What is a True Christian?

This has come up again and again, and always in the same pattern - if someone disagrees with creationism or another fundamentalist position, then they are not 'true Christians'. Here's a small example from the Religious Rights thread, from Willowtree:

quote:

---

quote:

---

IrishRockhound quote:
Turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour; the whole message of peace and love preached by your Messiah

---

​

You think you know what this means Hound ? You think you can hijack scripture which you don't believe in and use it against me ? Why don't you dazzle me with your Biblical exegesis and break down this verse and the truths contained therein ?

​

You wouldn't know a true christian if you had a gun to your head. Your view of a true christian makes them past muster with your subjective opinion/Satan's world frame.

​

Hound, I am intensely waiting to read your explanation of the Sermon on the Mount AND its interpretation.

---

I'm tired of hearing this kind of crap. I have lived in a Catholic country all my life (I WAS one up to the age of 14), and yet I don't know what a 'true Christian' is. Considering WT's recent behaviour in the same thread, I contend that they are not worthy of the same title on the basis that they preach a message totally in conflict to the message of Christ. I know exactly what his message is - I learned it in my youth and I keep getting reminded by other Christians on the boards (thank you Buz) - and as far as I know his MESSAGE is important, not the words of the bible. Unless, of course, you worship a book and not God.So, I wish to know what exactly a true Christian is, according to the Christians on this board. I also want to know if WT fits any of the descriptions, given that their posts on the other threads seem to consist of nothing but hate filled ranting.If the Admin won't allow this topic I'll gladly remove all mention of WT and we can discuss what is a true Christian alone.The Rock Hound

I'm sorry about the late reply; I was sick over the last few days...Ok. As requested, this topic will discuss the definition of a 'true Christian' and nothing else. If the Admin wants to, they cam remove all reference to WillowTree in the title (although I would ask that they leave the original post as it is).The general idea seems to be that, for Christian fundamentalists, anyone who does not agree with their interpretation of the bible or creationism is 'not a true Christian'. This has come up in several threads, usually in relation to theistic evolutionists. In order to clarify for everyone interested, I believe that some kind of definition would be helpful (and could possibly prevent inadvertant insults).So, some questions to start with:What is actually necessary to be a true Christian?
- belief in bible inerrancy?
- belief in creationism?
- regular Church-going habits?
- regular prayer?
- use of the bible as a moral guide?
- belief in the core message of Jesus Christ?Who gets to decide who is and who isn't, and how relevent is their opinion?- the Pope?
- Christian fundamentalists?
- majority decision by ordinary Christians?
- just the person in question?
- non-Christians who are familiar with Christians?Of course, this leads to the question of whether someone who decides to go on a killing spree for God after reading the Old Testament is a 'true Christian'.Any more elaboration needed?The Rock Hound

So are they both tue Christians or what? How much does a Christian have to believe the bible before they are considered a true Christian? Do they have to only believe in the bible, or actually follow all or some of its teachings?This is a desperately vague subject - I've seen fundies throw around the definition lightly without having it explained properly. What can we all agree is absolutely necessary to be a true Christian? The general consensus is that only a belief in Jesus is necessary - which of course makes Hitler and any number of other madmen 'true' Christians.Anyway this topic naturally leads to this question - if someone displays characteristics that are inconsistant with our definition, are they not true Christians, and are we allowed to call them as such?The Rock Hound

I'm sorry I took so long to get back to this but you guys post so much in only a day or so... I'd like to respond to one of WillowTree's earlier posts, but seeing as the topic has moved on since then, I'll include it in this response instead.

quote:

---

Rockhound quote:
______________________________________________________________________
This has come up again and again, and always in the same pattern - if someone disagrees with creationism or another fundamentalist position, then they are not 'true Christians'
______________________________________________________________________
Not true.

​

You most certainly can disagree, and you most certainly should be able to disagree without someone changing the subject and accusing you of not being a "true christian".

---

This was in no way directed at you personally. I post on another forum of the same vein as EvC, and I have seen this pattern there a few times now. I was merely speaking from experience.

quote:

---

The only problem was that YOU wrote a post that said my position cannot be the position of a true christian BECAUSE in your view I was not "turning the other cheek.....loving my neighbor".

---

I was expressing my opinion. Surely I am allowed to do this? I read your posts and, in my opinion, the views you expressed were distinctly intolerant and hateful towards non-Christians. As I am a non-Christian, I decided to point this out. Also, as the basic principle of the teachings of Christ is to love rather than hate, I concluded that you were not truly following those teachings, and stated as such

quote:

---

You are perfectly representative of the world at large that believes the Sermon on the Mount and complying with its directives is the goal for christians.

​

The Sermon on the Mount:

​

NOBODY can keep the precepts and laws contained therein. It is a sledgehammer intended to show everyone that they cannot do it. Jesus said if you even DESIRE to sin, in God's eyes you are guilty as if you did it.

​

Jesus changed the Law to a even more impossible standard - a standard that only Jesus would fulfill and keep. Nobody can love their enemy, nobody can refrain from lusting in their heart, nobody can cease from hating - ONLY Jesus could. He preached all these things so we would come to the conclusion that we CANNOT live up to this Divine standard.

​

This Sermon was shoes that only Jesus could fill - the Law Incarnate.
When He fulfilled the Law God crucified Him thus killing the impossible standard that mankind could not keep.

