What is a 'true Christian'?

I just answered this on the other thread so I'll repeat it here: Jesus kept company with sinners, but sinners all have to give up their sin to be saved, meaning to be a Christian, all sinners, all sin, and He gives the power to do that. I'd call that nice myself. That's what I was talking about in context if anybody cares about context.Christianity is about turning sinners into saints, that means losing your sins. That's what Jesus came to do, that's what He died for.ABE: I'll elaborate:That means prostitutes -- Mary Magdalene gave that up; tax collectors who defrauded the people -- Matthew and Zacchaeus in that case, and Paul gives a long list of sinners in 1 Corinthians 6 that will not inherit the kingdom of God but goes on to say how many of the Christians he was preaching to had once also lived like that, but that when they became followers of Christ they no longer practiced those sins: /ABEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm aware of that myth. It runs into two big problems with reality.Bible means book. Scripture means writing. Both words refer to things that are written down. As the words are used in Judeo-Christian tradition, they refer to certain writings regarded as speaking with divine authority. The collection of all such authoritative writings is a canon.When you talk about 'Bibles' and 'scriptures' in a 'different form' than writing, you are talking nonsense. Bibles and scriptures that are not in written 'form' are not Bibles and scriptures. You are talking about something else.And you know this. You say early Christians would 'have had the opportunity to hear [their teachers] expounding the meanings of the scriptures as any preacher today would.' Indeed. And when your teacher today delivers a sermon expounding from a text, you don't call that sermon 'scripture'. You call it a sermon. The text is scripture.The other problem the myth runs into is the reality of pluralism. Early Christians experienced no shortage of teachers telling them what to do. Plenty of it got written, too. Early Christians had energetic debates, as well they might, about which teachers to listen to and which writings to heed.For anyone in that situation, until consensus exists about what makes the cut and what doesn't.... you don't know. That's the problem with saying a recognised body of writings existed before the formation of a canon. A recognised body of writings is a canon. Before one exists, you don't have one.--You are really telling us that in the place of your not-yet-created Christian scriptures, 'divine authority' spoke through teachers, through speeches they made or through conversations they had, and through other 'forms'. Those other 'forms' are not a Bible, because a Bible is a book form. You can say avenues other than books can serve that same purpose if you want. I know a lot of Catholics who will happily welcome you and your fellow Protestants aboard with that one. But if there are no scriptures, then there aren't.My point stands. One cannot appeal to authoritative 'scriptures' prior to the formation of a canon.Next: we will look at the practical issues of how to circulate a canon, once one is formed, in a pre-Gutenberg age.___

Indeed. The inerrancy creed is a dogma of recent origin. It's mainly an American invention that launched a few years after AT&T.The doctrine of inerrancy was, of course, a reaction by some people to some things other people were doing that they didn't like. Polarisation, once again.___Edited by Archer Opteryx, : tinkering

This was indeed a good topic. We discuss it endlessly here at EvC. Personally I believe that a true Christian has to know Christ. To some, knowing Christ means identifying with the character of Christ and following Him by living a good example. Others would argue that this character is a living Spirit and that simply living with a humanist-altruistic spirit of good works and social activism is not enough. We have brought up the argument that Christianity is about what one does rather than about what one believes. In some ways this makes sense yet in other ways I see a schizm. This does seem to be a popular definition. Thus the question arises: Can someone be a Christian who does not even believe that Jesus existed? In my opinion, if so, they would have to still do as Jesus did---otherwise why even use the label of Christian?Personally I believe that Jesus existed, lived as the accounts in Bible translations say He did, was crucified and that GOD the Creator of all seen and unseen brought Him back to life. I also believe in One Holy Spirit and believe that this is what separates the real from the fake. This is not to say, however, that I am any more real than another and I will confess that I am quite fake at times. Its not about me. Its about Him. I believe that He lives through us. Reality is what it is. I believe that some people pick the wrong battles. If reality told me that I evolved, it would not prevent me from believing that I was created in Gods image and that I was given the gift (and responsibility) of salvation, illumination, and opportunity to try and do the best that I could. I believe that this can and is being done through communion with GOD through Jesus Christ, but this is only a personal belief. Who am I to say an atheist couldn't get it done in a way different from mine? What needs to have consensus is

What needs to be done? Who is qualified to try and do it?

​

Is it important to be in agreement regarding Christ and His finished work? Or is this an individual thing and not meant for social agreement?

​

faceman writes:

​

if Jesus is who He said He was, which is God, then He must be trusted. If He must be trusted, then the word must be trusted, because He also proclaimed Himself to be the Word.

​

If you believe the Bible to be a myth, then you believe Jesus to be a myth.

