What is it to be Christian ?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

If you are Christian you follow the teachings of Christ.

Originally Posted by Flint

That seems to be the standard definition. But...

#1: Not everyone who follows the teachings of Christ is a Christian.
#2: Not everyone who is a Christian follows the teachings of Christ.

In both cases, I respect the wishes of the individual, regarding what they define themselves as.

#3: Not everyone agrees what the teachings of Christ are, exactly.

[mrnoodle]

Everyone fails to follow the teachings of Christ. Some do better than others, but even the most devoted follower of Christ screws up. Mother Theresa had her own private sins. The idea of being a Christian is to turn from sin and walk the other way instead of continuing in it. But you're right, there are a lot of hypocrites who claim to be Christians but aren't. Or they are, but have fallen so far back into their old nature that they are useless as Christians.

I fear the results of my own hypocrisy every day. I try, but the day never goes by that I don't at least think something wrong about another person, cheat my employer by....oh, say, spending too much time on the web, or do something that leaves a bad example to others. Those are *good* days. But knowing Christ has your back is a good, peaceful feeling. It helps when you're feeling physically sick, when you're watching your dad battle cancer, when the money disappears, when someone cheats or otherwise hurts you, etc. etc., that no matter what happens, you are under the eye and protection of the almighty, and you will get strength to get through it. If I had to gain that kind of strength via "acting moral", I'd be up a creek.

[Flint]

I'm glad you've found something that works for you, mrnoodle.

It's just my opinion, but striving to act moral actually serves humanity, and myself, alot better than simply having a get-out-of-jail free card.

Regarding the original thread subject, the word Christian seems to have a pretty amorphous meaning, to me.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Flint

I'm glad you've found something that works for you, mrnoodle.

It's just my opinion, but striving to act moral actually serves humanity, and myself, alot better than simply having a get-out-of-jail free card.

Regarding the original thread subject, the word Christian seems to have a pretty amorphous meaning, to me.

There's a get out of jail card, but it's not free, believe me. Not only did someone die acquiring it, it wasn't even the person who was supposed to die. Beyond that, it was someone who was entirely blameless, even according to the man who gave the execution order. Even according to the murderer being executed alongside him. I did that. I put him there. And he forgave me. And I still do the things that put him there in the first place. And he still forgives.

I dunno, I find that to be a decent reason to strive to be moral.


The meaning of this isn't amorphous, man. Those who don't understand assign their own meanings to the word, but that doesn't define it. The original definition stands, no matter who tries to change it -- neither self-proclaimed Christians or otherwise.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I dunno, I find that to be a decent reason to strive to be moral.

I thought you said it was a replacement for acting moral... (Otherwise you'd be "be up a creek" remember?) If I misunderstood that, I'm sorry.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The meaning of this isn't amorphous, man. Those who don't understand assign their own meanings to the word, but that doesn't define it. The original definition stands, no matter who tries to change it -- neither self-proclaimed Christians or otherwise.

So, and I've asked this before, what do we call the MILLLIONS of people who aren't real Christians? And, how do we determine the real Christians? What if somebody thinks you aren't a real Christian, and you think the same of them? Who is right? In the real world, it isn't cut and dried. At all.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Everyone fails to follow the teachings of Christ. Some do better than others, but even the most devoted follower of Christ screws up. Mother Theresa had her own private sins. The idea of being a Christian is to turn from sin and walk the other way instead of continuing in it. But you're right, there are a lot of hypocrites who claim to be Christians but aren't. Or they are, but have fallen so far back into their old nature that they are useless as Christians.

I fear the results of my own hypocrisy every day. I try, but the day never goes by that I don't at least think something wrong about another person, cheat my employer by....oh, say, spending too much time on the web, or do something that leaves a bad example to others. Those are *good* days. But knowing Christ has your back is a good, peaceful feeling. It helps when you're feeling physically sick, when you're watching your dad battle cancer, when the money disappears, when someone cheats or otherwise hurts you, etc. etc., that no matter what happens, you are under the eye and protection of the almighty, and you will get strength to get through it. If I had to gain that kind of strength via "acting moral", I'd be up a creek.

Striving to be like Jesus is a good thing, even when you fail. It's those so-called Christians who criticise others for acting un-Christian that anger me, especially since they fail, too. And those who try to legislate me into Christianity need to stop.

