Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Is A Christian (Remix)
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 76 of 133 (426129)
10-05-2007 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by New Cat's Eye
10-05-2007 10:57 AM


I think that in order to be considered a Christian, you have to be a Christian in your own mind. Its something that you consciously are.
possibly. but, to be a christian in one's own mind doesn't necessarily require being a christian in *your* mind. if someone doesn't think jesus was god, but thinks he's really cool and tries to live like him and thinks he's a christian, he's every right, despite what you or your friends may say.
I think that sets the bar too low. With this standard, someone could be a Christian and not even know it. I think you should know that you are a Christian.
i disagree. when people ask about "the primitive in africa," christians often say that the "primitives" may be worshiping their god and it happens to be the right one even if they haven't heard about jesus. they do the right things and they like the right idea of god and may thus be "saved" because of their faith. as such, if only christians can be saved, these people must be christians without knowing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2007 10:57 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2007 12:42 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 84 of 133 (426154)
10-05-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by New Cat's Eye
10-05-2007 12:42 PM


False premise.
i quite agree, but others don't.
But if that was a true premise, then you would be correct.
hurrah. so it would seem that the definition under that premise would be "whoever is saved" which we won't actually know until after the end of the world, since if christians who don't know they are might be included and only god will know who, then one would assume that it would be a terrible idea to presume to state who is and isn't a christian, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2007 12:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2007 2:20 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 87 of 133 (426171)
10-05-2007 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by New Cat's Eye
10-05-2007 2:20 PM


The point is that there is some criteria that must be fit to rightfully be considered a Christian by others. Its possible for someone to claim Christianity but have beliefs or behaviors that make them non-Christian, IMHO.
and now we're right back where we started.
For example, I am a Christian but I don't think we should love our enemies. Or, whatever, the specific doesn't matter for my point.
i think it does matter. does not loving our enemies, or thinking gays should be allowed to marry make you less of a christian? how about thinking jesus probably was married, or that having sex before marriagedoesn't make me a bad person? how about thinking i should bomb abortion clinics, or that i should kill fags? how about thinking that satan has power of his own, or thinking that such an idea amounts to polytheism?
it seems to me that we're not wise enough to make these distinctions, since we tend to make the wrong ones. i think we should leave the saving up to god.
For others to call them out on it and say that they are, in fact, not a Christian is not necessarily a terrible thing.
i think it's the worst thing we can do. we're supposed to love our neighbors, our enemies, and everyone in between. loving people doesn't include making presumptions about their status with god. it's really not anyone's business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2007 2:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2007 3:02 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 92 of 133 (426182)
10-05-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by New Cat's Eye
10-05-2007 3:02 PM


You'll find Christians that accept or reject any combination of those. But they could still be considered Christians.
i am well aware. however, very many of them seem to think they own the rule book.
Still though, there's some minimum requirements for who we should consider Christians.
Certainly, being a follower of Christ is one of them. Maybe the only one?
i think we're walking in circles.
I'm not talking about the saving. I'm just talking about the label.
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'm not judging their status with God. I'm trying to find the criteria for who we, as Christians, should consider others as Christians or not.
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 don't think the criteria can be just being like Christ, because that would include non-Christians like Gandhi who is a Hindu and not a Christian but happens to be like Christ.
i think it would be easily enough decided to exclude anyone who claims a different title.
because a non-Christian (like a double-agent or something) could easily become a member while not be a Christian.
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.
What do you think the criteria should be?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2007 3:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 112 of 133 (426387)
10-06-2007 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Brian
10-06-2007 5:43 AM


Re: Got to let you guys know..
some of us aren't worried about what will happen when we die.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Brian, posted 10-06-2007 5:43 AM Brian has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 113 of 133 (426388)
10-06-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by iano
10-05-2007 9:29 PM


Re: Phat & Jar: how we explain their "Christianity"
Thank God salvation is by faith and not by works
faith without works is dead.
i refuse to make any assumptions about you or anyone else, but if my biggest work was spending time yelling about who i thought clearly couldn't be saved because of some notion i had about what being a christian is, i would be worried about the state of my heart. if the capacities i possess are doubt, accusation, judgment, anger, name-calling, hatred, fear, self-righteousness, and war-mongering instead of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance, i would be very concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by iano, posted 10-05-2007 9:29 PM iano has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 116 of 133 (426530)
10-07-2007 11:09 AM


1 John
as to special knowledge of who is "saved", we have only the fruit of the spirit and individual claim to tell us. if people exhibit the fruit, we must assume they are of god. another guide repeating some of the same information is "The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." Followed by this: "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son {to be} the propitiation for our sins." so love is sacrificing yourself for others. "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love." so those who inspire fear and demand punishment are not capable of love and thus do not know god. "If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen." the book has already told us that our neighbor is everyone in need of care. these are the uses of brother
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ
a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
i see no reason to restrict it to "christians," but even if it is so restricted, condemning someone god may not condemn isn't very loving. so saying someone isn't a christian when they claim to be demonstrates a lack of love which is required to know who a christian is.
of course this bit also includes this "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." so now we must deal with this.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024