How can I be a Christian?

[Dr. Zaus]

This guy has a great article:

I suppose, as a socially progressive, academic clergyperson who lives in the Deep South, it is hardly surprising that I get asked these questions…a lot. When someone learns that I teach that the Christian Scriptures are a collection of documents written and edited over centuries, and that those writers and editors were influenced by political and social forces as well as theological ones, they are often surprised to learn that I read the Bible and pray every day – even while knowing that not everything contained therein actually happened.

http://blog.villines.com/?p=489

I'm not a clergy person, but I would be happy to talk thorough how "bible thumpers" aren't the only people that read the bible, and Jezuz is a poor representation of the Christ of the bible.

I like this best:

Yet, as we have discussed, very few of the members of that community agree on everything. Even limiting the boundaries to mainline Christianity, there is considerable diversity in belief and practice. The obvious reality is that we cannot all be right, and – based on the long history of changes in Christian assumptions about “incontrovertible” truths, the Church has likely been wrong more often than it has been right. An honest assessment of the truth of the Christian tradition means comfort with ambiguity; far fewer truths are as certain as we would like them to be. Christianity is about a journey toward truth, not an affirmation of it.

 

[Zebo]

Four things can make you happy.
Career
Community (like volunteering, Rotary, toast masters whatnot)
Church (or some form of spirituality)
Family

Doesn't have to be all four but all have strong social elements and sense of belonging.

 

[soulcougher73]

I dont even know what you are talking about. Jesus is a poor representation of himself in the bible? What?

Also youll never find truth in Christanity. Youll delude yourself from seeing the real truth right in front of your eyes because it is inconvienient.

 

[sci guy]

Assuming you want an answer your question, this is core requirement to be a Christian (some denominations include more items, but this is part of all of them):

1. You are a sinner and cannot get to Heaven on your own.
2. Jesus died without sin and came back to life before ascending to Heaven.
3. Believe Jesus is the Messiah and the way to Heaven, that His death atones for your sins.
4. Make a public declaration of your belief.

Some denominations have additional things such as a being baptized in water and doing good works.

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe the OPoster has good intentions and I like his Opost.

 

[Moonbeam]

I dont even know what you are talking about. Jesus is a poor representation of himself in the bible? What?

Also youll never find truth in Christanity. Youll delude yourself from seeing the real truth right in front of your eyes because it is inconvienient.

How do you know these things. They are just opinions. I would add that you seem to believe you have a handle on what is inconvenient and having one will make you blind, just as you suggest the OP would have to be. You are basically a fundamentalist, I think, having in your head an unconscious assumption that you know what you are talking about, an equivalent to wearing blinders.

 

[Moonbeam]

Assuming you want an answer your question, this is core requirement to be a Christian (some denominations include more items, but this is part of all of them):

1. You are a sinner and cannot get to Heaven on your own.
2. Jesus died without sin and came back to life before ascending to Heaven.
3. Believe Jesus is the Messiah and the way to Heaven, that His death atones for your sins.
4. Make a public declaration of your belief.

Some denominations have additional things such as a being baptized in water and doing good works.

So you won't accept somebody saying they are Christian if they don't believe what you do about the definition? Wouldn't that just lead to an argument? Just because you have a definition for something doesn't actually mean you understand what the definition means. What, for example, does it mean to die without sin. The notions you have in your head about this may be totally different than how somebody else understands those words. How on earth, for example, could there be such a thing as sin? How could God create sin if He created us in His image?

 

[Moonbeam]

Four things can make you happy.
Career
Community (like volunteering, Rotary, toast masters whatnot)
Church (or some form of spirituality)
Family

Doesn't have to be all four but all have strong social elements and sense of belonging.

Are those the only four things or just four of others?

 

[Zebo]

Only four I found but im young and ignorant. Need more research.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I dont even know what you are talking about.

I'm pointing out that fundamentalist christian conservatism isn't the only way to have faith... and may even by an indication of a lack of faith.

Jesus is a poor representation of himself in the bible? What?

Fundamentalists social projections Jesus is a poor representation of the teachings attributed to Christ in the new testament

Also youll never find truth in Christanity.

Interesting, why?

Youll delude yourself from seeing the real truth right in front of your eyes because it is inconvienient.

Every'thing' we see is because it is 'inconvenient' to experience the world in its massively complex interconnected way.

Our syntax betrays us, we say I do something to You.

