You have to laugh

[Big RR]

I agree with gob, the disputes are far from the margins--they go to many beliefs some would consider "core", from the authority and apostolic nature of the church, the role of women in the clergy, to the importance of works in attaining "salvation", to the existence of hell, to what happens when one dies (do we go to heaven or do we sleep until the second coming and then become physically resurrected, to how and when sins may be forgiven, to the trinity, to the virginity of mary, etc. Face it, many christians have woven many tapestries of theology around the life and teachings of jesus, and that's fine. But no one knows the term 'christian" anymore than anyone owns jesus. Indeed, jesus himself is quoted as saying that "there are many mansions in my fathers house" and that they are different. It is the height of arrogance to presume to know what these mansions are and how to define who is and who is not a follower of jesus; indeed, when jesus called his followers he never insisted that they believe in his divinity, only that they follow him and learn from his teachings--the rest came from individual understanding--one need only read the letters in the bible to show that there was a big difference in the importance of works for salvation even in the earliest times of the church.

So no, I don't think that any "christian" should have a say about whether another person calling him/herself a christian is or is not one. As jesus said, tend to the beam in your own eye and ignore the splinter in your brother's.

[Sean]

I think that "Christians" ought to have something to say about who is a Christian.

We have two thousand years of scripture and history, and a fairly clear orthodoxy has evolved. The different Christian sects have disagreements on the margins (e.g., infant baptism, the "Sacraments"), but the basic theology is not much open to question.

Hence, a group that believes that Adam, Michael the Archangel and Jesus Christ are one and the same person - even if they include the name "Jesus Christ" in their official title - are NOT Christians.

Fair enough, this is quite easy to achieve:

First of all you need to write the rules that define a real Christian. Then think up a snappy name (maybe Fundamental Unified Christian Knights With Interesting Theories on Salvation...), get other people to join you and hey presto!
You've started a new Christian Cult.

Oddball belief systems have always existed on the outskirts of every organized religion, the more successful the more of them there are. Many who claim to be "Jews" are atheists. Dare I say, bullshit?

I'm sure that many people with these 'oddball' beliefs see your belief system as decidedly strange. Intolerance of others' belief isn't a very 'Christian' attitude now is it?

If you leave it to any crackpot who chooses to call himself a Christian, then the word means nothing.

So who gets to decide who is and isn't a proper Christian? What if the person with the final say has different beliefs to you and excludes you from the gang? Would you accept this or would you continue to describe yourself as a Christian even though you don't fall into the 'official' category?

[Crackpot]

THere are no clear cut lines but as far as it goes most Christian groups are in fact Christian. LDS and Jehovahs Witnesses are marginal at best (The later more so than the former IMHO) due to the deistic beliefs. Christian Science OTOH is a slap in the face to both names it adopted. UU for the most part is so watered down as to have no real beliefs so while you can say that while UU is not Christian per se most would not comment on individual members.

THe vast majority of Christians would agree with these assessments.

As for defining real Christians before the name got slurred that is what the Fundamentalists did. (Hence "fundamental" They went threw and identified certain core beliefs vis a vis Jesus' teachings to be considered Christian.

[Gob]

I don't mean to be unkind by saying that Catholics are going to Hell; but rather, to speak the truth and warn you of the judgment to come (2nd Thessalonians 1:8-9; Revelation 20:15). The modernistic idea that we should all refrain from criticizing anyone else's religion is a completely evil New World Order philosophy. I'm going to speak the truth of God's Word, even if it offends you. I am going to warn you that you are on a wrong road, headed for the bottomless pit, even if you hate me for it. I am telling you the truth. Catholicism is a manmade religion that cannot save you. There is NO salvation in the Catholic Church; only idolatry, worshipping of the dead, heathendom, rituals, vain repetitions and doctrines of devils (1st Timothy 4:1). Salvation is NOT found in any religion; but rather, in a Person, the precious Lord Jesus Christ!

Billions of lost sinners are dying in their sins and plunging into Hell because of the lying Popes and priests who deceive them. Romans 10:3, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Jesus warned about following the commandments of men (Mark 7:6-13).

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 ... /fools.htm

That's the Catholics fucked then...

Next!!

