What Is A Christian (Remix)

We were talking about different things. I knew it! At first read, I thought the OP was talking about the opposite of that.I still think that might be what Phat intended. But I could be wrong.Take a look at Message 44:

quote:

---

...if you said that you were a Christian but you don't believe and follow Jesus. Then I would say Nuh-uh. Or if you said that you don't think that Jesus was God's son. Or if you thought that Jesus never existed.

I agree with you. Anyone may be able to make it into heaven by doing the good philosophies of the tales told round the campfire, but to be a Christian, you need to relate to Christ IMHO.

---

It seems Phat is not talking about who is a christian, in the sense of who is saved, but who is a Christian in the sense of who should be called a Christian.

i am well aware. however, very many of them seem to think they own the rule book. i think we're walking in circles. isn't the saving the purpose of the label? you know, so we know who's going to hell or not? (not that *i* care, but it seems to be a popular point of discussion. again, i think the status with god determines who is a christian. and determining who they are doesn't affect or shouldn't affect your relations with them in any way. since it shouldn't affect your relations with them, it shouldn't matter. i think it would be easily enough decided to exclude anyone who claims a different title. i think this idea is unnecessarily paranoid. what purpose would one have in pretending to be a christian? unless you treat your christians and your non-christians differently. i think the best knowledge we have is claim. even if someone is not like christ but claims to be a christian, they can be. people are flawed, that's what jesus was for. maybe his path is harder than yours. but. i really think it's unnecessary and all too divisive to waste time sitting around pontificating on who's a christian and who isn't.

Phat said, "... to be a Christian, you need to relate to Christ IMHO."What I've been saying is that "relating to Christ" means doing like Christ, not saying, "I relate to Christ."(Phat might not have meant that, exactly - but he will by the time I get through with him. )

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So, a person who is recognized by a Christian Church and who subscribes to the bylaws of the club and identifies him or herself as a club member is a Christian?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As Ray says Phat, there were no rant. Rant involves expression of anger, hatred, frustration and none of these emotions where present when I wrote what I wrote. Jar does what Jar does and it's as plain as the nose on my face. I would not go so far as Ray and imply that Jar is beyond redemption however - he is lost but he can be found (i sincerely hope)Nor would I go so far as Ray and say that you (like Jar) are not saved. I haven't read you enough to comment and what I have read would incline me to think you are indeed saved. Any suspicion I might have to the contrary, would rest not on the fact that you align yourself with evolutionists but more on the fact that you align yourself with atheists (and "double-agents" like Jar).If you are a Christian you should be troubled by the world, be at emnity with the world, feel yourself alien in this world (as a citizen of heaven). You should despise yourself for conforming to the pattern of this world (even if at times you can't help but do so). I don't detect that trouble in you.Instead you seem to want to bed the world. Lie down with all and sundry. Perhaps your gifting is peacemaking (for that runs through all you write). If so it should not be at any cost. If you are a Christian you fight on one side. You can be fair and honourable and decent but a soldier you must be all the same. Not a friend to the enemy{AbE} I should have put it so... Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This topic sure moves fast!

Some people believe that God died for everyone, and that salvation is unearned and not chosen. Others believe that Baptism is a central prerequisite. Still others believe that although God chose all of us, we must respond to His call.

​

Ringo writes:

​

What I've been saying is that "relating to Christ" means doing like Christ, not saying, "I relate to Christ."

so does "doing like Christ" mean praying a large portion of the day?

​

I agree that being Christlike could be done by a Hindu, a Buddhist, or an Atheist.

​

I don't agree that it is irrelevant whether or not Christ even actually lived. The whole idea of God becoming man has enormous implications. To throw that belief away is to reduce God to whatever
philosophical concept one chooses to ascribe to Him.

​

IMB, God is not a product of human definition and wisdom. God exists and permeates our daily lives whether or not we choose to acknowledge Him. (An unsupported assertion, I know! )

​

The issue seems to hinge on whether doing good simply for the sake of doing good carries as much weight with God as the concept of trusting in Him and allowing His Spirit to permeate your daily life.

