Who is a Christian? Well, let's see what Jesus

[MineralMan]

is supposed to have said. This appears both in Matthew and Luke:

MATTHEW 10
32 Whosoever therefore shall CONFESS me before men, him will I CONFESS also before my Father which is in heaven.

I think that pretty much settles it. Now, mind you, I don't believe a word of it, but people who say they believe the Bible is the word of a deity, have this verse from the Bible. It defines who is a Christian very clearly, and it's very simple. There's no doctrine involved. There are no tests, other than the willingness to say in public that you are a Christian.

Who am I to question this, since people who profess Christianity use that book as their scripture. So, if someone says to me that he or she is a Christian, I'll take their word for, file the information in my memory, and remember it when I communicate with that person.

Discussion over.

[MineralMan]

1. Oh, yeah. If that wasn't convincing, here's another thing

Jesus was reported to have said:

John 3:16
King James Version (KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

That says the same thing, actually. For those for whom the English of 1611 is hard to understand, I'll define the problem word:

"Whosoever" = Anyone

Again, no doctrine. No complicated process. You believe, you're a Christian, according to the guy the religion is built around, if you believe that the Bible is the word of a deity.

There's more, if anyone needs it. I can quote the Bible alongside any preacher. But, I think that should settle it.

[FarPoint]

3. Sorry ...

I don't get it....What's your point?

[MineralMan]

4. Oh, sorry. I guess I assumed that everyone reading the thread

would be aware of all the talk among Republicans about who is a Christian and who is not a Christian. It seems that's all over the news. I guess I should have explained further. My apologies.

[FarPoint]

23. Thanks for the clarification.

I am so turned off by the GOP Christian shield mantra that I completely ignore them like I do faux news ....I have walls.

[2ndAmForComputers]

24. He's trying to crush the No True Scotsman fallacy. A noble effort.

But ultimately futile. Deluded people don't listen to reason.

[asjr]

2. Evidently the Republican Christians running for president

don't mind bearing false witness against one man--the Democratic president of the US.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, there's also all the bickering among them about

which of the Republican candidates are Christians and which are not. So far, the consensus is that Romney isn't, because he's a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Hey...wait...there's Jesus' name right in the name of their church...who knew?

[Thats my opinion]

6. The worse use of the Bible is what fundamentalists do all the time.

They pull one verse out of the text and say, "Here is the absolute truth of God." There is no context, no understanding of the myth, no seeing it in the historic context, no reviewing what has happened to the text over the centuries, no grappling with the meaning of the text. It is bad enough to have to put up with this when the fundies do it. When non-believers do it to make fun of the Bible, nothing is served. If you are interested in doing serious Bible study, then do it. But watch the games played in order to ridicule.

[cleanhippie]

13. "serious Bible study" - Thats a contradiction in terms, TMO.

But watch the games played in order to ridicule.

Or what? Thats what the word "ridiculous" means! Something as ridiculous as the bible, or those that try and tell others what it means, or saying that it is divine, inerrant, infallible, non-contradictory, modern, contemporary, or relevant DESERVES ridicule.

[darkstar3]

17. I didn't see any making fun of the Bible in the OP you're replying to, so you'll have to ask someone

else to knock that chip off your shoulder.

Furthermore, you can't claim that you are the only one doing serious Bible study, when there are literally millions of Christians around the USA who read their Bibles every day, and even make schedules in order to read the entire Bible in a year, and still disagree with you on every theological subject. I know, I was raised by them.

All you're doing here is kidding yourself.

[Thats my opinion]

21. There are thousands of serious Bible scholars,

but they do not post here--for obvious reasons. Few here want to think seriously about meaning.

[darkstar3]

22. And you just defined yourself outside the realm of "serious Bible scholars".

You might want to work on throwing out ad hoc definitions.

[cleanhippie]

28. The important thing is that you have found a way to feel superior to everyone.

[notadmblnd]

7. No it does not define Christians. Jesus was a Jew

Saul/Paul founded the "Christian" church.