But I cant talk to you without the talking process changing me, without the talking process changing you and without the communication process between us changing (even if subtly)

and then we realize that saying 'me' and 'you' doesn't make as much sense as we would like to think.. there are distinctions, but there are distinctions between leaves on a branch, but they are all part of a tree.

Doesn't have to be all four but all have strong social elements and sense of belonging.

I think the shared venture is love; a church is meaningless without love, work is empty without love, care for others doesn't matter without love: and family...

But you can't love if you don't fail to hate.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally Posted by sci guy
Assuming you want an answer your question, this is core requirement to be a Christian (some denominations include more items, but this is part of all of them):

1. You are a sinner and cannot get to Heaven on your own.
2. Jesus died without sin and came back to life before ascending to Heaven.
3. Believe Jesus is the Messiah and the way to Heaven, that His death atones for your sins.
4. Make a public declaration of your belief.

Some denominations have additional things such as a being baptized in water and doing good works.

So you won't accept somebody saying they are Christian if they don't believe what you do about the definition? Wouldn't that just lead to an argument? Just because you have a definition for something doesn't actually mean you understand what the definition means. What, for example, does it mean to die without sin. The notions you have in your head about this may be totally different than how somebody else understands those words. How on earth, for example, could there be such a thing as sin? How could God create sin if He created us in His image?

As I read the OP, Dixycrat is suggesting that one can claim to be a Christian without actually believing in the same "truths" as other Christians (or even the same "truths" over time). This is obviously a popular point of view given the large number of Christian sects at large in this world. It seems to me, however, that this divergence of beliefs muddles the meaning of the word "Christian" almost to the point of being unusable.

I think that sci guy is tackling this problem head-on by identifying some foundational beliefs that he thinks all people who call themselves Christians should share. You may not agree with his list, but shouldn't there logically be such a list? Isn't this list of shared beliefs effectively the definition what it means to be Christian?

After all, without such a list, how could I be sure I'm not a Christian?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It seems to me, however, that this divergence of beliefs muddles the meaning of the word "Christian" almost to the point of being unusable... but shouldn't there logically be such a list? Isn't this list of shared beliefs effectively the definition what it means to be Christian?

Christian: "A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."
What are his teachings?

Luke 6

27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Judging Others

37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

39 He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.

41 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

A Tree and Its Fruit

43 “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

The Wise and Foolish Builders

46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. 48 They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

"truths" as other Christians

"Truths" are often created to form identity, create groups, divide people so some have power over others. Jesus is fairly clear in those last few lines that he does't put up with that shit.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Christian: "A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."

Well, by your definition I am a Christian on the basis that my parents saw to it that I received a Christian baptism. Thanks to the "or", believing in Jesus Christ and his teachings is optional for me.

I also get the impression that the list of teachings you quote are not ones you think are among those "far fewer truths" that are not as "certain as we would like them to be". How certain can you really be that these teaching are most important?

When people choose to label themselves as Christian, I have to assume it's meant to communicate that they share something in common with others who also call themselves Christians. It seems to me that you are looking to form a shared identity, define yourselves as a group, and distinguish yourselves from (non-believing) others.

I am really curious to know how closely aligned you feel you are to other Christians like sci guy (who has his own different list) or to someone else who would choose to focus on different teachings from the new testament. How far can your fellow Christian stray away from your own beliefs before you wish he/she used a different label to describe his/her beliefs?

 

[Moonbeam]

Only four I found but im young and ignorant. Need more research.

I was curious because it seemed to me that Career, Community, Church, and Family could all be taken or lost via external causes but spirituality can only fall to internal doubt and thus only it on your list could be truly attained in some dependable sense.

 

[Murloc]

How far can your fellow Christian stray away from your own beliefs before you wish he/she used a different label to describe his/her beliefs?

good question. This is a problem in islam as well I think, with ahmadis saying they're muslims but other muslims saying they're not.

 

[crashtestdummy]

The blog post reminds me a lot of Reconstructionist Judaism, my preferred denomination.

It's worth mentioning that one of the reasons that Reconstructionism never totally took off as a movement is that there's really only a niche population that wants a traditional and ritualistic religious experience that also doesn't feel theologically obligated to stick to it. In other words, most of those liberal enough to freely interpret halakha (Jewish Law) are often those liberal enough to not feel that services need to be in Hebrew, or feel the need to attend at all.

This style of religious person, then, will always feel a little torn between the two much larger groups he describes: those who believe in a more rigid practice, and those who believe in little or none at all.