Perhaps what is important is that we are trusted by others. If GOD exists and is represented by total trust in Him, the important thing is for this to manifest through humanity. Christ=human character perfected by GOD. In my opinion, a true Christian would strive for this ideal. If they happened to be atheist, the goal would be honesty and transparency with others, striving for a character of honor and integrity, and empathy for fellow humans.

---

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo

​

One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo

I recently watched what I thought to be a dynamic Christian movie where a young college student debates his atheist professor. After watching the movie and shedding a few tears, I was curious what an atheist would have thought of the movie---I become better at debate by learning how my ideological opponents think. Anyway, to make a long story short, I began thinking about other ideological concepts and what it mean't---to me---to be a "true" Christian.Make no mistake---in my heart I embrace Tangle as much as I do you and Iano. I dont always like jar, but I DO love him. My point is that a true Christian loves unconditionally. Not simply other Christians.I also believe that any Christian worth their salt has had to undergo persecution and/or suffering. By this, I mean that suffering produces better character..if one knows how to let it. The key, in my mind, is loving Jesus first. I do not mean this as a cliche. I mean to love Jesus by loving others. Reading the Bible is, of course, important---old jar claims I'v e never read it..but I do, and quite frankly don't see it as he sees it.Thus my point: A strong Christian will not only read and know the Bible(which im learning, by the way) but will be well read on other worldly philosophies as well. Even more important than knowing other philosophies is the intentional action of meeting, knowing, and loving the philosophers themselves.

I agree with much of your attitude and proposed approach, but at the same time alarmed and troubled with other aspects, that alarm being bolstered by Christian aspirations in general in the US.First, there's the sub-topic title: True Christian Soldiers. Why be so bellicose? Why aspire to be bellicose? Your "true Christian soldier" brethren have openly declared "culture war" on the rest of society. Ever since the rise of the Radical Religious Right c. 1980, "true Christian soldiers" have repeatedly attempted to co-opt the government to impose their religion on the rest of society, to give their religion the force of law, even to the point of dissolving that most precious of all our liberties, religious liberty. At the same time, those "true Christian soldiers" have cried very publicly about how they are being "persecuted" because others disagree with them and even express dislike for them. Well, speaking here for the other side, in the face of such fervent and unrelenting "true Christian soldier" belligerence that , how are we supposed to react?So the very tone set by this sub-topic's title is unsettling. Then why not name the movie so that an atheist could watch it and share his thoughts about it with you? If not in this topic, then perhaps in the next.I have heard about that movie, but I don't remember what its title is nor how to find it. What I recall having heard about it is that it is fairly standard "true Christian" fare, albeit executed a bit better than is usually done in this genre. That it relies on standard "true Christian" stereotypes about atheists. That it's yet another treatment of the standard "true Christian" tract depicting a Christian student standing up to an atheist teacher and winning, the one that we have seen redone over and over again, including in both versions of the Chick Pubs tract, Big Daddy?. That while it plays well to the choir by appealing to all their expectations as well as tapping into their shared experiences in dealing with outsiders, outsiders who don't have those shared experiences would find it inane -- indeed, outsiders trying to deal with "true Christians" have their own set of shared experiences which give them a different perspective on such dealings.Do you remember the name? I think that it might have been on NetFlix. Yes, I agree. I agree with the first part and I agree with the necessity of the second part. As I have quoted on this forum several times already:

quote:

---

Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles
    you will never be in peril.
    ​
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of
    winning or losing are equal.
    ​
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every
    battle to be in peril."