[MineralMan]

9. Which religion is based on the teachings of that Jew.

Hello.

[notadmblnd]

11. Well Christians claim that their church is based on the teaching of that Jew

however, not many of them live by that Jew's example.

One can claim whatever they want, it doesn't necessarily make it true.

[MineralMan]

12. But, you see, I don't have beliefs based on those teachings.

So, I let those who do define themselves. They're the ones basing their religion on the words in it. Those are the words.

So, being a Christian is as simple as stating in public that you are one. I can't argue with that. It's a self-defining thing.

Someone who says he or she is a Christian is a Christian, as far as I'm concerned. That's a meaningless construct to me, but, hey, whatever blows their dress up, I suppose. (Note: That is not a sexist statement. After all, the highest leader of the largest denomination of Christianity wears a dress.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. I suggest using the literal derivation of the word

You are a Christian if you think Jesus was 'Christ', ie specially anointed by God (and I would take that to mean 'more than Jewish prophets such as Moses or Elijah were' - he should be 'the Christ', not just one among several chosen prophets). Nearly all Christians believe he was God/the Son of God/part of the Trinity etc. as well, but I think it can include anyone who thinks he was fully human. But I think people who say "he was just an incredibly wise man whose teachings I try to follow" don't really fit the label; if they don't think he was anointed by God, then they're not calling him 'Christ'.

[MineralMan]

10. Too complicated. It's much simpler in Matthew.

You see, you're adding doctrinal issues to that simple statement. You'd think Jesus would have included those issues if they were important, you know?

You're putting words in his mouth, I think. Of course I don't believe any of it, but Christians profess to believe the Bible, so who am I to argue?

[Bluenorthwest]

14. This is also from Matthew. Chapter 7 also words 'of Jesus':

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


So many who say 'Lord' do not get in. It is not at all a matter of self definition, nor of proclamations.

Edited to note that this passage of the text is often considered along with the 'least of these' passage, also in Matthew, which is at the following link with all the King James flowers to go with it.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=KJV

Amazing what a person can recall from oh so long ago...

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. No; Jesus never calls himself 'Christ' in the Bible

I'm not putting words in his mouth - 'Christian' is the grouping that people defined after him. He is not quoted as saying "this is what makes you a Christian". It's a claim about what will happen in Heaven. Others may say that he'd also speak up for people who never 'confessed' him, but did good during their lives. That wouldn't make them a Christian, however.

And the problem is that people who say "Jesus was just a really good man and I try to follow his teachings" could be Muslims too - as long as they have the required belief about Allah and Mohammed.

[safeinOhio]

16. Great book to read on this subject

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is a book by Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[1] The book introduces lay readers to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Ehrman discusses a number of textual variants that resulted from intentional or accidental manuscript changes during the scriptorium era. The book, which made it to the New York Times Best Seller list, is available in hardcover and paperback.




p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus

[struggle4progress]

18. It is interesting when people, who consider themselves non-Christian, define Christian doctrine

Before him will gather all the nations, and he will separate them as a shepherd divides sheep from goats, the sheep at his right hand, the goats at the left.

And the King say to the one: Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for when I hungered, you gave me meat, and when I thirsted, drink; when I was a stranger, you welcomed me; naked, you clothed me; sick or in prison, you visited.

And the righteous will answer, Lord, whenever did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and gave you drink, or a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you, or sick or in prison and visit you? And the King will say: Whatever you have done for the least of my brothers, you have done for me.

And he will also say to the other: Depart from me, you wicked, with the devil and his angels, for when I hungered, you gave me no meat, and when I thirsted, no drink; when I was a stranger, you did not welcome me; naked, you did not clothe me; sick or in prison, you did not visit.

And the righteous will answer, Lord, whenever did we see you hungry and not feed you, or thirsty and not give you drink, or a stranger and not welcome you, or naked and not clothe you, or sick or in prison and not visit you? And the King will say: Whatever you have not done for the least of my brothers, you have not done for me.

