What is a Christian?

[betsy]

Why? These accounts are very much in question. The only thing we know the church got right was the word Christ. All the rest of it is up in the air.

First of all... the first generation of Christians never wrote much down because they believed Jesus had told them he would return while they were still alive. It wasnt until after he was dead, that the bible was compiled, and when it was compiled a lot of the gospels were buried or not included and they all radically contradict each other. The gospels that are in the bible were chosen because they provided a somewhat similar and reconcilable account.

Picture a political organization today writing the bible of Abraham Lincoln without any written work to reference, by remembering stories that had been handed down by the previous generation. It would have some accurate stuff in there and some correct quotes, but not very much. Thats what the catholic bible is.

Pertaining to your first paragraph:

Uh....pardon me for raising my eyebrow reading your claims, but you did practically butcher the history of the western civilization in your lengthy post in another thread. I gave you a rebutt and pointed out where you got that histroy wrong. They were not few.

Therefore it's just understandable to take what you claim with a mega-bag of salt.

Can you cite a reputable source to back you up?

First of all... the first generation of Christians never wrote much down because they believed Jesus had told them he would return while they were still alive.

Give a cite to this one. They knew that he would return while they were still alive???

Really?

Well I don't know what so-called "bible" you're reading from (or which bible "winger" you've got that from)....but according to the Christian Bible, the Apostles didn't really comprehend what Christ meant when He was referring to His upcoming His death and Resurrection.

They believed just like the Jews did....that a Messaiah would come, and that's it! The early Christians believed that Christ is the Messaiah. But that's all they understood. So when Jesus prophesied about His own death and Resurrection....that was going over their heads!

Furthermore, you talk about the Bible in your statement above.

If it's true that the Apostles never wrote anything from the beginning...so what? Do you think they should've been like the paparazzi following Jesus around documenting everything as they unfolded, or like the late-model modern day secretary who observed and jotted down everything that was done or said using shorthand method?

So you say the early Christians never wrote down anything. Well actually, they wrote down a lot of things AFTER His death.

Luke, the Historian among the group, went out to interview people of what they've witnessed.

Anyway, since you talk about the Bible with seeming authority...What did you think happened after Jesus rose from the dead?

Do you know what Pentecost means?

Of course you don't.

Picture a political organization today writing the bible of Abraham Lincoln without any written work to reference, by remembering stories that had been handed down by the previous generation. It would have some accurate stuff in there and some correct quotes, but not very much. Thats what the catholic bible is.

Well I'm not talking about the Catholic Bible. I read King James or NIV. Ask Canadien.

He claims to be a christian....and a Catholic.

Edited August 17, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Dancer Dancer Dancer... This is the 21th century. We now attack them with giant fonts.

So Canadien, I did a little "investigating" here just so to be fair speculating about you.

You invoked and say you believed the Apostle's Creed. You say you're a Catholic. So here's the Catholic's Apostle's Creed.

THE APOSTLE'S CREED

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

Of course you do know that Christians believe in evolution. But not the Neo-Darwinist evolution.

That you believe that God is the CREATOR of HEAVEN and EARTH - heaven would mean everything out there - but you also believe evolution in the grand scale......then I think it only logical to conclude that you are a proponent of Intelligent Design. With uncompromising emphasis that everything was Designed by the Christian God!

Edited August 17, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Dancer Dancer Dancer... This is the 21th century. We now attack them with giant fonts.

Giant fonts aside, considering that you claim to be a Christian just like me....can you explain why you're so against me in all my posts about religion - particularly on Creation?

[betsy]

No historians consider it very unlikely that any of the gospels were really written by the Apostles.

Cite.

[Oleg Bach]

I don't think you can call it a religion. It's a philosophy upon which a set of religions is based.

I think it's possible to be Christian without being religious.

I agree with you. Our value system and our judical sytem is based in the Christian philosophy...as is our political system. We may appear secular but we are based in the spirit of goodness and logic. Fundamentalist Christians and all the other sects are based in pure political control of the populace.

