What does it mean to be a Christian

[Dreadful Scathe]

See, MartinHarper? That's a proper old-school Godwin Law

you Nazi

[Lynn]

The position that christianity is not about keeping a set of rules is difficult to agree with. That is not all christianity is, but it is certainly one of its aspects. There is a difference between old and new testament rules - the Beatitudes, for example, are an excellent source of 'rules to live by', but without the Ten Commandments the Beatitudes are no more important than the work of, eg, Nietsche.

Biblical Christianity is not about following rules. You can 'try' be a 'good' Christian and fail. I know however that some churches do teach that you are a Christian based on what you do, rather than what you believe, but I'd suggest people read what the Bible teaches to understand Christianity. The Old Testament was about following the Law given by God. In the New Testament that was replaced by grace.

I fully accept and agree that there is much in the teaching and practices of the church over the years that has been hypocritical, unfair and 'un-Christian'.

[TA Guy]

Getting back to the thread question for a minute.

This is an interesting one. The answer, like most cults, is completely different depending on whether you are a member of the cult or not. It's like asking, 'what does Jive mean to you?'. You'll get different answers depending on whether you ask a Jiver, or some random non-Jiver off the street.

So, speaking as a non-Christian, it means nothing to me per se.

That is the only logical answer, because A) I don't understand it, and B) if I hold a view about Christians, it implies I hold a reactive view about non-Christians, not necessarily the opposite view, but a lower one. which I don't.
E.G. If I state Christains are on the whole 'Good', it implies I believe non-Christians are on the whole 'not so good'. Which history and daily encounters show is complete rubbish.
Or...
If I think Christians on the whole live there lives according to a set of 'commandments', or rules, or even guidelines. It implies I believe non-Christians do not do so, at least to the same degree. Which is also rubbish.

This, of course, is where all those religious wars started. Some artificial mumbo jumbo about 'us' being the true believers, and 'them' being heathen barbarians. Where truth be told, it's the 'us' that are the barbarians.

So, on the whole, better to have a neutral view on Christians... Muslems, Jews, Soclalists, Conservatives, Whites, Blacks etc.
I think better to judge each person individually. Unfortunately we're fed such a load of progaganda rubbish thru the news, TV etc. that it's very difficult to hold to that sometimes.

[Dreadful Scathe]

if I hold a view about Christians, it implies I hold a reactive view about non-Christians.

E.G. If I state Christians are on the whole 'Good', it implies I believe non-Christians are on the whole 'not so good'.

eh? no it doesn't. Say you think all Christians are good at dancing for some reason - does it follow that non-Christians are not? Of course not, why would it ? Thats a ridiculous statement.

next!

[TA Guy]

eh? no it doesn't. Say you think all Christians are good at dancing for some reason - does it follow that non-Christians are not? Of course not, why would it ? Thats a ridiculous statement.

next!

If I say Christians are 'good' at dancing, and that non-christains are 'good' at dancing, effectively I am saying everybody is 'good' at dancing. 'good' becomes meaningless and another word for 'average'. Therefore, applying the word 'good' to 'somethings' in this context implies something for the remainder.

We could argue about the statement; 'for good to exist, evil must exist' if you wish ?



Next!

[Dreadful Scathe]

If I say Christians are 'good' at dancing, and that non-christains are 'good' at dancing, effectively I am saying everybody is 'good'

Yes you are, quite specifically. But when you only say one "side" is good, it has nothing to do with the other - that may or may not be good.

Therefore, applying the word 'good' to 'somethings' in this context implies something for the remainder.

Yes it does, but that could be "good" too, at no point did you imply anything else.

We could argue about the statement; 'for good to exist, evil must exist' if you wish ?

If you like. It depends how you think about it. If good is everything that is not evil, than its possible for evil to not exist if there is nothing but good. However, you would no longer need the label "evil" unless there is a possibility of evil occuring, in which case you wouldn't want it to be a surprise.

Another good example of the same thing. Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Its a negative and a pointless label. But it has to exist to counter belief in gods, which not everyone has. If no one believes in gods anymore than there would be no need of an atheist label

For another example - there is no such thing as "eplintorquel" as its the opposite of something i just made up that also doesn't exist


Nurse!

[Gus]

Like the Amish ? You need to think this through They've entirely given up in the world.

Urrrr ... what teaching from Christ says "become totally introverted, care not for your fellow man outside your group and only appear in really bad Harrison Ford films"?

[Dreadful Scathe]

Urrrr ... what teaching from Christ says "become totally introverted, care not for your fellow man outside your group and only appear in really bad Harrison Ford films"?

teachings ? eh?

you said "Christians who are true to the word and spirit of the teachings of Christ do try to make a positive impact on the world" and as you say the Amish are "totally introverted". Doesn't sound very pro-active to me. I don't think insular behaviour and appearing "in really bad Harrison Ford films" is going to make much of a "positive impact" .

I'm trying to demonstrate the lie to your statement with one really obvious example but I'd say the vast majority of your "true Christians" behave just the same as everyone else and do NOT specifically go out of their way to "try to" have a "positive impact" as you claim.

[Gus]

you said "Christians who are true to the word and spirit of the teachings of Christ do try to make a positive impact on the world" and as you say the Amish are "totally introverted". Doesn't sound very pro-active to me. I don't think insular behaviour and appearing "in really bad Harrison Ford films" is going to make much of a "positive impact" .

Hold on ... thats EXACTLY thats I was saying!