It is like a man and wife who plant and tend an orchard, that will not bear fruit in their time or in the time of their children, in the hope that it might benefit some later generation. They labor for a reward that does not reward them; they will not live to see the trees grown with branches blossoming forth to set fruit. Are they then foolish who work not for This World, but for The World That Is Coming long after they return to clay? No, that World That Is Coming is their treasure and their own inheritance: they will not be known there by their dry bones, for it will be their own hearts that beat there

[cleanhippie]

19. You mean people like that Jesus guy?

[darkstar3]

20. And it's interesting that Christians are the ones in this case clearly engaging in religious bigotry

Let me 'splain.

It is religious bigotry to tell someone that the religious label they apply to themselves (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, etc.) is incorrect because they don't qualify as that faith in your book. I see atheists allowing Christians to self-identify, and even defending their right to do so, while other Christians tell everyone who will listen that it is their right to define others out of the faith.

And yet these same people engaging in religious bigotry will turn on a moment's notice and attack any atheist they can as outsiders who cannot possibly possess a right to criticize any religion whatsoever. Why can't these people make up their minds? Where is the consistency? One of these actions is clearly religious bigotry, while the other is religious protectivism.

This hypocrisy needs to stop.

I don't really mean you specifically here. I saw your post, defending your right to define other people as non-Christians no matter what they say, and used it as a springboard to my larger point.

[jeepnstein]

26. "Bigotry"?

No, not by a mile. There is a clear description of what makes one a Christian in the New Testament.

Christianity is a religion with a very particular set of requirements, clearly spelled out in the New Testament. Those requirements are simple enough to meet. While some in the denominational world have played fast and loose with definitions it's pretty much safe to say that someone who is in fellowship with one local church of a certain stripe can find more common ground than disagreement with another church of a different denomination. That does not mean that anything goes and it's all about how you feel that is most important. And it is clearly the case that we have some churches, even megachurches, that are clearly not bothering to try to comply with scripture.

It is not bigotry for me to say that a Scientologist, a Mormon, or the Westboro Baptist "Church" are not part of a Christian Church. They are not. Just because someone whose agenda is the destruction of the Church, namely atheists, say that they permit people to self-identify doesn't make it so. A Christian must make a serious effort to comply with the Scripture we consider inspired and Holy. Lots of people in the U.S. call themselves "Christian" yet they don't attend a church, have never been baptized in any form whatsoever, never take part in communion, add to and subtract from scripture, or barely know what the Bible really says.

When one Christian finds they are in conflict with another on a matter of doctrine they are supposed to mutually agree to sit down and study the matter so that both can continue to grow in the faith. I've done this many times and came away from the process humbled by the experience. It's not supposed to be done in a spirit of contention but rather in a spirit of love. That is not bigotry but it is a path to spiritual growth.

[darkstar3]

33. Yes, plain and simple.

You're engaging in it right now,along with the No True Scotsmsn fallacy. The requirements you say are so clearly spelled out are your requirements.

Every time you say "this person who calls themselves a Christian isn't really a Christian" you engage in fallacy and religious bigotry.

[2ndAmForComputers]

25. Sigh. Told you so... noble but futile effort.

[cleanhippie]

29. You must be thinking about your own posts.

Classic projection, Mr k. Classic.

[rug]

30. Who cares what you call them or anyone calls himself or herself?

By their fruits you shall know them. Matthew 7:20

[MineralMan]

31. I care because of the current political environment, where

Presidential candidates are bandying the Christian label around. Surely you've noticed that in the news.

[rug]

32. The religious rhetoric is a smokescreen for an anti-workingclass agenda.

Surely you've noticed that.

[darkstar3]

34. No, it's a ploy to appeal to low-info voters.

[rug]

35. Cui bono?

[darkstar3]

36. The man who can out godbag the other godbaggers.

[rug]

37. Sure, religious crackpots are driving politics, not the rich.

[darkstar3]

38. Did I say that? No.

I said "appeal". One need not be a religious crackpot to godbag.

[rug]

39. So. then, do you agree that politcs is driven by economics and class and not religion?