[Oleg Bach]

So Canadien, I did a little "investigating" here just so to be fair speculating about you.

You invoked and say you believed the Apostle's Creed. You say you're a Catholic. So here's the Catholic's Apostle's Creed.

THE APOSTLE'S CREED

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

Of course you do know that Christians believe in evolution. But not the Neo-Darwinist evolution.

That you believe that God is the CREATOR of HEAVEN and EARTH - heaven would mean everything out there - but you also believe evolution in the grand scale......then I think it only logical to conclude that you are a proponent of Intelligent Design. With uncompromising emphasis that everything was Designed by the Christian God!

Apostles are not Christ - they are his board of directors who rebelled against his word after his death - If you think of Christianity as a corporation - usually once the founder is dead - the true spirit of that founding father slowly disipates and a committee begins to rule and bicker....never liked the idea of Christianity being a political thing...look at all of Betsy's posts - big font - aggressive and visually - political...not spiritual.

[Shwa]

Although I agree with you that Christianity is a religion, apparently not everyone who identifies themselves as christians are performing a religious act....at least, that's being argued by M Hardner.

I guess there are Christians.....and then, there are pseudo-christians.

Maybe, but only if they claimed themselves as a pseudo-Christian. Otherwise, identifying oneself with a religion is an act based on a tenet of faith and thus a "religious" act.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

Otherwise, identifying oneself with a religion is an act based on a tenet of faith and thus a "religious" act.

If somebody said "I'm a Methodist" "I'm a Catholic" then that would make sense, but there is a body of early philosophy attributed to Christ, so how does one declare themselves an adherent of that philosophy ?

Pseudo-Christian doesn't describe it accurately.

[Michael Hardner]

If somebody said "I'm a Methodist" "I'm a Catholic" then that would make sense, but there is a body of early philosophy attributed to Christ, so how does one declare themselves an adherent of that philosophy ?

Pseudo-Christian doesn't describe it accurately.

Perhaps "secular Christian".

[Oleg Bach]

Perhaps "secular Christian".

That would be close - when someone said "God Bless America" - they went against the teachings of Christ. Christ taught that each human being must bestow blessings on each other - God does not have a lot to do with it. Secular Christians abound. When someone who is in a political party - and describes themselves as Christain - then that is a prime and good example of Christian secularism.

The reason why there is a seperation of God and state - is that the state is meant to be run by human beings. The realm of God runs on it's own. To combine the two - you always have a person that stands up and says "God told me what to do" - I truely believe in God - not once in all my years of belief have I ever had a direct message or instruction from God, nor should I. We are free entities - because the creator loved us as he loves himself - If the God factor did not love - he would have made us slaves to himself..instead.. God presides - and we rule...and as I said - we do the blessing...God only though subtle signs reminds us of things.

I was watching some sparrows this morning..they are a very happy little bird..they bicker they sing they are full of joy and are taken care of by nature - today I saw some blessed by man sparrows - someone had put out some seed for them - It was a joy to watch - they were very happy...it was human ..intervension and kindness "suggested" by the devine .

[Shwa]

If somebody said "I'm a Methodist" "I'm a Catholic" then that would make sense,

They are essentially referring to themselves as a Christian. If they said "I'm a Protractorean" or "I'm a Pastafarian" it would have a different context.

but there is a body of early philosophy attributed to Christ, so how does one declare themselves an adherent of that philosophy ?

By calling themselve a philosopher.

Pseudo-Christian doesn't describe it accurately.

You can use "Protractorean" which, until this post, had no entry in the massive Google word index. Call it a fresh start.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

They are essentially referring to themselves as a Christian. If they said "I'm a Protractorean" or "I'm a Pastafarian" it would have a different context.

I don't think so. There are flavours of Christianity, all of which are centred on Jesus' philosophy.

To me, it's a clear option to call onesself a Christian in this case, even if the common use of the term isn't exactly logical.

By calling themselve a philosopher.

I don't think you call someone a 'philosopher' for reading and adhering to philosopher, do you ? Even then, I've heard of people called Hegelian or Jungian for example.