I'm trying to demonstrate the lie to your statement with one really obvious example but I'd say the vast majority of your "true Christians" behave just the same as everyone else and do NOT specifically go out of their way to "try to" have a "positive impact" as you claim.

How can you say that 'true christians' don't make an impact?? Do you actually know any? How do you define 'true'?? Sorry ... but don't follow your logic at all .... and considering the people I think of as 'true christiansen' I find some the statements rather offensive.

[Feelingpink]

...I know however that some churches do teach that you are a Christian based on what you do, rather than what you believe, but I'd suggest people read what the Bible teaches to understand Christianity. The Old Testament was about following the Law given by God. In the New Testament that was replaced by grace.

I fully accept and agree that there is much in the teaching and practices of the church over the years that has been hypocritical, unfair and 'un-Christian'.

This sounds very odd - I thought one of the tenets of Christianity was belief. Based on this, all kinds of people could be described as Christians without them being 'religous' at all - just behaving 'well'.

[David Franklin]

Urrrr ... what teaching from Christ says "become totally introverted, care not for your fellow man outside your group and only appear in really bad Harrison Ford films"?

So are you saying the Amish aren't true Christians?

If so, I find that rather odd, to be honest.

[Barry Shnikov]

This sounds very odd - I thought one of the tenets of Christianity was belief. Based on this, all kinds of people could be described as Christians without them being 'religous' at all - just behaving 'well'.

Yurh, dot wot I thought!!

[Magic Hans]

Biblical Christianity is not about following rules. You can 'try' be a 'good' Christian and fail. I know however that some churches do teach that you are a Christian based on what you do, rather than what you believe, but I'd suggest people read what the Bible teaches to understand Christianity. The Old Testament was about following the Law given by God. In the New Testament that was replaced by grace.

I fully accept and agree that there is much in the teaching and practices of the church over the years that has been hypocritical, unfair and 'un-Christian'.

Hmmmm .... yes. This would be the difference between human beings, and human doings. And can be seen as a moot point. "Judge me by my actions", some might say, for only by acting do we have an effect and interact with the outside world (or is it!).

In my opinion, intention is primary, and action secondary. And so, if I truly and honestly do my utmost to do something well, and fail .... miserably ... that is commendable [especially, if I then get up, brush myself down, and try again!]

Knowing someone else's intentions is fraught with difficulties ... or certainly can be!

[MartinHarper]

There are several sections of the New Testament that say that we are saved by what we do, rather than what we believe. The one in Revelations is my favourite.

It reinforces my general point, that the charitable impulse is closely associated with religion.

Music is closely associated with religion, but I doubt that religious people are more musical than non-musical people. Looking that far back in history, I think you're just seeing the effects of the pervasiveness of religious thought, rather than anything else.

There's been research on the association between charitable giving and religious belief, so rather than speculating I guess I should go buy the book:
Conservative Philanthropists Are More Generous, Experts Say, by Arthur C. Brooks -- Beliefnet.com

[Lynn]

This sounds very odd - I thought one of the tenets of Christianity was belief. Based on this, all kinds of people could be described as Christians without them being 'religous' at all - just behaving 'well'.

Yep, that's exactly my point. Some people define themselves as 'Christian' because of what they do, or how they behave and they don't really believe. I said something along those lines in my first post on this thread and I think that must be a very difficult way to live, constantly trying to live up to certain 'standards' but not having any faith or belief to back that up.

Behaviour as a Christian isn't what makes someone a Christian, they are a Christian because of their status before God and relationship with God and then their relationship with others flows out of that.

But we can't see into another person's heart, so we have to make our judgements based on what we observe of their actions.

[andystyle]

You misunderstood the use of 'ahead' in my post. By that I meant something like 'more forward thinking', rather than the rather different interpretation you put on it as 'more moral'. Rationalists are grappling with the current moral issues in a contemporary fashion; believers generally have to start from their sacred texts.

Tosh.

Barry, if there's one thing I've seen of you, it's that you're very eloquent and good at arguing a point. Comes from being a lawyer, I expect. You put a comment down, you were pulled up for it and now you're being evasive. Just stick to your guns, mate.

Anyway, not having a personal dig there, just my view.

[andystyle]

As for what it means to be a Christian, for me it's following Christ. Christian belief is that he was the perfect person...by definition, no-one did it better. So Christians try to emulate him in their own lives, as by working towards his standard we are working towards the way to live a perfect life.

[Barry Shnikov]

Tosh.

Barry, if there's one thing I've seen of you, it's that you're very eloquent and good at arguing a point. Comes from being a lawyer, I expect. You put a comment down, you were pulled up for it and now you're being evasive. Just stick to your guns, mate.

Anyway, not having a personal dig there, just my view.

I'm pretty hacked off with everyone on this forum who keeps asserting that they know my motivation better than me.

If I write something and I make a mistake, I own up to it. Why not, for crying out loud? If I write something which is misunderstood or badly phrased, I correct it.

But I guess believers are trained to jump to conclusions without examining the evidence, so what should I expect?

Not having a dig, mind you.

[Barry Shnikov]

There are several sections of the New Testament that say that we are saved by what we do, rather than what we believe. The one in Revelations is my favourite.

On the other hand, there's also authority for the assertion that it is what you believe rather than what you do that will lead to salvation.

[Barry Shnikov]

As for what it means to be a Christian, for me it's following Christ. Christian belief is that he was the perfect person...by definition, no-one did it better. So Christians try to emulate him in their own lives, as by working towards his standard we are working towards the way to live a perfect life.

Plenty of people who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus also try to emulate him.