What is a 'true Christian'?

Hi, Archer. I'm glad you started this thread for many reasons; the listing and explication of them is probably irrelevant.Hypocritically judgmental Christians, as pious and smug as they were grasping and mean-spirited, led me to a precocious atheism by the age of 10: nowhere else could I see a gulf so wide between professed belief and conduct, except, perhaps, among southern politicians, who were just an acute subset.Yet I have met extraordinary people who were Christians; I've met extraordinary people who were not Christians, yet who lived Jesus' creed more sincerely than the vast majority of professed Christians.The doctrinal/historical inconsistencies of conservative, evangelical Christians are apparent; Catholic Scientist et alia are doing a fine job of exploring those in this thread (I really like CS until he pisses me off ).So I'd say this: A true Christian is someone who sincerely tries to live by the precepts of Jesus of Nazareth, knowingly or not.I don't think he was any more divine than you or me, but he was certainly a moral and ethical genius.How do you spot these true Christians? I'd offer one first-order Electric Kool-Aid Christian Test: They don't throw stones.

The Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, etc., all got their own epistles from Paul. And they were all Christians. They had nothing like like volume of info contained in the Bible.They cannot be considered Christians by your faulty definition.

I'm not sure about the unknowingly part...Like, if there was some Australian aboriginee who coincidentally happened to try to live by the precepts of Jesus, but had never heard of Jesus before and said he followed some other religion, then I wouldn't say that the person was a Christian.Better than most Christians, sure, but not actually one of them. When was the last time that happened? What did I say?

Isn't that odd then that I do consider them Christians. You must have got something wrong about my "definition."

I understand your objection about the Good Aborigine.I'd call him a true Christian anyway, just as I would someone who fit the description but lived before Jesus. I think the qualifying essence doesn't require knowing anything about Jesus: it's not a dictionary definition. After all, Jesus wasn't a Christian, either, in that fashion of strictly speaking.On the other hand, I'm a deeply flawed atheist with a history of violence, so there you go. A long time ago, and I don't remember what--it just occurred to me as I typed. Pay more attention to the like and the smile.

Quite frankly that definition is ridiculous given the fact that the term Bible is a modern construct. (Well at least relatively modern) 'Bible' is clearly not synonymous with the term 'Scripture'. In fact not a single word in the Bible refers to the Bible. Jesus himself never spoke of the Bible. Nor did Yahweh for that matterAnd ultimately being a Christian must be about what Jesus said and did. Even the things Paul and Peter did, said, and wrote must take a back seat to that. I think we can do a little better than that. I'd say that a Christian is someone who knowingly puts into action Christ's teachings. That would I think include not condemning or separating yourself from those who do not know of Jesus. It certainly would not include not giving food and water to the woman at the well.

He actually grew to be a man, but yes a true Christian must - at the very least - believe that Christ died for their sins and rose again. Otherwise why call themselves a Christian? That makes no sense.

Which quote are you talking about? You have 3 of them up there. Where do you see Christians not being saved and non-Christians being saved? In Matthew 25:31-46, all I see are saved sheep and unsaved goats. Why would you want to though? Frankly, if you don't believe in any of that, then fine - but why continue identifying as a Christian? Did you buy a car with a fish symbol on the back and don't want to remove it because your paint has faded?

How's this analogy then: If I think I'm a Darwinian evolutionist (ToE), but believe in a young Earth and that Jesus died and rose again, does that still make it so?Can I bridge that dichotomy of worldviews, just by my saying so?

That's all I see as well as far as Jesus classifying souls. Just two options. But I also see a description of how you end up on the right rather than the left. The description also seems to be the bane of those who practice Dispensationalism. I don't know for sure how you feel about that, but your failure to see the point is highly suggestive.Try not to allow your disdain to prevent you from noticing when someone other than you has a point.

You'd likely have to drop the young earth nonsense, but that would not interfere with believing that Jesus was resurrected.

Why, because the rules for the ToE and YEC don't mix? That's my point re: someone who calls themselves a Christian, but denies the most basic and core principle of Christianity - that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. That last part is key. To deny His resurrection is to deny His whole purpose for coming to Earth in the first place.If you were honest though, I think you'd agree that Jesus' resurrection will eventually be at odds with evolution. Eventually evolution's cousin, abiogenesis, will step in and demand to be recognized as well. Then the mere notion of God will be ridiculed and Jesus' resurrection will no longer be compatible.

Did you even read my post? What did I actually say about the resurrection?Dumbass.

Let us, for the sake of argument, assume I have faith in the idea that Jesus died and was ressurected etc. Let us also assume, for the sake of argument, that I accept evolution and believe that God caused the spark that set the whole thing in motion. Where do you see the conflict?

You totally missed HIS point, which is par for you these days. At least you're consistent,, you haven't gotten anything right about genetic diversity or sea transgressions either.