As for Christ having your back? Sounds like a crutch, to me. He didn't cause those things, and he can't fix them, either, IMHO. I'm glad you get a good, peaceful feeling. Who gives you "the strength to get through it"? You do; it's all you.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Flint

So, and I've asked this before, what do we call the MILLLIONS of people who aren't real Christians? And, how do we determine the real Christians? What if somebody thinks you aren't a real Christian, and you think the same of them? Who is right? In the real world, it isn't cut and dried. At all.

Only God knows someone's heart, but by someone's actions you know what they believe. Someone can be a Christian and fail to convince me of the fact by their actions. That doesn't change the whether they are a Christian or not, but it does affect their credibility. At the same time, someone can follow every law in the bible to a T, but not have the love of Christ in their heart. So people's actions in the real world are not cut and dried. But who Christ is doesn't change. To mangle a certain wellknown verse, you can tell what kind of tree it is by the fruit that falls from its branches. That doesn't mean every single piece of fruit is good, unfortunately.

To continue mangling the metaphor, it seems like what you're asking is, "If someone claims to be an apple tree, how do I know if they're telling the truth?" Well, see if there are apples on the ground.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Striving to be like Jesus is a good thing, even when you fail. It's those so-called Christians who criticise others for acting un-Christian that anger me, especially since they fail, too. And those who try to legislate me into Christianity need to stop.

Christians are actually called to hold each other accountable for their actions. To people who aren't Christians, they're supposed to share the gospel. In love, not acting as judges. You're right, Christianity isn't about forcing false morality on people who don't believe it. But, from a human point of view -- this isn't from God, it's just my opinion, which is often wrong -- what is the difference between pushing legislation that infringes on your personal set of values and that which infringes on mine? Are your values more important than mine, simply by virtue of the fact that you don't believe in God? We can be pissed at each other and disagree vehemently with the other's point of view, but I don't want your values pushed on me any more than you want mine pushed on you.

In the system of government we've set up, the vote will decide. If not directly, than representationally through the votes of congress. We'll just have to duke it out. This is an entirely secular process, where majority rules. It certainly doesn't favor God in any way.

As for Christ having your back? Sounds like a crutch, to me. He didn't cause those things, and he can't fix them, either, IMHO. I'm glad you get a good, peaceful feeling. Who gives you "the strength to get through it"? You do; it's all you.

Nope, I tried doing things with my own strength and found out it didn't work. I still do try it from time to time, but now that I've thrown in with Christ, the consequences are always the same. It just doesn't work. If that means I use a crutch, then a crutch is what I'll use.

There was a time when I didn't believe. I'm not totally blind to the other point of view. I still doubt. But when God speaks, you know it. It's idiocy to anyone else, but it's life itself to those who believe. It's like trying to explain snow to someone who lives in the Sahara. You can imagine aspects of it, conjure up reasonable fascimiles, and utterly convince yourself that you know all about where the other person is coming from (and be 100% sure that they're full of crap), but until the flakes fall on your face, you don't "get" it. It can't be explained into existence or out of existence, you have to be under it when it falls to know for sure. And you can go for years without ever seeing it again, and begin to doubt that you ever felt it in the first place. The metaphor can go on forever, but I've already taken it too far.

[skysidhe]

@ mr noodle.

from your photograph I can see you are a sensible and down to earth person who knows what the essense of christianity should be. I am glad you feel christ has your back and can rest in that.


As for myself ? To answer the question what is it to be a christian is simply following the golden rule. I try ,,try,,try not to be intolerant of those who are woefully unaware. I try to act in a way I want fellow humans to act toward me. I do fail alot being human.

I only know what being a christian is'nt...... so seven years ago I left organized religion. If I have any religion at all it is kept in my heart. I keep it between me and my conscience since in the end the only thing that will condem me is my own mind.

Just my opinion.

The Golden Rule in all religions
@http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html


Ethic of reciprocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity


Tolerance

Ethical teaching interprets the Golden Rule as mutual respect for one's neighbour (rather than as a deontological or consequentialist rule.) Most of us know that different people have different faith or ideological beliefs, different preferences concerning sex or other matters, and may belong to a different cultural heritage. From a "tolerance" perspective, the golden rule depends on everyone's ability to understand and give respect to such difference. George Bernard Shaw once said that "The golden rule is that there are no golden rules".