[rubato]

I think that "Christians" ought to have something to say about who is a Christian.
... "

"back in the day" you said it by exterminating anyone who disagreed, even slightly.

History only began to record advancement rather than retardation in western civilization as the christian church's powers were stripped.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Which is why your personal relationship with Christ/God is paramount.

Listen not to Man, but God.

[Andrew D]

Why should anyone outside the Roman Catholic Church care whether J2P2 is pronounced a saint or not?

To those outside the RCC -- which is to say most of the human population -- the RCC is a club. Nothing more.

(Yes, it is a club whose actions, good and bad, have substantially affected history. And it is a club which still wields considerable, although declining, influence on secular affairs. But as to matters of doctrine, internal affairs such as choosing saints, and so forth, it is nothing more than a club.)

Unless one has chosen to be a member of the club, why is the canonization of one person and not another of any greater significance than is whether a group of neighborhood boys has or has not chosen to let girls into the treehouse?

[oldr_n_wsr]

And it is a club which still wields considerable, although declining, influence on secular affairs.

Found out the Catholic School I went to grades 1-8 is closing it's doors this coming June.

[Lord Jim]

Big RR:

Just out of curiosity, do you think it's possible to be a Christian and not believe in God?

(ETA: If so, you'd be well qualified to serve as The Arch Bishop Of Canterbury....)

Why should anyone outside the Roman Catholic Church care whether J2P2 is pronounced a saint or not?

The answer to that one is simple Andrew...

Catholic bashing is one of the world's most popular international sports....(far more popular than cricket...)

Since the days when we would cut off people's heads or go on a murderous rampage for ridiculing our faith are well behind us (unlike some practitioners of another religion I could name) there's no downside....

[Andrew D]

That may explain why some people outside the RCC do care whether J2P2 is pronounced a saint or not, but I do not see how it explains why anyone outside the RCC should care one way or the other.

[Lord Jim]

That may explain why some people outside the RCC do care whether J2P2 is pronounced a saint or not, but I do not see how it explains why anyone outside the RCC should care one way or the other.

That is definitely a valid distinction. I stand corrected.

[Big RR]

Big RR:

Just out of curiosity, do you think it's possible to be a Christian and not believe in God?

Jim--as the old saying goes, opinions are like assholes... What I believe or think has no bearing on anyone else except me; I leave each to his or her own faith with their god (or not god, whatever they choose), and will not cast stones. I have enough problems reaching my own understanding to presume to instruct others as to what they must, or must not believe to be considered a christian; it's like my objecting to you calling yourself "jim" because I know Jims who do not share your beliefs or lack thereof.

Now, I will say that I would agree such a person would not be a member/communicant/... of most churches that consider themselves "christian", but then every club can have its own rules for membership. Christianity is not such a club and is not controlled by any one person or group.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Just out of curiosity, do you think it's possible to be a Christian and not believe in God?

Well that question comes back to "who is a Christian?"

I believe one can live by Christian "principles" (the biggest I have found to be "Do unto others...") and still not believe in Christ or God.
Now my own belief is along the agnostic however, I was raised Catholic and their teachings. And I find "do unto others..." to be a "guiding light" so to speak which I try to live my life around. All other "commandments" seem to fall into line after that one. Whether it was my Catholic background that taught me that or whatever, I have tried to teach that lesson (among many but that one was emphasized) to my children, even though they were not as "Catholisized" as I was.

[Sean]

I think that as Jesus is accepted by most people as an historical figure then it is perfectly possible to have agnostic or even atheist Christians.

[Lord Jim]

it is perfectly possible to have agnostic or even atheist Christians.

Well Sean, I have to say that strikes me as absurd....

It renders the whole concept of Christianity meaningless....

Theism is so central to the meaning of Christianity, that's like saying that you could be a Communist without believing in state control of the means of production.....

One certainly could not be a follower of the teachings of Jesus and be an atheist, (you can start with The Sermon On The Mount) so are you suggesting that one could be a Christian without embracing the teachings of Jesus? If so, I would suggest your argument is becoming Orwellian....

I believe one can live by Christian "principles" (the biggest I have found to be "Do unto others...") and still not believe in Christ or God.