​

Edited by Phat, : spellcheck-o-rama

My observation was that not all Christians believe that one needs to be saved. Are we to conclude that they are not real Christians by believing in inclusivism?Further, not all denominations of Christianity believe that the Bible is inerrant. Can one side claim the moral high ground in that regard? So who is this enemy?Edited by Phat, : added

Hmmm. Could you name the cult who believes otherwise? The Bible? Could you show me a copy? I mean a copy of the inerrant copy the inerrantists adhere to?The way I see it Phat? My girl has a '96 Ford Fiesta parked outside her house which is having its brake discs replaced tomorrow. Without error is it? No! Does it fulfill all its essential functions (and more) despite this? Yes.Inerrant enough - for those who can discern. For those who cannot there is hope in Jesus Christ. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

What makes you think He did that? I mean, is it in the Bible, or is it just another one of those things that fundies make up to separate Jesus from us? All ideas about God are philosophical concepts that people choose to ascribe to Him. I'm just trying to elevate (not reduce) those ideas above the comedy stylings of the fundamentalists. If we trust in Him and allow His Spirit to permeate our daily lives, what other effect could there be than doing good simply for the sake of doing good?Conversely, if somebody doesn't do good simply for the sake of doing good, how can he be trusting in God? And how can he be allowing God's Spirit to permeate his daily life?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Everyone who is not saved. Jar, Percy, Dr Adequate, Schraf, PaulK, Chiroptera, Larni, Omnivorous...RobinRohan when he was around..etc.People. Plenty of 'emEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Are there going to be warning signs around this "heaven" of yours, so those of us not on your list don't wander in by mistake?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Notice when you ask "So who is this enemy?"iano replies: What a telling response. Enemy!So funny.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What a biblically ignorant response. Tragic.If your wondering whether you are indeed saved Phat (and the saved can well wonder at times) then this exchange might tell you.Which side do you fall on of the two?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Nope, worry not. Never even bother to think about it.As to being saved; in the words of a friend and Priest, "Hell? Oh hell, fuggidabutit!"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

[I recognize the fact that while the post I am responding to was a reply to one of my messages, you are apparently speaking directly to Phat.] I never said any person (much less Jar) was beyond redemption. What I did say was to explain how Jar could think of himself as a Christian while arguing against the Bible like any given Atheist might do.Surely the contradiction is obvious: Jar: "the Bible is mythical and not true in its history or science; but I am still a Christian."Why would anybody be a Christian if the source is completely false?This question is NOT answerable.This is why in my original post in this topic: Message 66 I said that we only need to explain Jar's belief about himself (which I did).As for Phat: he is certainly more "Christian" than Jar. I am not blind to his religious indications, but their are heathen priests in Japan and Haiti that can talk in tongues better than any Pentecostal and they tell you for certain that their source is Satan. We know Charles Darwin feigned Deism after 1836, but he was, in fact, an Atheist. Society is loaded with persons who wear crosses and say Protestant things. The point is that the Bible provides us with ways to determine who is walking with God and who is walking with Satan.The Bible says if the secular world approves of you or the religious status quo then you are walking with Satan. In the Bible, those who walk with God are persecuted by the world and the religious establishment. Since the Atheist-evolutionists of EvC approve of Phat, in this context this evidence tells us that Phat is not walking with God. It is axiomatic: whoever the world approves of is not walking with God - no exceptions. Phat is a Moderator and a evolutionist, he cares more about being liked by the status quo here than the word of God, which he pays lip service to. No matter how you slice it there is something wrong with the Christianity of a person who agrees with Richard Dawkins concerning the origin of mankind. Dawkins believes in human evolution because it flatly contradicts the Bible. The claim is founded on anti-God suppositions that predetermine and guarantee the conclusions, yet Phat, in "love with his Savior," thinks God understands, and has given him an exemption. What makes any person think that God would approve of any person who accepts the presuppositions of Materialism or Naturalism?He does not. God would never contradict His word and say it is okay to exclude Him.This is why I said Jar and Phat, like all TEists, are proof positive for the existence and power of Satan to deceive.Ray