As I read the OP, Dixycrat is suggesting that one can claim to be a Christian without actually believing in the same "truths" as other Christians (or even the same "truths" over time). This is obviously a popular point of view given the large number of Christian sects at large in this world. It seems to me, however, that this divergence of beliefs muddles the meaning of the word "Christian" almost to the point of being unusable.

I think that sci guy is tackling this problem head-on by identifying some foundational beliefs that he thinks all people who call themselves Christians should share. You may not agree with his list, but shouldn't there logically be such a list? Isn't this list of shared beliefs effectively the definition what it means to be Christian?

After all, without such a list, how could I be sure I'm not a Christian?

While it's true that a wide variety of definitions can indeed dilute the definition of Christian, the author rightly points out the current conservative evangelical definition of "what is a Christian" is very different than many of the other dominant definitions over the last 2000 years. I disagree, though, with the blanket characterization of the modern evangelical definition as "libertine" compared to previous history.

While the doctrine from the church was in the past more serious, and we certainly don't have inquisitions or witch burnings, think about what religion meant to a typical villager 1000 years ago in Europe: You couldn't read the bible, and when you went to services, they were performed in Latin, a language you didn't know, and there was little in the way of personal interaction with the religion outside of eating a cracker and drinking a sip of wine. In that sense, the religious experience was much more about community control of moral behavior than a real sense of connection with a deity.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Well, by your definition I am a Christian on the basis that my parents saw to it that I received a Christian baptism. Thanks to the "or", believing in Jesus Christ and his teachings is optional for me.

If you like. Some folks believe that infant baptism is all you need, and who am I to tell them they are wrong?

I also get the impression that the list of teachings you quote are not ones you think are among those "far fewer truths" that are not as "certain as we would like them to be". How certain can you really be that these teaching are most important?

The above was not 'the' beliefs, it was a smattering that revealed the ethos of Christ.

When people choose to label themselves as Christian, I have to assume it's meant to communicate that they share something in common with others who also call themselves Christians. It seems to me that you are looking to form a shared identity, define yourselves as a group, and distinguish yourselves from (non-believing) others.

This is not necessarily the case but commonly the reason for such a label. I know that if you have faith that Christ was resurrected and confess him as lord you will live a life that follows Christ.

But if not, then those that follow Christ faithfully, even if without faith in the facticity of Christ, are still fellows with me in Christ. Jesus makes no distinctions, sets up no groups, except for those that follow him.

I am really curious to know how closely aligned you feel you are to other Christians like sci guy (who has his own different list) or to someone else who would choose to focus on different teachings from the new testament.

Since we all have problems I don't hold self-hate (spewed out as identity-forming hate of others) against folks that are honestly trying to follow Christ. So for about 10% of other baptists I feel a close affinity; though I've found that number is about 50% amongst atheists (as thats the number in either group that I've found who actively try to follow the teachings of Christ)

My intuition is there's something about not spending 10% of your money on club house fees and spending a few hours of your weekend thinking about how awesome you are for waking up early that helps Atheists realize that loving others is more important than narcissistic self indulgence. The other half or so of atheists are some spectrum between stupid and selfish to the point of hurting others and just don't want to turn around. Now, that 10% of baptists i feel a shared ethos with, at one time, part of the 50% of atheists with whom I do not.

How far can your fellow Christian stray away from your own beliefs before you wish he/she used a different label to describe his/her beliefs?

It's not about what you 'believe'; it's about the creature you are trying to become. My character is constantly developing, the only question is how closely that development aligns with Christ v how closely it aligns with lust and pride that serves me and hurts others (which is sin).

 

[moonbogg]

Deleted - wrong forum

 

[Moonbeam]

PowerEngineer: As I read the OP, Dixycrat is suggesting that one can claim to be a Christian without actually believing in the same "truths" as other Christians (or even the same "truths" over time). This is obviously a popular point of view given the large number of Christian sects at large in this world. It seems to me, however, that this divergence of beliefs muddles the meaning of the word "Christian" almost to the point of being unusable.

M: I felt that he was pointing to a person who claims to be a Christian, not that believes what other Christians do not believe, but believes that Christians in fact and reality do exactly what you say muddles the meaning of the word Christian while still claiming to be Christian, that Christians don't in fact all believe in a strict set of definitions.

PW: I think that sci guy is tackling this problem head-on by identifying some foundational beliefs that he thinks all people who call themselves Christians should share. You may not agree with his list, but shouldn't there logically be such a list? Isn't this list of shared beliefs effectively the definition what it means to be Christian?