I completely agree oldr...I know people who fall into category. But I would take it one step further and say that it is quite possible to live by Christian "principles" and not be a Christian....None of the folks I know who fall into that category would claim to be Christians....(As a matter of fact aside from a couple of folks on this board, I have never in my entire life heard, read or seen anyone advance the argument that one could be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Christ, let alone without even believing in God...that strikes me as surreal.)

I could decide to live by Talmudic principles, but that wouldn't make me a Jew...

But of course, it's a free country and people are free to "call themselves" whatever they choose....

I can call myself a one-legged/Ethiopian/transvestite/lesbian/cricket player if I want to....

But that won't make me one....

[Gob]

It renders the whole concept of Christianity meaningless....

As opposed to?

I can call myself a one-legged/Ethiopian/transvestite/lesbian/cricket player if I want to....

Well that's how the rest of us think of you..

[Andrew D]

How about this for the essence of Christianity:

“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

(Matthew 25:31-46 (New King James Version).)

[Big RR]

Amazing, you mean good works count? Don't tell the fundamentalists. And that's the point, who are christians--those who spout some theological platitudes, those who debate the philosophical teachings of jesus, or those who go out an implement those teachings and care for others without once considering theology or asking whether jesus is divine or whether god exists (or look for any reward for that matter). I have my own thoughts, but I am content to allow people to call themselves what they wish, and leave it to something higher to sort them out (or not).

It's kind of like the RC doctrine of baptism by desire, whereby persons unschooled in the RC teachings may nontheless be baptized (and saved from eternal torment) by a desire for oneness with what they perceive as god. If an institution as rigid as the RC church can allow a person who doesn't believe in god or jesus to become baptized without any ritual, I can allow others who believe differently from me to cal themselves christian.

[Sean]

it is perfectly possible to have agnostic or even atheist Christians.

Well Sean, I have to say that strikes me as absurd....

It renders the whole concept of Christianity meaningless....

Theism is so central to the meaning of Christianity, that's like saying that you could be a Communist without believing in state control of the means of production.....

No Jim, theism is a normal (and generally assumed) part of Christianity. It is neither the meaning of Christianity or a necessary part.

Your Communism analogy doesn't hold water. You would need to subscribe to the ideals of Communism to be a Communist exactly as you would need to subscribe to the teachings of Jesus to be a Christian. You do not however need to hold a Communist Party membership card to be considered a Communist...

One certainly could not be a follower of the teachings of Jesus and be an atheist, (you can start with The Sermon On The Mount) so are you suggesting that one could be a Christian without embracing the teachings of Jesus? If so, I would suggest your argument is becoming Orwellian....

I have never suggested such a thing. In fact if you read back I stated my belief that embracing the teachings of Jesus was just about the only qualification for being a Christian.

I believe one can live by Christian "principles" (the biggest I have found to be "Do unto others...") and still not believe in Christ or God.

I completely agree oldr...I know people who fall into category. But I would take it one step further and say that it is quite possible to live by Christian "principles" and not be a Christian....None of the folks I know who fall into that category would claim to be Christians....

I agree completely Jim. There have been (and continue to be) many who have never heard of Jesus but who live their lives by similar principles gained from a different source. Jesus wasn't the only bloke in history with a good line in "Love thy neighbour" patter...

(As a matter of fact aside from a couple of folks on this board, I have never in my entire life heard, read or seen anyone advance the argument that one could be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Christ, let alone without even believing in God...that strikes me as surreal.)

And because you are unaware of them they don't exist?
I've known one or two in my time actually. It is through discussion with them and accepting their beliefs that I have reached my informed opinion on the subject.

I could decide to live by Talmudic principles, but that wouldn't make me a Jew...

Very true. There are other rituals one must undertake to be considered a Jew. Do you know of any such rituals for a Christian? Of course I mean rituals that aren't specifically Catholic, Lutheran, etc

But of course, it's a free country and people are free to "call themselves" whatever they choose....

What about the rest of the world though?

I can call myself a one-legged/Ethiopian/transvestite/lesbian/cricket player if I want to....

But that won't make me one....

If you hacked a leg off, gained Ethopian citizenship, had a sex change and started playing cricket it would.
Luckily I know of no such physical impediments to becoming a Christian!

[Andrew D]

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

(James 2:14-26 (New King James Version) (emphasis added).)