Pages: [1] 2 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: What is a Christian? (Read 8888 times)
|
|
ONLYWAY
|
People throw this word around a lot to describe a huge group of people...mormons, catholics, protestants, baptists, etc. Words are important because they have meanings. So what does it mean to be a Christian?
The bible clearly tells us when this word was first used: Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called christians first in Antioch
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
New Hampshire Charter: "Considering with ourselves the holy will of God and our own necesity, that we should not live without wholesome laws and civil government amonng us, of which we are altogether destitute, do, in the name of Christ and in the sight of God, combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such governments as shall be, to our best descerning, agreeable to the will of God..."
|
|
|
|
Pat McCotter
|
John 3:16 (King James Version)
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Visualize Whirled Peas
Give Pizza Chance
I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
slothman
|
My general thought is that someone who believes Jesus is Lord and Savior can be called a Christian.
They may be a bad Christian but that is another story.
I never have asked various people I know though.
I don't have any specific passage in the Bible that is comes from.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FreedomFred
|
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn3.htm==== Which definition is correct? This question assumes that there is one and only one correct definition of the term "Christian." However, depending upon your understanding of the nature of truth, many definitions may be "true" to various groups: * To conservative Protestants, a Christian is often defined according to their salvation status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with some of their foundational beliefs: that the Bible is inerrant, that salvation is by grace, and that one must be "born-again" to be saved and avoid eternal punishment in Hell. * To Roman Catholics, a Christian is often defined according to their baptism status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with their fundamental beliefs about the nature of sacrements, their understanding of the Bible, the declarations of many Church Councils, the statements of many popes, and their church's tradition. * To many in the very early Christian movement, a Christian was defined as a person who was baptized and proclaimed "Jesus is Lord." Their definition was "true" to them because it agreed with their understanding of their religious belief at a time when the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) had not yet been written and assembled. * And so on, with other faith groups. Each group has their own definition of "Christian" which agrees with their own beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, church tradition, written text, evolved theology, the cultures in which they are implanted, etc. There appears to be no way to compromise on a single definition that is acceptable to all. One apparently cannot call on a higher power to resolve the problem, because there seems to be no way to assess the will of God on such matters. If there were such a method, then different definitions would have been harmonized centuries ago. People would simply have prayed to God and asked Him to define what a Christian is. Then, a consensus would exist today on the true meaning of the word "Christian." There is no consensus on what the "correct" definition of "Christian" is. There is only a near consensus within individual faith groups. Therefore questions like "Are you a Christian?" or "How many Christians are there in the U.S." are only meaningful: * Within a single denomination, or among a group of similarly-minded denominations. * In a public opinion poll where the definition of "Christian" is either clearly stated or left up to the subject to define. ==== Good luck with answering that question! I'm going to go with anyone who declares themselves to be "Christian", are. Outside of that, it'll degrade into a "holier than thou" argument, or a "You don't believe exactly the way I do" argument. But to me, the basic tenants of Christianity seem to be very anti-liberty, anti-free-thought, very autocratic and very authoritarian. I personally question how a truly liberty-minded person can be a "true" Christian, but that's my thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
creaganlios
Guest
|
FreedomFred: Except for that last sentence.......Right on the money!  You need to hang around us free-thinking Episcopalians :-) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FreedomFred
|
FreedomFred: Except for that last sentence.......Right on the money! You need to hang around us free-thinking Episcopalians :-) Thanks. On the last sentence, I have read the bible more times than I care to count in the past, and it's all about belief, devotion, and servility to the "Ultimate Authority" ("God") and you are punished severely for non-compliance. Kinda like we see with the Governments of today.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
creaganlios
Guest
|
On the last sentence, I have read the bible more times than I care to count in the past, and it's all about belief, devotion, and servility to the "Ultimate Authority" ("God") and you are punished severely for non-compliance. Kinda like we see with the Governments of today. Of course it is. You're looking at monarchies and tribal model (although the Levitical Cities of Refuge is kinda cool...) The point here (and the one that ONLYWAY can't get her/his head around) is what the USE or ROLE of the Bible is within Christianity. To some of us (Episcopalians), the Bible is part of the Churche's tradition, but by no means a 'rulebook' or 'Reference Book' to be consulted to answer contemporary problems. It has spiritual and historical value, but revelation of man's understanding of God does not end with the close of a document written 1900 years ago. So, depending on your variety of Christianity.....the authoritariansim you find in the Bible does NOT have to translate into an anti-liberty perspective. It ALL depends on a denomination's view of the ROLE and proper use of the Bible. (A poor metaphor: Huck Finn is a great novel, and instructive, but certainly not an example of how we shoud speak about minorities today, n'est-ce pas?) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FreedomFred
|
On the last sentence, I have read the bible more times than I care to count in the past, and it's all about belief, devotion, and servility to the "Ultimate Authority" ("God") and you are punished severely for non-compliance. Kinda like we see with the Governments of today. Of course it is. You're looking at monarchies and tribal model (although the Levitical Cities of Refuge is kinda cool...) The point here (and the one that ONLYWAY can't get her/his head around) is what the USE or ROLE of the Bible is within Christianity. To some of us (Episcopalians), the Bible is part of the Churche's tradition, but by no means a 'rulebook' or 'Reference Book' to be consulted to answer contemporary problems. It has spiritual and historical value, but revelation of man's understanding of God does not end with the close of a document written 1900 years ago. So, depending on your variety of Christianity.....the authoritariansim you find in the Bible does NOT have to translate into an anti-liberty perspective. It ALL depends on a denomination's view of the ROLE and proper use of the Bible. (A poor metaphor: Huck Finn is a great novel, and instructive, but certainly not an example of how we shoud speak about minorities today, n'est-ce pas?) That was very reasoned what you state here, and I wish all Christians had that view. Alas, many do not, and typically the ones who do not make the most noise, which proves the "Empty Barrel" assertion.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AmateurEmale
|
I think Christianity is a weird religion, full of many anti-libertarian attitudes about social issues. It may be something completely normal, such as making good money or having an abortion, but Christians will rant about how much of a "sin" they consider it. Fundamentalists and Catholics are particularly bad about this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dreepa
|
My general thought is that someone who believes Jesus is Lord and Savior can be called a Christian.
