Who is a True Christian?

I have been asking this question at UD and it is probably one of the reasons why I got banned…Exposing Christian hypocrisy was probably the nail in the coffin though…or so I see it. Am I right?

Well, who is a True Christian first of all? What qualities would someone have to have to meet the criteria of a True Christian?

I would like to hear atheists and agnostic first before those who think that they are True Christians, without taking anything from their dignity….

I personally enjoy watching movies about Jesus, and how he exposed the hypocrisies of the self-righteous, religious people…

What do you all think?

115 Replies to “Who is a True Christian?”

  1. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: And yet most probably felt that they were True Christians.

    Christians are not perfect. We are all shaped by our culture and the time and place that we live.

    newton: It seems even direct divine revelation is subject to inconsistency of interpretation. Do you find that strange?

    Not in the slightest, should it?
    Revelation is not remotely the same thing as interpretation.

    newton: And each use revelation as the justification for the truth of their position?

    Of course.

    The trick is to convince others with access to the same revelation that you are interpreting that revelation correctly and not conducting Eisegesis .

    That is easier said than done. It makes for lots of debate often loud and heated.

    It’s been my experience that long as one side does not censor the others or claim some sort of special ecclesiastical authority truth eventually wins out.

    That’s what most baptists believe anyway 😉

    peace

  2. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths: That’s actually the “nice” translation of that verse (as it appears in the NIV, for instance). Other translations, including the King James Version, render it appallingly as “as long as they linger at least a day or two before dying”.

    It doesn’t surprise m in the least that you give the text the worst possible reading.

    It certainly doesn’t say you can beat your slaves as much as you like as long as you don’t kill them. Not even close. Nor does it advocate beating them to near death.

    Do you think treatment of children was any different from treatment of slaves?

  3. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Let’s hear the Mungslation of this verse:

    20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

    21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

    What does it actually mean, O Bible Scholar?

  4. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Speaking of would-be Bible scholars:

    fifth, quoting Matthew:

    “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them,”

    newton:

    Easy out, only some people count as “ others”.

    fifth:

    Come one newton, you know better than that. That idea did not come from the Bible.

    Of course it does. God commands that Hebrew slaves get freed after seven years. Foreign slaves are kept forever and passed on to one’s children.

    Haven’t you read the Bible, fifth?

    P.S. There’s also this nice bit:

    7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.

    Exodus 21:7, NIV

  5. Acartia Acartia
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: It’s been my experience that long as one side does not censor the others or claim some sort of special ecclesiastical authority truth eventually wins out.

    Yup. It only took 2000 years for Christians do come to the truth that slavery is wrong. Only 2000 years to come to the truth that homosexuality isn’t a sin. Oops, not there yet. Only 2000 years to come to the truth that it is wrong to hit your wife.

  6. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Acartia,

    And there are still idiots who think it’s wrong for women to teach men, on account of this verse:

    11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

    1 Timothy 2:11-15, NIV

  7. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: We are all shaped by our culture and the time and place that we live.

    Objective morality should not be.

    newton: It seems even direct divine revelation is subject to inconsistency of interpretation. Do you find that strange?

    Not in the slightest, should it?

    Then even an omnipotent God can’t reveal stuff so we know it is true except with respect to our culture and time.

    Revelation is not remotely the same thing as interpretation.

    The Southern Baptists who believed the Bible supported slavery did not believe in revelation, that God revealed stuff through His divinely inspired word?

    newton: And each use revelation as the justification for the truth of their position?

    Of course.
    The trick is to convince others with access to the same revelation that you are interpreting that revelation correctly and not conducting Eisegesis .
    That is easier said than done. It makes for lots of debate often loud and heated.
    It’s been my experience that long as one side does not censor the others or claim some sort of special ecclesiastical authority truth eventually wins out.

    How do you know? Sorry, irresistible.

  8. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: newton: Easy out, only some people count as “ others”.

    Come one newton, you know better than that. That idea did not come from the Bible.

    No, it is hardwired in us. Those outside the group are different. For the Southern Baptists, their Bible justified that belief.

  9. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: Those outside the group are different. For the Southern Baptists, their Bible justified that belief.

    That is incorrect. As I just pointed out. The Bible makes it clear that all humanity is our kin.

    The Baptists who tried to justify race based slavery did not learn it from the Bible.

    On the other hand those Christians who preached against that sort thing did appeal to Scripture

  10. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: Objective morality should not be.

    The objective part comes from the revelation not the interpretation

    newton: The Southern Baptists who believed the Bible supported slavery did not believe in revelation, that God revealed stuff through His divinely inspired word?

    They did not believe that the Bible supported slavery .

    They wrongly interpreted the bible as being neutral on the subject of slavery. That is what eisegesis is all about.

    All men are excellent lawyers when it comes to justifying their own behavior.

    newton: How do you know? Sorry, irresistible.

    revelation 😉

    quote:
    For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
    (1Co 15:25)
    end quote:

    peace

  11. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

    …quotes fifth, while hiding behind his ‘Ignore’ button.

  12. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    newton:

    Those outside the group are different. For the Southern Baptists, their Bible justified that belief.

    fifth:

    That is incorrect. As I just pointed out. The Bible makes it clear that all humanity is our kin.

    That is incorrect. As I just pointed out. In the Bible, God instructs us to treat foreigners, and females sold by their fathers into slavery, much worse than their male Hebrew counterparts.

    Your head is in the sand, fifth.

  13. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths: What does it actually mean, O Bible Scholar?

    It’s obviously teaching slave owners that they ought to beat their slaves as much as they like, as often as they like, and as viciously as they like, but do try to not kill them in so doing. Don’t you agree?

  14. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths: Your head is in the sand, fifth.

    And anyone who trusts you to be objective is a fool.

  15. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths:

    Let’s hear the Mungslation of this verse:

    20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

    21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

    What does it actually mean, O Bible Scholar?

    Mung:

    It’s obviously teaching slave owners that they ought to beat their slaves as much as they like, as often as they like, and as viciously as they like, but do try to not kill them in so doing. Don’t you agree?

    No. It’s teaching them that if they beat a slave to within an inch of his or her life, but the slave survives a day or two, then the owner is off the hook.

    Is that A-OK with you, Mung?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.