• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Definition of a "Christian"

I take it that you are agnostic, I apologize if I am incorrect. Some times nonbelievers are treated very poorly by Christians, I understand your frustration. But something Christians need to remember is that nonbelievers are (IMO) every bit as deserving of love and hospitality as any other believer. But I don't feel the need to flex spiritual muscles. I know anything I can say will never make you believe in something that you don't believe in. But I would prefer nonbelievers walk away not resenting me. I would rather hear, "those Christian folks are good people". Sadly some give us a bad name.

I agree with you very much here Clax and that is coming from a Christian. Remember the WWJD craze? Sometimes I think Christians (as a whole) don't ever remember what he did. Jesus was the one who was out having lunch with the non-believers and the "sick and perverted" and pretty much any other type that modern Christians call unsavory. And at no point did he ever insist that they convert or be killed or shunned (depending on which version of Christianity you are looking at). He simply gave his message and let them choose. No campaigning for laws based on his beliefs/truth or anything.

I do disagree with you that what we as Christians say will never make someone believe in something that they don't believe in. We'll just probably never do it through force or scare tactics. The example of our lives and being kind and accepting of others will, and has done it in my experience, brings others over. And I've sadly seen other Christians push those teetering on the edge away from Christ.

I don't know why people are so insistent on forcing beliefs on each other. we can get along, we should get along. I find it disturbing that a self proclaimed atheist has more Christ like personality than those that claim to be Christian.

Amen brother.

You seem like a good fellow, and much like the Christians and Muslims I get along with (don't know any practising Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists). Regardless, I must confess that I do feel animosity towards most organized belief systems. IMO, all that is good about religion can be found without it, but it's only through religion that a good person can commit evil. I believe that religion, however well-intentioned, is thought-poison -- mitigated only be the advancement of society.

I will have to disagree with you on your last two statements, especially the bolded one. There is evil in the world that even most atheist and agnostics recognize. Hitler, Capone, hell most drug lords for that matter, not to mention those who do their bidding. One does not have to cite a religious based reason to commit acts of evil.

As to the other, spirituality is what our personal connection to whatever deity/deities we follow is. Religion is merely a tool that allows many of us who share a common deity to come together. Religion is neither the saving grace of man, nor is it mind-poison. Like any tool, the results of its use are based upon who uses it.
 
I will have to disagree with you on your last two statements, especially the bolded one. There is evil in the world that even most atheist and agnostics recognize. Hitler, Capone, hell most drug lords for that matter, not to mention those who do their bidding. One does not have to cite a religious based reason to commit acts of evil.

Re-read what I said. Would you say that Hitler and Capone were good people who did bad things, or simply bad people?
 
In my humble opinion: A Christian is a person who lives their life in the example of the life and teachings of Christ. By that definition, there are very very few true Christians on this planet. Being a Catholic does NOT make you a Christian. Catholics are a group, Christianity is a way of life.
 
Re-read what I said. Would you say that Hitler and Capone were good people who did bad things, or simply bad people?

While I will conceed that Hitler may have though he was a good person (not to sure about Capone), I would still classify both men as evil. And yes to me there is a difference between a person who is evil and one who is good but may have or have to do bad or evil things.
 


I'm only aware of three.

1. THe Literal, Historical & Grammatical method (primarily protestant),

I simply use the first like most other protestants.

How is your ancient Greek, classical Hebrew and Aramaic grammar?

I don't come to these in-house Christian threads very often, but it's interesting, especially with the Unitarian/Trinitarian element. I always thought the Christian v. Atheist debates got testy, but this one's extraordinary. I can't imagine two Buddhists from totally different lines and schools laying into one another like this. Illuminating!
 
Last edited:
How is your ancient Greek, classical Hebrew and Aramaic grammar?

I don't come to these in-house Christian threads very often, but it's interesting, especially with the Unitarian/Trinitarian element. I always thought the Christian v. Atheist debates got testy, but this one's extraordinary. I can't imagine two Buddhists from totally different lines and schools laying into one another like this. Illuminating!

I do try to keep it interesting. So glad you can enjoy.
 