You can use "Protractorean" which, until this post, had no entry in the massive Google word index. Call it a fresh start.

Thanks for the boost...

[Shwa]

I don't think so. There are flavours of Christianity, all of which are centred on Jesus' philosophy.

The "flavours" all equate to a religion called Christianity. It is possible to identify oneself with a sub-category that still explicitly refers to the category. Crips or Bloods? Leafs or Habs? Etc.

To me, it's a clear option to call onesself a Christian in this case, even if the common use of the term isn't exactly logical.

You'd have to convince others of that, not yourself. Besides, if you are using a term in a way that isn't "exactly logical" that sounds like an article of faith me.

I don't think you call someone a 'philosopher' for reading and adhering to philosopher, do you ? Even then, I've heard of people called Hegelian or Jungian for example.

No, but I would refer to someone as a 'philosopher' that derives their own meaning from a given set of principles. In this case, you could call yourself a Hardnarian I suppose.

Thanks for the boost...

Always looking to help out a fellow man because, you know, but for the Grace of God go I...

Edited August 17, 2011 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

The "flavours" all equate to a religion called Christianity. It is possible to identify oneself with a sub-category that still explicitly refers to the category. Crips or Bloods? Leafs or Habs? Etc.

Let's turn it around: Could one identify themselves as a monotheist if they were a Methodist ? Sure. It's not incorrect to identify a proponent of the views ascribed to JC as Christian.

You'd have to convince others of that, not yourself. Besides, if you are using a term in a way that isn't "exactly logical" that sounds like an article of faith me.

Yes, and since the common use is undertaken by faith-based folk not surprising.

No, but I would refer to someone as a 'philosopher' that derives their own meaning from a given set of principles. In this case, you could call yourself a Hardnarian I suppose.

I think Christianity constitutes a philosophy, though. To follow that philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher.

[Michael Hardner]

Another example: Quebeckers and Ontarians call each other "French" or "Les Anglais".

Not exactly correct, but it's commonly done. Christians should correctly separate themselves from that small group of people who follow the philosophy but don't believe in divinity.

Maybe "special Christians".

[cybercoma]

Philosophical Christians.

[dre]

So if youre belief that you are from the planet mars is total incorrect and bogus, you are still actually a martian?

[BubberMiley]

Ask Canadien.

He claims to be a christian....and a Catholic.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged." -Matthew 7:1

What was that about real christians following everything?

[betsy]

Well, somebody wrote those teachings, and it's attributed to someone call Jesus so there you are: "Christian". Many say Shakespeare didn't write his plays either, and there is still the term 'Shakesperean'...

But Shakespeare is a writer. He didn't found a religion. "Christian" is a member of a religion founded by Jesus Christ. Unless you become a "member" of the Christian religion - meaning that you believe in all the teachings and revelations by Christ - that includes belief in His Father and the divinity/diety of Jesus.

Do you believe that God created everything, that Jesus is the Son of God, had performed all the miracles described in the Bible, believe that He died for us, believe in His Resurrection and His second coming?

[betsy]

I don't think so. There are flavours of Christianity, all of which are centred on Jesus' philosophy.

Some of those "flavours" of Christianity do not follow the teachings of Christ. Like those cults who commit mass murders

or those clergy who rape children.

So as I said, one can insist to call themselves "Christians," but that doesn't make them so.

To me, it's a clear option to call onesself a Christian in this case, even if the common use of the term isn't exactly logical.

An "option?" Because they insist on calling themselves Christians? If I insist to give myself the title of "Queen," and refer to myself as Her Royal Highness Queen Betsy....

Are you saying I've got that option? Do I really have that option?

More likely everyone will call me Delusional before anyone would call me by my preferred title!

I don't think you call someone a 'philosopher' for reading and adhering to philosopher, do you ? Even then, I've heard of people called Hegelian or Jungian for example.

If you've heard people referred to as Hegelian...perhaps in some creative writing (which means their philosophy).........but not common use.

Edited August 18, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Another example: Quebeckers and Ontarians call each other "French" or "Les Anglais".