M: It's not for me to say whether Christians should have a shared list of traits that identify them as Christians because I am not a Christian. I do not believe in faith in dogma or lists of beliefs as a way to salvation. I would identify a religious person by the fact of love as the fruit of whatever it is they claim to motivate them as proof of religious awakening. I do so because in my opinion the awakening of the experience of love in its highest sense is the purpose of religion. I believe there is one truth known to those who know it and open to any person of any belief or none and that all religions are just paths to get there. In this way two Christians may be vastly different people and a particular Christian, Muslim, or Jew, Buddhist Hindu, etc., be essentially identical people.

PW: After all, without such a list, how could I be sure I'm not a Christian?

M: I don't know. I don't know why anybody would possibly care. I believe that there is one truth and that fact is known unconsciously to every human heart that is felt as an unconscious need, the need that drives some to seek and some of those to fixate on beliefs that substitute fanatical certainty to ameliorate that need. I think these can create notions of what is holy and blasphemous and validate hate where love should be. For such folk religion becomes a truth they can even kill to support even though they are blind to its true intention. They fall in love with a bridge that was supposed to take them somewhere and thus fail to cross it.

I see this issue as an accommodation to reality, the fact that the essence of all religions are identical, an evolutionary step in that direction, one person's attempt to share a more ecumenical interpretation of what it means to be a Christian with other Christians. This is why I like the OP's point of view and the attempt to share it in this thread. There was a time perhaps when a Christian, a Jew, or any member of any other path to reality needed to fixate and lock on to some one single path and focus on it exclusively, because I think it's no easy matter to self realize, but today we live in a very small world where ideas from everywhere make single minded focus difficult and conflict between paths needs to be minimized. Sadly, there's a lot of money and greed involved with religion and millions of only ways. A modern sincere seeker may have many options to explore and we know that religious bigotry leads to war. I would support any shift from exclusivity toward universality because I believe that love is love.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The blog post reminds me a lot of Reconstructionist Judaism, my preferred denomination.

That was cool to read about, thanks for the link. Reminds me a lot of my personal "Cultural Catholicism."

In that sense, the religious experience was much more about community control of moral behavior than a real sense of connection with a deity.

Yeah, when you look back at it it becomes obvious that the major function of religion is social control.

It is also helpful for communication, as we have a shared set of symbols and stories to refer to.

My intuition is there's something about not spending 10% of your money on club house fees and spending a few hours of your weekend thinking about how awesome you are for waking up early that helps Atheists realize that loving others is more important than narcissistic self indulgence.

That is a good point.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Yeah, when you look back at it it becomes obvious that the major function of religion is social control.

It is also helpful for communication, as we have a shared set of symbols and stories to refer to.

I want to make clear that my comment about social control was in reference to Christianity a thousand years ago, and that this effect is both lessening and fundamentally different in nature, even among the most conservative modern Christians.

Certainly, we still have conservative Christians trying to impose moral standards on society, but the nature of that discussion was fundamentally and irrevocably altered by the protestant reformation and the enlightenment. Before the reformation, the moral code for all of European society was determined largely from the top down by a strict hierarchy. Even kings showed their submission to this structure by allowing themselves to be crowned by a representative of the church. The Church was allowed its own courts and the ability to enforce its laws with imprisonment, corporal punishment, torture, and execution.

The reformation presented a radical challenge: that all should be able to read the bible and come to their own interpretation of its meaning. While much of Europe remained catholic after the Thirty Year's War, the spell had largely been broken: states were no longer as dominated by the Catholic Church as they once were.

The enlightenment presented an even larger step. For the first time, ethics and philosophy were being established that were not based on a specific religious code. Furthermore, the introduction of representative democracy allowed citizens, regardless of religious or communal membership, to determine the ethical standard of laws.

It is this last effect that is still in transition, and what Conservative evangelicals lament as "the loss of freedom to practice their religion." Between the reformation and the last century, a local religious community was able to exert a lot of moral pressure on its members to conform to a specific standard. A hundred years ago, there was little social support outside of what your family and your church provided. If they rejected you, you had no friends, no opportunity for a job, no way to find a partner, no financial support to get you through tough times.

That power is eroding. As the secular state has grown, the threat of ostracization has lost its punch. The evangelicals (rightly) feel that this has made it far harder to hold their children and fellow community members to a strict moral code, and likewise requires them to hold to a moral code determined by a secular society.