They may be a bad Christian but that is another story.
I never have asked various people I know though.
I don't have any specific passage in the Bible that is comes from.
same here |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bazil
|
Yeah, generally a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is their Savior. You will find Christians across the whole political spectrum, but I think you'll find if you actually sit down and take a close look at Christianity in general that it is quite pro-freedom. I'm a Catholic and I'm very pro-freedom, and my ideas don't go against any Church teachings. I believe God gave us a free will for a reason. How can we really be Christian if we have no free will to choose to be good and all the choices are already made up for us by the government?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"- The government | "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons!" - a friend
|
|
|
|
FreedomFred
|
Yeah, generally a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is their Savior. You will find Christians across the whole political spectrum, but I think you'll find if you actually sit down and take a close look at Christianity in general that it is quite pro-freedom. I'm a Catholic and I'm very pro-freedom, and my ideas don't go against any Church teachings. I believe God gave us a free will for a reason. How can we really be Christian if we have no free will to choose to be good and all the choices are already made up for us by the government?
Have you read the Bible lately? I realize different denominations of Christianity have different doctrines, but the Bible is full of anti-libertarian views, stipulations, commandments, and the like. It lays out your choices quite clearly: Believe and go to Heaven; Disobey and be tortured for infinite time. Your only "freedom" is to choose between these two extremes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bazil
|
Yeah, generally a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is their Savior. You will find Christians across the whole political spectrum, but I think you'll find if you actually sit down and take a close look at Christianity in general that it is quite pro-freedom. I'm a Catholic and I'm very pro-freedom, and my ideas don't go against any Church teachings. I believe God gave us a free will for a reason. How can we really be Christian if we have no free will to choose to be good and all the choices are already made up for us by the government?
Have you read the Bible lately? I realize different denominations of Christianity have different doctrines, but the Bible is full of anti-libertarian views, stipulations, commandments, and the like. It lays out your choices quite clearly: Believe and go to Heaven; Disobey and be tortured for infinite time. Your only "freedom" is to choose between these two extremes. The Bible tells you how you should live, not how you should force other people to. Socialism as an idea is anti-christian, because it's wrong to force people into doing things because you think they aren't being generous enough, or to take (steal) their money to give it to someone else. I can see how to see that the idea of God telling you how you should live seems anti-libertarian. That is between God and the individual and it has nothing to do with others, you can choose to follow it or not. It's your own personal choice. Now if you went and created laws to force everyone to live by the Christian ideals then that would be anti-libertarian, but the Bible doesn't call for that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"- The government | "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons!" - a friend
|
|
|
|
FreedomFred
|
The Bible tells you how you should live, not how you should force other people to. Socialism as an idea is anti-christian, because it's wrong to force people into doing things because you think they aren't being generous enough, or to take (steal) their money to give it to someone else. I can see how to see that the idea of God telling you how you should live seems anti-libertarian. That is between God and the individual and it has nothing to do with others, you can choose to follow it or not. It's your own personal choice. Now if you went and created laws to force everyone to live by the Christian ideals then that would be anti-libertarian, but the Bible doesn't call for that.
What about the "believers and faithful go to Heaven", and "Doubters, Faithless, and Non-believers goes to the Lake of Fire" part? How is the threat of punishment just for not believing not anti-Libertarian? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FreedomFred
|
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Lawyers, beware! Seriously, I don't see how torture for being fearful, etc, is not anti-Libertarian. This is heinous and despicable. Even for lawyers.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
