NT does not represent the view of an overwhelming majority that time.


It is clear that it is your definition that is wrong. This is further highlighted by your failure to apply similar definition to the Hindus.

WHERE did I or anyone say that "an overwhelming majority" of people involved in Christian labelled organizations fit the Christ's definitions? Actuaslly, none of us have access to who does.

WHY do I not "apply the same definitions to Hindus?" Simple. Even as an atheist, I could read what Christ is quoted as saying as to who is / is not a follower of his. It is clearly laid out in material readuily available to anyone who can read any of several hundred languages.

There may be a similar statement [from Vishnu? I would not know] defining a Hindu. If there is, I have never run across it.

I cannot say "a Hindu is someone who does what Vishnu says he oughht to do", because I have no evidence that is true.

Look.

You have made it abundantly clear. If it is not in front of your nose, or does not bite you on the rear, by your standards it does not exist. No god - not my God, not Vishnu - has revealed his presence to you. You are not willing to assume I might have different standards and be sane. So what is to talk?

IF you find a clear statement from a Hindu source on criteria for recognizing a Hindu, do let me know. If you ever feel reasonable, read the gospels far enough to find the stated criteria, and at least you will realize IO am not making that part up.

If you think, some day you may become.

To put in my two cents about Pauline theology differing from what Christ himself had taught; it seems to me that John's Gospel pretty well has Jesus saying very much the same thing as Paul. But while Paul has to go in depth on theological questions, Christ pretty much said the same thing, but in simple, concise language. Also, it should be remembered Paul's letters were written maybe just twenty or thirty years after Christ's time, whereas the Gospels were in fact written down much later, arguably making Paul's theology closer to the time period of the source (namely, Christ).

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

A quote from your guru... do you think he even intends us to use his quote as a way to define whether a third party is a Christian or not? Nevermind how subjective this definition is (and you never object). For the purpose of discussion, such quote is irrelevant.


Since nobody can understand who is a 'real Christian'. the term 'real Christian tm' must be considered another piece of NONSENSE GIBBERISH.

My point is even at that time the followers of Jesus was highly fractured. There was the church at Jerusalem led by James, the Gnostic, and many different Gospels like the Gospel of Thomas. What we have in the modern bible is only part of the story.