My hunch is that if you're speculating and sitting in judgement of your brothers and sisters, you're probably not getting it anymore than they are. ;)

You seem to imply that I am stating you cannot try and discern who will be the ones that the scripture describes without being that person, and I am doing what I am criticizing the OP for. That it is being judgmental. That is not what I am criticizing him for. Why give the scripture if we are not to try and discern who these type of people will be and avoid going down their path and even warn those of our brothers and sisters who have. Baron seems to be implying that Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Jew, Muslims, every other people he believes are non Christian whether they claim to be or not, are what these verses are describing. If he was right I'd be thanking him for warning me as I believe in The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints otherwise know as Mormons. I don't fault him for trying to determine what types of people these verses are talking about, I fault him at his interpretation at who they are. I've heard plenty of fire and brimstone preachers tell me how Mormons are not Christians and imply we all are going to burn in hell when they are stealing from the poor with their tithes, and cheat on their wives, etc. They think they are righteous or "saved" in their sins and it is easy to discern that it is those type of people that the verses are speaking of. As other verses state, there will be sheep in wolves clothing, which means they will be calling themselves Christians. But the true followers will have the fruits. So do I think a Catholic, Mormon, Jew, Evangelical, Muslim etc who try with the best of their abilities to honestly follow God the best they know how and have good fruits such as honesty, integrity, virtue, charity, helping others, are the ones the verses are talking about like the OP seems to imply, no. Do I think a Catholic, Mormon, Jew, evangelical, Muslim etc who think they are righteous but really have bad fruit, yes I think that kind of individual is what the scriptures are talking about. Are those type of people the ones who usually are quick to call others not Christians, in my experience a high percentage of them are. Do I think I am righteous, absolutely not, i know I need tons of growth and not ready, and I wish no one to go "to hell".
 


It's a tough crowd. I do what I can.

I reckon that recognising a Christian may be like the old Indian story of the blind men and the elephant. You could make the analogy that the elephant represents a 'true' Christian, or that it represents God. I think we all know who the blind men represent.
 
So anyway...back to the original idea...

As both the Old & New Testament's make it clear that Christ is God, how can anyone consider themselves a "Christian" if they can't or won't believe that Christ is God. After all, without the deity of Christ being a "Christian" is rather meaningless, no?
 
So anyway...back to the original idea...

As both the Old & New Testament's make it clear that Christ is God, how can anyone consider themselves a "Christian" if they can't or won't believe that Christ is God. After all, without the deity of Christ being a "Christian" is rather meaningless, no?


In the same way, unless you believe that the Marx brothers were gods, you can't consider yourself a Marxist.

According to Jesus, you can tell who His disciples are because they love each other. He made no qualifier requiring and sort of existential belief structure regarding His nature.

Humanists don't all believe that humans are gods. Buddhists don't all believe that Siddhartha Guatama was God. Beliebers don't all... wait, bad example...
 
Buddhists don't all believe that Siddhartha Guatama was God.
I think you'll struggle to find any Buddhists who think Gautama was God. Gautama made it pretty clear when asked if he was a god. He said, "No".
 


Show me book, chapter and verse where what you are saying is required for being saved.

I'm not going to debate each of those points here in this thread, my point was, you're "criterium" is totally arbitrary, it cancels out Orthodox christianity, and Catholicism, and some protestants, i.e. MOST OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD, who are called christian because they follow christ. My point is trying to make up individual criterium about who is and who is not a christian is pointless.
 


I'm only aware of three.

1. THe Literal, Historical & Grammatical method (primarily protestant),
2. The Allegorical Methohd (primarily Catholic), and
3. Whatever the frick' cultist do.

I simply use the first like most other protestants.

Most protestands don't believe in 6 day creationism ....

Also both methods are used by both catholics and protestants.

Matthew 7:21-23
“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. 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 miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.

It would seem that no less than Christ, Himself, disagrees with you.

Funny I thought salvation came from grace alone, and not works ....

So anyway...back to the original idea...

As both the Old & New Testament's make it clear that Christ is God, how can anyone consider themselves a "Christian" if they can't or won't believe that Christ is God. After all, without the deity of Christ being a "Christian" is rather meaningless, no?

Nonsense. I refer everyone to http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/148166-discussion-blackdog-divinity-christ.html.

The Old Testament NEVER says the massiah will be God, and the NT doesn't say that Jesus is the same as God.

Infact most first century and second century christians didn't believe in that Jesus was God. None of the early jewish christian sects did, and neither did any of the synoptic gospel writers, Paul didn't, one can argue that the writer of John did, but I can, and have demonstrated that he didn't.

Also it isn't meaningless to be a christian without believing christ is God ... Only in your theology.
 
Most protestands don't believe in 6 day creationism ....

Please provide the evidence to support this spurious comment.

Funny I thought salvation came from grace alone, and not works ....

Oh, I agree.