​

The purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is to make mankind conclude that they cannot do it, it is intended to drive them to the GOSPEL, which is the only other God ordained alternative, something we can do.

​

The Sermon on the Mount's purpose is to scare the hell out of you and drive you to the gospel (way of faith) as the only other way to relate to God through the risen Christ.

---

WT, as a non-Christian, I don't know and don't care about the Sermon on the Mount. So saying that I believe anything about it is largely irrelevent.

quote:

---

Does this mean we can sin ? I didn't say that. Remaining in sins is not an alternative. The gospel embraced will have God free you from your sinning nature as we pursue the gospel/faith.

---

Again, irrelevent to a non-Christian.

quote:

---

Rockhound wants to ignore my pointy points and lump it all to be hate filled ranting. Then he asserts himself superior and justifies it with a pea brained citing of scripture.

---

I simply stated that Christ taught to love rather than hate, the whole "love thy neighbour" thing. Am I wrong? Is that not the basic message? Christians like you tell me that it is all the time, usually when trying to convert me.

quote:

---

YOUR lifelong understanding of the Sermon is error !

---

Irrelevent.

quote:

---

The goal is not imitation through carnal discipline, rather, spiritual fruition via the power of the gospel.

​

I hate the destruction of the Constitution by persons who have successfully changed original intent. In my opinion every true christian should hate that too.

---

That is, of course, your opinion. As it is off-topic I will refrain from commenting.

quote:

---

If you say you don't hate then you are a liar. Everyone hates.

---

I never said that; please do not misrepresent me. My post was entirely in reference to you, if I remember correctly.

quote:

---

A true christian is hated by the world because Jesus said a servant is no different from his master. They hated Jesus - they will hate you too.

​

Whats a true christian ?

​

Paul the Apostle.

​

If your christianity doesn't cause a riot - then you are a luke warm compromiser who cares more about the praise of men than of God.

---

Also irrelevent to a non-Christian.

quote:

---

I really don't care what non christians think of me, but if any god damn fundementalist says one critical word about me then I will PROVE from scripture that YOU are the worst piece of God damn shit on the face of the Earth.

---

Then you will not care what I think of you. I should probably point out that insults and cursing are not very Christian-like either. (I was a Catholic once, so I do remember something about how it goes.)Anyway, on to the actual topic...

quote:

---

Presently, I am containing an inner rage against fundementalist christians. They are to blame for misrepresenting God and the message of the N.T.

---

Here we are in agreement - I also think that fundamentalist Christians misrepresent the message of the New Testament. I sometimes feel that they missed the point of it all, but mostly they just scare me.The Rock Hound

RiverRat, please don't get into the whole 'revealed truth' thing here - we'll be debating for years if we do. What if the truth was revealed to someone, but they decided that it was from something other than god? What if the truth was revealed to someone, and they thought it was a pack of lies?The problem with that is that it's too subjective to be useful in a definition. However, 'reading the bible to find out what a true Christian is' may be more useful - are there any passages in particular you could point us at?The Rock Hound

Hmm... Ok then. I declare the first requirement of a 'true' Christian to be this:A belief in Jesus Christ as the divine Messiah.That sound good to everyone? Now, do we need any other more specific requirements?(BTW thanks for the feedback RiverRat)

Er... no. That's not entirely correct. Unseul is actually right in his description - you seem to be presenting the conventional Christian view of Satanism.From religioustolerance.org:

quote:

---

"Various meanings of "Satanism:"
When people think of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and many other religions, they have at least a general idea of what the religion involves. "Satanism" is an exception. In North America, many people use it as a general-purpose religious "snarl" word. Others consider a wide variety of beliefs and practices as Satanism.

​

Most religious historians, mainline Christians, liberal Christians, etc., view Satanism as Satanists themselves do: as a very small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies. There are perhaps ten thousand Satanists in North America. By far the largest Satanic organization is the Church of Satan. Accurate membership numbers are quite impossible to estimate.

---

Specifically from fundie Christians:

quote:

---

Conservative Christians generally believe that there are only two powerful supernatural forces in the world: their God and Satan. A few of them believe that if a person does not worship their God and hold their beliefs, then they must be worshiping Satan. The latter are, by definition, Satanists. Thus, they view all religions different from their own to be are forms of Satanism. This would include established world religions from Buddhism to Zoroastrianism, and might even include liberal and some mainline Christians. Satanists would then make up in excess of 90% of the world's population -- i.e. everyone who is not a conservative Christian. Using this definition, the term "Satanism" becomes almost meaningless.

---

Satanism is no more evil or twisted than any other alternative religion - except it tends to get really terrible PR.

quote:

---

IMO the statement has nothing at all to do with whether one has accepted Christ or not.

---

Well, it serves as a starting point at least. Of course, this does not naturally mean that someone shows 'Christian-like' behaviour.So, to be a true Christian, you must not only believe in Christ as the divine Messiah; a certain standard of behaviour is also required. Otherwise Hitler and other madmen of his caliber can be called true Christians.What standard of behaviour must be adhered to?The Rock Hound

Gilgamesh, RiverRat - let's try to stay on topic here. If you want to discuss religious beliefs I'm sure the Admin will open another thread for you.I really think we need to get this resolved. We are limited to two choices - not using the term 'true Christian' because it's so vague (not likely), or settling on a definition that is in some way consistent.

RiverRat, I'm not a Christian and I don't own a bible, so quoting verses at me is just a little pointless.