 

[sci guy]

So you won't accept somebody saying they are Christian if they don't believe what you do about the definition? Wouldn't that just lead to an argument? Just because you have a definition for something doesn't actually mean you understand what the definition means.

It is not I who created these items, these are the items the Bible says are required. Some denominations say more is required, but all agree these are required.[/quote]

What, for example, does it mean to die without sin.

It means exactly what it says. The person who died did so without having sinned while alive.

The notions you have in your head about this may be totally different than how somebody else understands those words.

True, someone could think the word die means "make a peanut butter sandwich", in which case the phrase is meaningless. I would posit that such a person need to be taught the meaning of words instead of simply saying words have no meaning.

How on earth, for example, could there be such a thing as sin? How could God create sin if He created us in His image?

Sin is the violation of divine law, according to whichever religion under discussion. In this thread, it is Christianity, which limits what is and is not sins to just those decreed as such by the religion. Since Christianity has many denominations, and each one is at least slightly different from the others, there will be longer or shorter lists of these sins. Sin was not created in and of itself. Sin is simply what happens when you do violate divine law. If no one ever violated any divine law, sin would never exist.

This also explains why God does not sin.

 

[sci guy]

As I read the OP, Dixycrat is suggesting that one can claim to be a Christian without actually believing in the same "truths" as other Christians (or even the same "truths" over time). This is obviously a popular point of view given the large number of Christian sects at large in this world. It seems to me, however, that this divergence of beliefs muddles the meaning of the word "Christian" almost to the point of being unusable.

I think that sci guy is tackling this problem head-on by identifying some foundational beliefs that he thinks all people who call themselves Christians should share. You may not agree with his list, but shouldn't there logically be such a list? Isn't this list of shared beliefs effectively the definition what it means to be Christian?

After all, without such a list, how could I be sure I'm not a Christian?

The list may not be complete, or may contain a wrong item, but not from what I have been able to find. You are correct that there must be a core set of beliefs in order to actually be a Christian, else you could say Atheists are Christians - which would offend a large number of them.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It is not I who created these items, these are the items the Bible says are required. Some denominations say more is required, but all agree these are required.

It means exactly what it says. The person who died did so without having sinned while alive... Sin is the violation of divine law,

The meaning of the word sin varies based on social context; this is clearly laid out by paul in Romans:

"To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law... The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase."

The being guilty of sin, being a sinner, is is socially constructed. Further, as Lacan said, law was created to increase sin! (juts as Freud said before him, that there is a ware between the spirit of good and the selfish flesh)

So what 'laws' must we follow to be Christian my friend? Grace in Christ is the opposite of "God's law."

So sin exists as a matter of human behavior, but sinfulness (being guilty of sin) exists because cultures tell us 'not to' do something and thus make us feel guilty, evil, dirty, self pitying, self hating, dead.


The good news, as Paul puts it, is that we don't have to live the life of pure animals, entirely dedicated to ourselves and subject to the self-hate the pack puts on us:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Since Christianity has many denominations, and each one is at least slightly different from the others, there will be longer or shorter lists of these sins.

If we like new testament bible, and I like Jesus-y part of the bible, then 1st John, the temptations of Christ (who was tempted in all things), and the initial entry of sin into the world in Genesis, are all stories intended to point exactly to a very specific definition of sin. Anything in violation of this is evil, even "lists of sins."


1) Lust of the flesh,
They knew the apple was good to eat, Jesus was tempted to turn rocks to bread to satiate his hunger

2) Lust of the eyes,
They saw the apple was pleasing to the eye, Jesus stood saw all the nations of the earth and they were offered to him

3) Pride of life,
They saw the apple was good to make one wise, Jesus was tempted to throw himself off of a high place and prove his divinity because angles would save him


1st John tells us that when we do any of these things in a way that is self-serving and other-hurting then we sin; but by grace through faith we can be raised up out of this self-service into doing good works.


It is love leading to good for others, not judging others as 'evil' that forms the basis of the biblical meaning of Jesus.

Which is why I feel compelled to be a very liberal Christian.


I would like to note that I appreciate and respect every and anyone else in whatever spiritual place they are. None of the above is meant to degrade or even debate; simply discuss in a honest and friendly manner.

 

[sci guy]

The edicts of God existed before anyone knew what they were, and until we knew what they there we were not held accountable for violating them. Sin is still the violation of divine law - you do not have to know what the divine law is in order to violate it. God, being just, simply does not hold us accountable for the violation of a law we do not know exists...which is in sharp contrast to humanity which says ignorance of the law is no excuse.