I invite everyone to read this, as well. It’s a wonderful example of you being completely, utterly, shamelessly and amazingly wrong.

The Old Testament NEVER says the massiah will be God, and the NT doesn't say that Jesus is the same as God.

Well, of course not! Not when you ignore all the verses that do make those claims of deity.

Infact most first century and second century christians didn't believe in that Jesus was God. None of the early jewish christian sects did, and neither did any of the synoptic gospel writers, Paul didn't, one can argue that the writer of John did, but I can, and have demonstrated that he didn't.

Actually, it was the early Christians--the Apostles themselves--that taught that Christ was God and that would include the authors of all the Gospels…unless, of course, you don’t believe in the Bible.

Also it isn't meaningless to be a christian without believing christ is God ... Only in your theology.

In your theology, even I can be the Christ (which, of course, I can’t. Just another example of how you are wrong).
 


Please provide the evidence to support this spurious comment.


Oh, I agree.

Then you're quoting Matthew 7:21-23, to say that christ will reject those who PRACTICE lawlessness?

I invite everyone to read this, as well. It’s a wonderful example of you being completely, utterly, shamelessly and amazingly wrong.

We'll have to let people decide, wanna have a formal debate (on the truedebate subforum) on whether or not Jesus of Nazareth is YWHH?

Well, of course not! Not when you ignore all the verses that do make those claims of deity.

Including ALL the verses, it never says Jesus is Yahweh, he is the SON of God, and the massiah, and he was begoten, and subject to God. But if you'd like we can have that debate again.

Actually, it was the early Christians--the Apostles themselves--that taught that Christ was God and that would include the authors of all the Gospels…unless, of course, you don’t believe in the Bible.

No, they didn't, not if you actually read what they taught.

In your theology, even I can be the Christ (which, of course, I can’t. Just another example of how you are wrong).

No, in my theology you can't, because you were born into sin, I made that clear many times.
 
Then you're quoting Matthew 7:21-23, to say that christ will reject those who PRACTICE lawlessness?

I’m not quoting anything. I’m simply agreeing with you that salvation is through grace alone and not works.

We'll have to let people decide, wanna have a formal debate (on the truedebate subforum) on whether or not Jesus of Nazareth is YWHH?

It’s “YHWH”. I’ve ignored all of your other many misspellings but you could try to get that one right.

And, no, I’m not interested in a “true debate” with you. It would simply be more of the “pick and choose” which verses to give credence, more ignoring my points and the Scriptures I’ve given and more making up the most bizarre interpretations of biblical text.

Including ALL the verses, it never says Jesus is Yahweh, he is the SON of God, and the massiah, and he was begoten, and subject to God. But if you'd like we can have that debate again.

Even if there was a verse that said, “Jesus is YHWH” you still wouldn’t accept it based on the undeniable fact that in light of all the Scriptures that say that Jesus is God you still don’t believe it.

No, they didn't, not if you actually read what they taught.

Anybody can read what they taught in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Seriously, man.

Epic fail here.

No, in my theology you can't, because you were born into sin, I made that clear many times.

And only God can forgive sin which is exactly what Jesus did.
 


I’m not quoting anything. I’m simply agreeing with you that salvation is through grace alone and not works.


1. Every one accepts that grace is necessary, but whether it is sufficient is another question, do you need faith? Do you need works?
2. My point is that scripture you quoted seams to say works are needed.

It’s “YHWH”. I’ve ignored all of your other many misspellings but you could try to get that one right.

And, no, I’m not interested in a “true debate” with you. It would simply be more of the “pick and choose” which verses to give credence, more ignoring my points and the Scriptures I’ve given and more making up the most bizarre interpretations of biblical text.

Again, I've given credence to ALL the scriptures and answered all your points, you've been contradicting yourself all over the place.

Even if there was a verse that said, “Jesus is YHWH” you still wouldn’t accept it based on the undeniable fact that in light of all the Scriptures that say that Jesus is God you still don’t believe it.

Of coarse I would accept it, but it doesn't say that, what it says is that you must take int knowledge of the only true God, and the one whome he sent forth .... It says that Jesus is NOT God, but rather the son of God.

Anybody can read what they taught in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Seriously, man.

Epic fail here.[/QUOTE]

Yeah ... and they were Jews, and believed in Jewish monotheism, they never thought that jesus was YHWH, otherwise they would have said it ... but they didn't.

And only God can forgive sin which is exactly what Jesus did.
Jesus recieves authority from God ... the scriptures say that OVER AND OVER again.
 
Back
Top Bottom