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

---

Although that is widely quoted, hardly anybody has ever heard of the need to know yourself, let alone that that is the more important form of knowledge of the two.Most people, including Christians, hold childish ideas about God and religion, because they had formed those ideas in their childhood and have not given them any further thought -- as per Rabbi Jack Bemporad, a leader in Jewish-Christian dialogue, in his Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, to Think about God. All they did was "put in their pew-time" (as described in Doonesbury). Even in the case of the flood of new converts into fundamentalism and evangelical churches which had started with the burned-out hippies of the "Jesus Freak" movement c. 1970, they received their initial indoctrination and have never really gone back to question and reevaluate those initial ideas. Everybody needs to examine their beliefs and to question them in order to correct misconceptions but more importantly to gain a greater and more mature understanding and to grow spiritually.Unfortunately, too many, especially "true Christians", are very reluctant to question their personal beliefs and can even be very resistant to the idea. They seem to think that questioning their beliefs is the same thing as questioning God, when in reality they are only questioning their own inevitable misunderstanding of God and of other matters.So then, I believe that you are attempting to do what every truly religious person must do: to think about what you believe and what it means. The same thing holds true for everybody, even non-Christians. And it holds true at all levels, not just in the fact of highly severe circumstances and adversity. We all want to be comfortable, to avoid discomfort, to stay in our "comfort zones". But it is only by moving out of our comfort zones that we can grow, learn, become stronger.Of course, as we face adversity, severe circumstances, and other great discomforts, we will draw on the resources available to us. As you described, for a Christian that would be your faith, which includes the Bible. For non-Christians, those resources would be different. One person's resources will not necessarily help another person and may even have the exact opposite effect.For example, there's DivorceCare. I have been an atheist ever since leaving Christianity half a century ago (I had started reading the Bible and found that I simply could not believe what I was reading; subsequent learning and experiences, including close association with the "Jesus Freak" movement, have only strengthened my atheism), but I have no problem associating with Christians, just so long as they don't start attacking my beliefs. Around the time of my divorce, a woman organizing dance classes for her Baptist mega-church's singles ministry (15,000 strong at the time) recruited me to help try to balance out the classes (typically 100 women and 50 men would enroll, then after a few weeks most of the women would get frustrated at the imbalance and drop out). Then when I was considering a divorce program that was on the same night as the classes, she talked me into taking their DivorceCare program instead. Bad move! Yes, there were some helpful kernels in there, but those few kernels were buried until a mountain of religious and sectarian chaff. But it was worse than a near-complete waste. One particular pile of chaff that they constantly reiterated and harped on was that we cannot possibly recover from divorce on our own, but only Jesus can do that for us. While that is very much in keeping with Christian doctrine, especially with "true Christian" doctrine, and is undoubtedly very helpful for Christians, it is of absolutely no use for non-Christians. Far worse, it sends the message that the only way to recover from divorce is to be a Christian and that a non-Christian could never ever possibly recover from divorce. That is the primary lesson from DivorceCare. F**k you very much, DivorceCare! But wait, it gets even worse! I have received word that the chaplains of the US Army have adopted DivorceCare to be used by all soldiers going through separation and divorce. Every US Army soldier going through separation or divorce is required to go through the DivorceCare program regardless of his own religious affiliation. The SNAFUs just keep getting worse and worse. That's even worse than the US Air Force last year suddenly imposing a religious test for enlistment in direct violation of the US Constitution (Art.VI, Para.3), though at least that offense was finally challenged and rescinded.But here again, you speak of "true Christians" being subjected to "persecution". What "persecution" are you talking about? Not being allowed to impose your religion on others? Others disagree with you? Others not trusting your intentions? Even not liking you? I have been threatened by Christians in the USA with physical violence just for being an atheist. Have you been so threatened just because you're a Christian? Really, this "we Christians are being so persecuted in the US" game is getting very tiring. There's far too much actual persecution in this world that needs to be opposed for you to be creating that distraction. I agree wholeheartedly! Refer back to the Sun Tzu quote.For example, consider the opposition to the teaching of evolution. If those parents truly wanted to oppose evolution, then they would also want their children to be able to oppose evolution. The only way they can be at all effective in their opposition to evolution is to learn everything they possibly can about evolution, so that they can find all its weaknesses. Instead, they work zealously to keep their children ignorant of evolution. Worse than ignorant, school in misinformation and misconceptions about evolution and all of science. So that the only way they have to oppose evolution is with false claims that are transparently bogus to anybody who knows anything about the science involved. Nothing could be more counter-productive to their cause.According to a blog entry I read a couple years ago, it would take a strong Christian to become well read in those other philosophies. From the beginning of my studies in "creation science" (starting in 1981), I had known about Christians who had suffered severe crises of faith and even becoming atheists when they learned the truth about evolution and science. Youth ministries have noted the massive loss of Christian youth from the faith, even from any religion at all -- estimates run from 65% to 80%. But according to that blog, it's the humanities that contribute most to those figures. Those youth were raised to think that there was only one valid perspective, only one valid way to think about things. It is their exposure to other perspectives, other religions, other philosophies, other cultures, other ways of thinking about and looking at things. Perhaps the worst is literature as they learn to see through the perspective of a character in the story. A Christian would need to be very secure in his faith to withstand that. Or simply go into it with an already mature perspective.And, yes, open and honest discussion with others. Not as soldiers! But rather as ambassadors and friends.

If you mean "God's Not Dead", I haven't seen it, but have watched several in depth reviews. "Steaming pile of horse crap" would seem to be the consensus.Based just on the trailer, it seems to be astonishingly ignorant and dishonest to me. These guys are a bit rude, but the movie doesn't seem to deserve much more.