Some hold that the Golden Rule itself gives moral guidance on right and wrong. Others say this guiding rule may or may not explicitly tell one which actions or treatments are right or wrong. e.g., under the ethic of reciprocity, a person of atheist persuasion may have a (legal) right to insult religion under the right of freedom of expression but, as a personal choice, may refrain from doing so in public out of respect to the sensitivity of the other. Conversely, a person of religious persuasion may refrain from taking action against such public display out of respect to the sensitivity of other about the right of freedom of speech. Conversely, the lack of mutual respect might mean that each side might deliberately violate the golden rule as a provocation (to assert one's right) or as an intimidation (to prevent other from making offence).

[Flint]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

To continue mangling the metaphor, it seems like what you're asking is, "If someone claims to be an apple tree, how do I know if they're telling the truth?" Well, see if there are apples on the ground.

I'm not really asking that. I can see if there are, in my opinion, "apples on the ground" or not, irrespective of how the person defines themself - as a Christian, or not. And those "apples" are only from my perspective, anyway.

I guess it just seems like to me the word Christian has a personal meaning to each person, based on their interpretation of the message of Jesus. So, that's as many different definitions as there are people in the world. That's not a very useful meaning for the word.

The meaning I use is: people who go to Christian churches, and/or define themselves as Christian, are Christians. Since I can't see into the heart of each and every one of them, I just respect their personal wishes to be defined however they see fit. That seems like the most fair, and most clear, way to define the word, to me. That's because I am intending this to be a real world definition for an actual, tangible human institution.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Then a whole lot of people who call themselves Christian should stop. 'Cause they aren't. And they don't.

exactly.

[Flint]

But, if we use the word to describe the reality we actually see, it also means those people (which is a group that can't even be specified...)

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Flint

I

The meaning I use is: people who go to Christian churches, and/or define themselves as Christian, are Christians. Since I can't see into the heart of each and every one of them, I just respect their personal wishes to be defined however they see fit. That seems like the most fair, and most clear, way to define the word, to me. That's because I am intending this to be a real world definition for an actual, tangible human institution.

hey you cheater. I posted that first!


see 'golden rule' of all religions ...posted BEFORE yours.




heh heh heh

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

... what is the difference between pushing legislation that infringes on your personal set of values and that which infringes on mine? Are your values more important than mine, simply by virtue of the fact that you don't believe in God? We can be pissed at each other and disagree vehemently with the other's point of view, but I don't want your values pushed on me any more than you want mine pushed on you.

Some legislation is permissive, and some restrictive, for want of a better decription. When legislation allows same-gender marriage for example, it doesn't mean that everyone, or for that matter anyone, must marry someone of the same gender. It permits behavior. On the other hand, legislation can restrict behavior. Mississippi has banned marital aids. This is very restrictive. Christians, conservatives, repubicans - however you want to label them - want to make everyone have the same values that they do. They rail against sex on TV, in movies and magazines, bad words in songs, calling Christmas anything other than Christmas, and they would be very happy to legislate enforcement of those things. I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy, too. I'll never force you to have an abortion, ok?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

In love, not acting as judges. You're right, Christianity isn't about forcing false morality on people who don't believe it. But, from a human point of view -- this isn't from God, it's just my opinion, which is often wrong -- what is the difference between pushing legislation that infringes on your personal set of values and that which infringes on mine? Are your values more important than mine, simply by virtue of the fact that you don't believe in God? We can be pissed at each other and disagree vehemently with the other's point of view, but I don't want your values pushed on me any more than you want mine pushed on you.

Sometimes the choice isn't over which set of values is infringed, but whether either of them are. If gay marriage is allowed, then neither set of values is infringed, any more than allowing televisions infringes on the values of the Amish. But if gay marriage is not allowed, than one set of values is being infringed. If a school organizes prayer, it is pushing that set of values, but they can't (and shouldn't try to) stop students from praying on their own time. If any administrator ever gets overzealous and starts confiscating Bibles, crucifixes, stars of David, pentagrams, etc because "you can't have religion in school", then they should be corrected firmly, but nobody's religion is being pushed either way by a principal failing to read the Lord's Prayer over the PA system.

I think you'll find that with few exceptions (abortion = murder being the big one), the issues that are considered "attacks" on Christianity don't actually affect Christians who weren't relying on the government to prop them up.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Questioning Christianity isn't bad. You're not supposed to just drink the kool-aid and act like a good boy.

Everyone always says this, but, isn't there only a certain amount of questioning that is logistically possible? I mean, at a certain point, your questioning either leads you "back in the fold" or you "jump ship" ...right? If you "jump ship" as a result of your questioning, then that questioning, while it wasn't dis-allowed, simply wasn't possible to carry to fruition, as a Christian. If the conclsuions found you "back in the fold" then it was.