What is it to be Christian ?

This is why the Thomas books were not included in the Nicene Creed. IMO, that it has to to with the divinity of Christ is BS. There are other references in included text to Christ as a man.
The reason was all the referenced to the individual relationship between the individual and God and how all people are to be lead to God, not just a select few or ANY form of specific inclusion.
Really, this is the core of what pissed-off the Jewish authorities. His teaching that they were not special.
The Gospel, on many levels, threatens the Church's role in faith, Paul's legacy, and the true nature of Christ in the Church's view (it must remain as unattainable as possible to keep the rubes payin'-up and the butts in the pews).

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

This is why the Thomas books were not included in the Nicene Creed. IMO, that it has to to with the divinity of Christ is BS. There are other references in included text to Christ as a man.
The reason was all the referenced to the individual relationship between the individual and God and how all people are to be lead to God, not just a select few or ANY form of specific inclusion.
Really, this is the core of what pissed-off the Jewish authorities. His teaching that they were not special.
The Gospel, on many levels, threatens the Church's role in faith, Paul's legacy, and the true nature of Christ in the Church's view (it must remain as unattainable as possible to keep the rubes payin'-up and the butts in the pews).

By the time we get to Constantinople, the message is already being diluted, and confusion is already setting in because church leaders are already "forgetting where they came from" so to speak. Paul was a well-respected leader in the Jewish community who himself sought out and killed members of this dangerous new sect of Jesus-followers. After his conversion, he continued to follow Jewish law, although he believed that Jesus had eliminated the need for it. He did it so as not to become a stumbling block (his words) for those who followed it themselves. He considered himself a "Jew's Jew" throughout his ministry.

The passage you're referring to does not have anything to do with the divinity of Christ in and of itself, nor was I intending to purport it as doing so. TBH, I'm having a little trouble parsing your post. What are you getting at?

[mrnoodle]

Regardless of when and under what context, that scripture describes an inevitable aspect of human nature.

Exactly. And even when the memory of Jesus being alive on earth was still fresh, people were trying to get rich off his religion. But this wasn't a condemnation of the faith then, nor is it now. It's a warning to Christiansagainst those who warp faith for their own greed. It's a condemnation from within the church itself, to the church, and not published for view by outside eyes against falsehood. That disproves the assertion that televangelists, et al, are representative of the faith.

I did wander....
Basically, IMO, the text was removed because it speaks the most about the personal relationship between the individual and God.
Not what most scholars mouth, that it discussed Christ's manhood (as they were deciding on his divinity at Nicene), because other texts that made it in also mentioned his human side.
The text undermines the foundation of the Church, that people NEED it to get to God.
Ironically, it has the most verifiable direct quotations of His from a reliable source than any other text.

[skysidhe]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn1.htm


Range of definitions of "Christian:"

There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`ân). Different people have defined a "Christian" as a person who has:
Heard the Gospel in a certain way, and accepted its message, or
Become "saved" -- i.e. they have trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior), or
Been baptized as an infant, or
Gone to church regularly, or
Recited and agreed with a specific church creed or creeds, or
Simply tried to understand and follow Jesus' teachings, or
Led a decent life.

Following these different definitions, the percentage of North American adults who are Christians currently ranges from less than 1% to about 75%.

Within a given denomination or wing of Christianity, there is usually a consensus about who is a Christian, and who is not. However, there is often little agreement among members of different faith groups on a common definition of "Christianity."

What people can agree on, and what they cannot:

With a bit of effort, one can sometimes collect a random group of adults and have them reach a consensus on a definition of: Who is an Evangelical Christian, or
Who is a Roman Catholic, or
Who is an Eastern Orthodox believer, or
Who follows the Historical Protestant faith, or
Who is a Pentecostal, or
Who is a Mormon, or
Who is a Jehovah's Witness,
etc.


But it is probably impossible to have any large group of adults reach a consensus on precisely who is a "Christian," and who is not.



Problems arising from exclusion and inclusion:

This web site uses an inclusive definition of Christianity -- the same one that is used by public opinion polls and government census offices: Anyone who seriously, thoughtfully, sincerely, prayerfully considers themselves to be a Christian is considered a Christian for the purpose of our essays.

The alternative is religious exclusion.


The percentage of persons who identify themselves as Christian, currently about 75%, is dropping almost one percentage point per year.


What is interesing about the last bold quote is America is becomming polarized in 'pockets' of Christianity. Typically republican states who the republican party pander too.
btw....which I find interesting

[wolf]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

The alternative is religious exclusion.

What's wrong with that? Isn't that the point of religious difference to begin with, to provide some defining characteristics that separate you from the fellah living alone over the next hill who offers beer libations to trees, and the folks over on that island who face East five times a day and pray to their God-concept?

[jinx]

Originally Posted by wolf

What's wrong with that? Isn't that the point of religious difference to begin with, to provide some defining characteristics that separate you from the fellah living alone over the next hill who offers beer libations to trees, and the folks over on that island who face East five times a day and pray to their God-concept?

There's nothing wrong with that - except that lots of people who belong to any particular religion think eveyone else should belong to, or at least respect, their religion. That alone is annoying at best - but in this age of nucular weapons and airplanes, its become downright scary.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by wolf

What's wrong with that? Isn't that the point of religious difference to begin with, to provide some defining characteristics that separate you from the fellah living alone over the next hill who offers beer libations to trees, and the folks over on that island who face East five times a day and pray to their God-concept?

Nothing, religions exclude all the time. It was an emphasis about the article itself.
The article included all people who from the original list who thought of themselves to be Christian otherwise it would be exclusion of which for the most part the opinion polls are not biased toward.

By putting yourself in the place of judge "They are ok with God while Those people are not..." you elevate yourself above others. Placing yourself in the place of God.
Not your place.
When you are perfect, then you can do it... until then, shut-up and work on your own shit.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

By putting yourself in the place of judge "They are ok with God while Those people are not..." you elevate yourself above others. Placing yourself in the place of God.
Not your place.
When you are perfect, then you can do it... until then, shut-up and work on your own shit.

And thats the mistake that many many Christians make. They think oh I'm doing x y and staying away from z to get into heaven yayz!!1!, and you aren't so you're doomed to hell you evil person you. When in fact we are not the ones who decide what happens or where we go or whatever. It is truly not our place to judge or make claims to anyone's destination inside or outside our faith. And in my opinion, just like you said rk, those who do need to shut up and focus on other things.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

By putting yourself in the place of judge "They are ok with God while Those people are not..." you elevate yourself above others. Placing yourself in the place of God.
Not your place.
When you are perfect, then you can do it... until then, shut-up and work on your own shit.

I am not sure to whom this was addressed. I have to change the 'yourself' to all' institutions of religions' in order to try and put in in the context of my post.

People define themselves by the contraints of thier religion. So when you use the personal 'yourself' as judge I get confused because I was talking about 'religion' as a whole. The original article I refered to did not exclude for purposes of not getting on tangents like this.

I guess I don't know what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by skysidhe

Nothing, religions exclude all the time. It was an emphasis about the article itself.
The article included all people who from the original list who thought of themselves to be Christian otherwise it would be exclusion of which for the most part the opinion polls are not biased toward.

But it is probably impossible to have any large group of adults reach a consensus on precisely who is a "Christian," and who is not.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn1.htm

& they don't need to... that is not the point. It is a personal relationship, not a group effort.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

& they don't need to... that is not the point. It is a personal relationship, not a group effort.

A group effort to find a group consensus on what a christain is. Point of this thread.

end of story. Im done with this [edit] flim-flamery.