Phat, what does the evidence show?You've been here for over a decade and been able to watch fundies debate atheists, agnostics and liberal Christians.You have personally debated atheist, agnostic and liberal Christians.Can you think of even a single instance when fundamental or Biblical Christians have even been able to support their assertions much less convert an atheist, agnostic or liberal Christian?Could you really watch such a film without either breaking a rib laughing or throwing up?

Then your curiosity will be satisfied, thanks to Capt Stormfield's Message 97. Watch the video! I just did. It's an in-depth review of the entire movie by two atheists. Nearly half an hour, but well worth it.I'll be discussing this with the Capt in a short, but do you remember when I wrote this in my other reply, Message 96: Yeah, I pretty much got most all of that right. Only the tracts that it chose to use were the ones in which the "atheist" accepts Christ just before he dies, etc. Watch that review! Your questions will be answered.

The review is pretty poor in my not so humble opinion. If the movie is as bad it is truly terrible.The review could have been half as long and spent less time joking around about it.

Yes, that's the movie! Thanks for posting that. Even though the review is not professionally done (as noted by NosyNed), it does provide Phat with precisely the atheist reaction to the movie that he desired. And it confirmed my predictions of what it would be like.Circa 1970 I became associated with the "Jesus Freak" movement for half a decade, albeit as a "fellow traveller". I had become an atheist half a decade before that because I had started reading the Bible and quickly found that I just simply could not believe any of what I was reading. My association with those fundamentalists very greatly strengthened my atheism. I read and listened to a lot of their "literature". Most of it was in the form of tracts, such as the infamous "Chick Pubs" (which could be quite hilarious). The general form would be a fictional conversation between a believer and an atheist in which the believer was able to respond to all the atheist's questions (much to the atheist's confusion) and the atheist was completely unable to respond to the believer's questions, for which the believer would readily have the answer (completely "Bible-based"), the conclusion of which would be the atheist's conversion. Often that conversation would be between an atheist teacher or professor and a single Christian student brave enough to stand up to him; eg, both editions of Chick Pubs' Big Daddy?. Sound familiar? Like in that movie?Those pamphlets were written like scripts, scripts that the fundamentalists would memorize and then use to proselytize. And it appears that they're still being written and memorized and played out by proselytizers. And played out when they "engage in discussion" with "atheists". So many times I've watched creationists charge in with their "brilliant" arguments and hit me with one of their "unanswerable" questions, only to be stunned when I'd go off-script and answer their question. So they'd through another one at me, demanding an answer from me, promising, insisting, that they are vitally interested in hearing the answer, only to lose all interest in the question and the answer the moment I would give them the answer. The whole thing would be hilarious if it weren't also so tragically sad and pitiful.And, yes, the movie played on all the stereotypes and the Christian audience's ignorance of what an atheist even is. Or the reasons why a person would be an atheist. Again, they have their little scripts that they're running in their heads telling them everything, so that they end up ignoring the real reasons that the atheists are actually giving them and instead only hear the scripts playing inside their heads. For example, a creationist discovered about the death of my son 12 years ago and claimed that that's why I became an atheist, even though he knew full well that I had become an atheist about 50 years ago, two full decades before my son had even been born. I corrected him in no uncertain terms, but he still believed that that was what had turned me into an atheist. Absolutely pitiful.

I think you are correct on both accounts. The Bible Reloaded is pretty much a college boy self indulgence. The subject was expanded to fill the slot.

I get this on the Dentaltown discussion boards all the time. I gave up a secure and happy niche in the SDA world based on my inability to continue the fantasy that the universe revolved around me. It was a purely intellectually based decision that required the sacrifice of some close relationships and moving out of my comfort zone. I can patiently explain the process again and again and what do I get? "Ken, I'm sorry. You must have been hurt by the church or someone in it. But don't be bitter, because God still...Blah de blah de fucking blah, blah, blah", ad nauseam. Pitiful indeed.

I can sympathize. It's really annoying when people psychoanalyze your reasons for your beliefs. Such as the way atheists always imagine that a Christian must need the emotional crutch of belief. Or they assume you were always soft in the head and a sucker for simpleminded ideas. No amount of explanation will change their assumptions.

I watched the review. When I first heard about this movie I thought I might eventually see it because I'd heard it was pretty good as Christian movies go. The review convinced me it's in fact very very bad. Maybe I should see it and do my own review though. Some time. Maybe. One thing that bothered me probably didn't bother anybody else, and this is only one of many things of course, was the "Muslim" girl's disrespect for her father, her attitude in ripping off her headgear for instance, with an air of contempt. It was both disrespectful and unrealistic the way she did it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.