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?
Liberal atheists come closer to being true Christians, than do fundamentalist Christians.
OK. I’m not according to your view. I get it. Thanks Neil!
J-Mac,
You are not a fundamentalist Christian, as far as I know. So my comment doesn’t actually apply to you.
Is there any such thing as a “true Christian”? What would that even mean?
It’s akin to a true Scotsman.
As far as useless combinations of words go, “true christian” ranks right up there with “free will” and “objective morality”.
A good Christian doesn’t lord their Christianity over others.
You would never get agreement on that.
The impossibility of agreement on who counts as a ‘true Christian’ does not bode well for the project of assigning a determinate meaning to the phrase.
False. To determine the meaning, all you need to do is to analyze the phrase rationally (logically, philosophically or scientifically).
If you are looking for agreement, then you are not doing logic, not doing philosophy, not doing science. You are doing a poll. In polls you always get all sorts of answers. Does the true meaning have to be the majority answer? How about any other answer in the poll? You are hopeless, dude.
Tagore.
Wow!
“Only that which has no history can be defined” — Nietzsche
If I had to provide a minimal definition of a Christian, I’d suggest the following. A Christian is someone who:
(a) believes in one God, creator of heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1), Who sustains the entire universe in existence;
(b) believes that this God revealed Himself to the Jewish people, and in particular to Moses, who spoke to God “face to face” (Deuteronomy 34:10);
(c) endeavors to love God with all their heart, soul and mind (Matthew 22:37);
(d) makes a sincere effort to love their neighbor as themselves, in their personal life (Matthew 22:39);
(e) believes that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah promised by God to Israel, and that He died on the cross and was raised from the dead on the third day (Mark 8:29; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4);
(f) believes that Jesus Christ is God’s only-begotten Son, the Savior of the world, Who upholds all things by His powerful word, and that we can share in eternal life through Him (John 3:16, 4:42, Hebrews 1:2).
I’ve tried to keep the definition of “Christian” as broad as possible, while remaining faithful to key historical facts which every Christian must believe in.
But if there’s one book which sums up what it is to be a true Christian, I’d recommend the Didache.
Does a true Christian believe that same sex marriage is wrong?
Does a true Christian believe that Birth control is wrong?
Does a true Christian believe that Making fun of Christianity is wrong?
Does a true Christian believe that Slavery is wrong?
Does a true Christian believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong?
Who is a “true Jew”?
True Jew = true Christian in spiritual, religious sense as many true Jews accepted the Christ that made them Christians…IMV…
vjtorley,
Hey VJ!
Not bad for a Catholic!
I’m pretty sure you didn’t get this information from a Catholic Catechism or any other written Catholic Doctrine …
No idea. That seems equally meaningless to me.
So the Jews who didn’t accept that Jesus was the Messiah are therefore not “true” Jews?
Hi J-Mac,
You’re right. I didn’t get it from any catechism. I just wrote it off the top of my head.
That speaks highly of you…
What sort of slavery?
Was it the sort of slavery described in the bible where it was simply an economic arrangement between people who were otherwise equal?
Or was it the more modern type of anti-biblical slavery where people were bound against their will and had no freedom of choice for either themselves or their children? Utterly unlike the ‘slavery’ depicted in the bible.
What’s the basis for the claim that the slavery practiced by the ancient Israelites was people who were “otherwise equal”? Did the ancient Israelites have the concept of equality of persons? How was that concept realized in their legal statutes and judicial practices?
I didn’t say that. 🙂
But a Google search on who is a true jew turns up some interesting links, one of which argues that Gentiles can become “true Jews.” Another mentions a group in California that thinks that blacks are the true Jews.
So perhaps who is a true Christian is a misguided question, and the right question to ask is who is a true Jew.
Just stirring the pot, as usual. 🙂
KN, to OMagain:
I think OMagain is mocking the attempts of modern Christians to sugarcoat the God-approved slavery of the ancient Israelites.
Of course not. One does NOT become a Jew by birth just like one doesn’t become catholic or an atheist by blood relationship…
Among the Jews were many from surrounding nations and tribes including the Egyptians and even possibly some of the Canaanites that weren’t exterminated…
Judaism taught that Christ was going to appear around year 30.
The ancient writings apparently also predicted that the majority of those claiming to be Jews would not accept the Christ.
Probably while thinking particularly of Fifth’s excuses.
Glen Davidson
Why would it need to be sugarcoated?
I agree. Forced slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, it’s all there for the reader’s pleasure.
He doesn’t get it that slavery back then was a blessing for the majority or they would starve to death… Many were selling themselves to slavery but not everyone could afford to buy or accept many slaves especially if they were elderly, had many small children or some were unable to work to support their needs…
So it was either death by starvation or slavery? Could God/the Israelites not have designed a society that was a little less extreme?
Well, the bible does say that if the owner beats his slave to death, he is to be punished. But if the slave recovers, he is not.
You are an idiot…
Well, the bible also says that people who don’t want to be convinced to be left alone, which is exactly what I’m doing…
keiths:
Mung:
For the obvious reason. If you don’t get it, don’t worry about it. Leave it to the brighter folks.
FMM has been teaching me about the true meaning of biblical slavery. I’m simply following where the master leads.
James Henry Hammond said as much defending the slavery of the confederacy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3439t.html
So presumably you would have been fighting for the South in that particular war J-Mac? Got to stop them poor slaves from staving to death or being unemployed, after all!
The academic consensus seems to be that such “optional” slavery was rarely that. And that evidence from Roman contracts tell us that this practice was limited to a specific period of time in a particular geographic area.
But sure, if you want to continue to justify slavery on the basis that “it was different back then” please go ahead.
OMagain,
You are talking about two different times and two different slaveries…
Don’t forget the flood. And don’t forget that the Israelites themselves were not immune to God’s judgment.
Is that the reason you don’t pose your questions to Jews, they are too bright for you?
Matthew 7:21-23 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
Mung,
If there were any believing Jews or Muslims here, I’d ask them the same question.
Exactly,
good to see you back Mung 😉
peace
Thank you.
Do you think it will ever dawn on keiths that his ideas of what God ought to be like is in conflict with how God is portrayed in the Bible?
Where do you suppose he gets his ideas of what God ought to be like, since they don’t actually come from Scripture?
Why is there only one word for it then?
Perhaps you should coin a new term. Slavery-lite perhaps?
God is a shitbag, as descried in “scripture”. An all loving yet sadistic petulant teenager.
I think it’s is not keiths ideas of what “God ought to be like” rather what His followers claim He is like that is in conflict with the character portrayed in the Bible. Internal conflict.
I’d call the ancient slavery micro-slavery and the recent one macro-slavery…
Almost everyone agreed upon micro-slavery…
However, only a very small group agreed upon macro-slavery…but eventually even they were forced to agree that the macro-slavery was wrong…
I didn’t know you believed in God?!
I guess you believe in God for that bad like poor keiths and the gang…
Mung:
newton:
Right.
I challenge Christians to explain why their supposedly loving God issues commands like “It’s okay to beat your slaves to within an inch of their lives, as long as they don’t die right away. They’re your property, after all.”
Brighter Christians will bite the bullet and acknowledge that the Bible is wrong to attribute this command to God. Those who think this command does come from God have some splainin’ to do, if they also believe that God is loving and morally perfect.