Not exactly correct, but it's commonly done. Christians should correctly separate themselves from that small group of people who follow the philosophy but don't believe in divinity.

Maybe "special Christians".

The aanalogy is not the same. The term Christian is not being associated with a place of origin. The ancestors of Quebeckers came from France - hence, the Fench Connection.

The term Christian is a description of someone who follows the religion founded by Christ.

It is more than just a philosophy.

The "philosophy" of Christ is actually His explanations of the terms on how a person - His follower - can have eternal life.

His way of simplifying the "rules."

If one admires only the philosophy of Christ, then why not just say it so? I like His philosophy!

Not only would that eliminate confusion, but also saves him from embarassment. Just imagine when he starts explaining that....

"No, no,no....I am a Christian BUT I do not buy the part when Jesus said He is the Son of God, and that He died and Resurrected. I also think that He was only scamming His followers when He did those magic tricks....etc..,

For really, how can one even believe anything coming from someone he actually think is a liar?

Edited August 18, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Philosophical Christians.

A lot of Christians are philosophical. Quite so. One good example is the best friend of your buddy, Dawkins.

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG.

Edited August 18, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Not exactly correct, but it's commonly done. Christians should correctly separate themselves from that small group of people who follow the philosophy but don't believe in divinity.

Maybe "special Christians".

Are you comfy being decribed as "special?" Think it over.

Being called "special" these days is a liberal humane way of calling someone who's "gifted".....and I don't mean being gifted in the sense that they're clairvoyant or psychic. You know....like the school for "special" children.... hey, nothing wrong with "special" children, don't get me wrong.

[Shwa]

Let's turn it around: Could one identify themselves as a monotheist if they were a Methodist ? Sure. It's not incorrect to identify a proponent of the views ascribed to JC as Christian

.

Why not humanist? It is an article of faith that those views were "ascribed to JC" and moreso when you dig into the authenticity of the content of text, which is where those views come from. But once you identify yourself, it is all religion from there on in.

Yes, and since the common use is undertaken by faith-based folk not surprising.

That includes you as well.

I think Christianity constitutes a philosophy, though. To follow that philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher.

No, Christianity is distinquished as a religion. Perhaps a definition of philosophy is in order. Here is your standard wiki cite - agree or disagree?

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

How does Christ's "philosophy," which is derived wholly from a widely recognized religious text, compare to the definition?

Now you can argue that his words - standing alone - might constitute a philosophy of sorts and I might tend to agree. But Christ was a Jew, not a Christian. All the rest - the "Christian" parts - is all religion.

St. Thomas Aquinas - Christian and philosopher - so the two are not mutually exclusive.

[dre]

Some of those "flavours" of Christianity do not follow the teachings of Christ. Like those cults who commit mass murders

or those clergy who rape children.

So as I said, one can insist to call themselves "Christians," but that doesn't make them so.

An "option?" Because they insist on calling themselves Christians? If I insist to give myself the title of "Queen," and refer to myself as Her Royal Highness Queen Betsy....

Are you saying I've got that option? Do I really have that option?

More likely everyone will call me Delusional before anyone would call me by my preferred title!

If you've heard people referred to as Hegelian...perhaps in some creative writing (which means their philosophy).........but not common use.

Some of those "flavours" of Christianity do not follow the teachings of Christ. Like those cults who commit mass murders

or those clergy who rape children.

NONE of them do. The only thing that christianity has to do with Christ is that they used a legend of a great man that has lived a century before as the basis for their state santioned belief/control system.

Its OBVIOUSLY true, because those are some HUGE ASS FONTS!

The bible itself is still partly a mystery. It was mostly likely written by Roman aristrocrats. Maybe the Piso family. Who knows. Not me... not you. Christianity seems to be a mosaic of judaism and various pagan religions like Mithraism that was wrapped around the Jesus legend which may have been based on a little bit of truth at least in terms of a man with that name actually existing and being the subject of various stories handed down by the previous generation.

Edited August 18, 2011 by dre