Does a Christian have to believe in God?

Akrasia

I know this is a strange question, But does a Christian have to believe in God, the afterlife, or any of the supernatural claims made about Christ's life and death?
Can someone call themselves a christian simply because they agree with the basic message of jesus' life? Like someone would call themselves a Marxist without believing that Marx was a God or an epicurean without worshiping the man himself as a divine being?

I came across an interesting Article by a man who joined a formal christian church but who doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, or that God even exists.

Why I am a Christian (sort of) April 06, 2006
By Robert Jensen

I don't believe in God.

I don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of a God that I don't believe in, nor
do I believe Jesus rose from the dead to ascend to a heaven that I don't believe
exists.

Given these positions, this year I did the only thing that seemed sensible: I
formally joined a Christian church.

Standing before the congregation of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin,
TX, I affirmed that I (1) endorsed the core principles in Christ's teaching; (2)
intended to work to deepen my understanding and practice of the universal love
at the heart of those principles; and (3) pledged to be a responsible member of
the church and the larger community.Â

So, I'm a Christian, sort of. A secular Christian. A Christian atheist, perhaps.
But, in a deep sense, I would argue, a real Christian.

Why did he decide to become a christian? Well, maybe he believes that christianity should be inclusive and about promoting friendship, brotherhood and community, and not just as a discriptive term of what theological claims individuals would make in order to seperate and classify and divide people into opposing groups? And maybe he's right. Maybe the real christians are the people who follow the intentions of christ, and not those who try to seek rationalisation for all their evil deeds from the bible. Are anti Gay activists really christians? Are war mongers really Christians? Are owners of Sweatshops really christians? Their lack of empathy seems to indicate that they are not following Jesus' only real message. Treat others as you would like them to treat you. Does the CEO of CocaCola act like a christian when he protects murderers in the name of his own profit, or when he allows his factories to suck all the groundwater from whole regions leaving them to die of thirst and famine? He might go to church, but he does act like a christian.

First, whatever my beliefs about the nature of the non-material world or my
views on spirituality, I live in a country that is extremely religious,
especially compared to other technologically advanced industrial nations.
Surveys show that about 80 percent of Americans identify as Christian and 5
percent as some other faith. And beyond self-identification, a 2002 poll showed
that 67 percent of all people in the poll agreed that the United States is a
"Christian nation"; 48 percent said they believed that the United States has
"special protection from God"; 58 percent said that America's strength is based
on religious faith; and 47 percent asserted that a belief in God is necessary to
be moral.

While 84 percent in that 2002 poll agreed that one can be a "good American"
without religious faith, clearly there's an advantage to being able to speak
within a religious framework in the contemporary United States.

So, my decision to join a church was more a political than a theological act. As
a political organizer interested in a variety of social-justice issues, I look
for places to engage people in discussion. In a depoliticized society such as
the United States -- where ordinary people in everyday spaces do not routinely
talk about politics and underlying values -- churches are one of the few places
where such engagement is possible. Even though many ministers and churchgoers
shy away from making church a place for discussion of specific political issues,
people there expect to engage fundamental questions about what it means to be
human and the obligations we owe each other -- questions that are always at the
core of politics.

The pastor and most of the congregation at St. Andrew's understand my reasons
for joining, realizing that I didn't convert in a theological sense but joined a
moral and political community. There's nothing special about me in this regard
-- many St. Andrew's members I've talked to are seeking community and a place
for spiritual, moral and political engagement. The church is expansive in
defining faith; the degree to which members of the congregation believe in God
and Christ in traditional terms varies widely. Many do, some don't, and a whole
lot of folks seem to be searching. St. Andrew's offers a safe space and an
exciting atmosphere for that search. in collaboration with others.

Such expansiveness raises questions about the definition of Christian. Many no
doubt would reject the idea that such a church is truly Christian and would
argue that a belief in the existence of God and the divinity of Christ are
minimal requirements for claiming to be a person of Christian faith.

Such a claim implies that an interpretation of the Bible can be cordoned off as
truth-beyond-challenge. But what if the Bible is more realistically read
symbolically and not literally? What if that's the case even to the point of
seeing Christ's claim to being the son of God as simply a way of conveying
fundamental moral principles? What if the resurrection is metaphor? What if
"God" is just the name we give to the mystery that is beyond our ability to
comprehend through reason?

In such a conception of faith, an atheist can be a Christian. A Hindu can be a
Christian. Anyone can be a Christian, and a Christian can find a connection to
other perspectives and be part of other faiths. With such a conception of faith,
a real ecumenical spirit and practice is possible. Identification with a
religious tradition can become a way to lower barriers between people, not raise
them ever higher.

We can ground this process in the ethical principles common to almost all
religious and secular philosophical systems, one of which is the assertion that
we should treat others as we would like to be treated. For example:

--None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for
himself (Islam).

--Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Christianity).

--Act only on that maxim that you can will a universal law (Kant).

One of the most playful and powerful ways this has been conveyed is in the story
of the gentile who challenged two Jewish rabbis to teach him the Torah in the
time that he could stand on one foot. One rabbi dismissed the question, but
Hillel, one of the great Jewish theologians of the first century BCE, told the
man: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the
whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it."

There is an important struggle going on for the soul of Christianity, which
should be of concern to everyone, Christian or not. The debate is not just at
the level of arguments over whether, for example, certain Old Testament passages
should be interpreted to condemn homosexuality. The deeper struggle is over
whether Christianity is to be understood as a closed set of answers that leads
to the intensification of these boundaries, or as an invitation to explore
questions that help people transcend boundaries. Such a struggle is going on not
only within Christianity, but in all the major world religions.

Where can this lead? Some might argue that promoting such expansive conceptions
of faith would eventually make the term Christian meaningless. If one can be a
Christian without accepting the resurrection, then calling oneself Christian
would have no meaning beyond an expression of support for some basic moral
principles that are near-universal. That is partly true; if this strategy were
successful, at some point people would stop fussing about who is and isn't a
Christian -- and that would be a good thing. The same process could go on in
other religions as well. Christianity could do its part to help usher in a
period of human history in which people stopped obsessing about how to mark the
boundaries of a faith group and instead committed to living those values more
fully.

In other words, the task of Christians -- and, I would argue, all religions --
is to make themselves more relevant in the short term by being a site of such
political and moral engagement, with the goal of ensuring their ultimate
irrelevance. The task of religion, paradoxically, is to bring into being a world
based on the universal values that underlie most major theological and
philosophical systems -- compassion, empathy, solidarity, dignity. Such a world
would be truly based on love and real solidarity, a world in which we would take
seriously the claim that all people have exactly the same value.

In his 1927 lecture "Why I Am Not a Christian," the philosopher Bertrand Russell
said: "A good world ... needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It
needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is
dead."

I couldn't agree more, and I joined a Christian church to be part of that hope
for the future, to struggle to make religion a force that can help usher into
existence a world in which we can imagine living in peace with each other and in
sustainable relation to the non-human world.

Such a task requires a fearlessness and intelligence beyond what we have
mustered to date, but it also requires a faith in our ability to achieve it.

That is why I am a Christian

Morbert

Such a claim implies that an interpretation of the Bible can be cordoned off as
truth-beyond-challenge. But what if the Bible is more realistically read
symbolically and not literally? What if that's the case even to the point of
seeing Christ's claim to being the son of God as simply a way of conveying
fundamental moral principles? What if the resurrection is metaphor? What if
"God" is just the name we give to the mystery that is beyond our ability to
comprehend through reason?

This paragraph is the weak link. if you infer the son of God claim as a metaphor then you aren't Christian. You can call youself christian and get away with it, in the sam way I can call myself a cucumber and get away with it.

Akrasia

Morbert wrote:

This paragraph is the weak link. if you infer the son of God claim as a metaphor then you aren't Christian. You can call youself christian and get away with it, in the sam way I can call myself a cucumber and get away with it.

but in the same way, if you believe he is the son of god, but you don't follow his core message, can you say you are really a christian either?

Was Jesus' legacy to provide us with an example of how we should live or lives, or was he just a symbol of gods power to get us to pay more attention to him?

larryone

Morbert wrote:

This paragraph is the weak link. if you infer the son of God claim as a metaphor then you aren't Christian. You can call youself christian and get away with it, in the sam way I can call myself a cucumber and get away with it.

By your definition of christianity.

Morbert

larryone wrote:

By your definition of christianity.

it is not mine

but in the same way, if you believe he is the son of god, but you don't follow his core message, can you say you are really a christian either?

Was Jesus' legacy to provide us with an example of how we should live or lives, or was he just a symbol of gods power to get us to pay more attention to him?

I agree that you need to both believe in Jesus as the son of God and his core message to be a christian. Sure, you might not be upstanding enough to follow the demands of God, but the fact that he's so forgiving would kind of cover that.

And his legacy was a bridge to God.


(Note: I myself am atheist, just so ye know)

Akrasia

i'm an atheist too, But wouldn't it be wonderful to see the real christians distancing themselves from the people who are only bringing dirt onto their name, the decent tolerant, kind and peaceful christians out there should make it clear that they don't want to be associated with those who abandon the true message of Jesus.

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote:

i'm an atheist too, But wouldn't it be wonderful to see the real christians distancing themselves from the people who are only bringing dirt onto their name, the decent tolerant, kind and peaceful christians out there should make it clear that they don't want to be associated with those who abandon the true message of Jesus.

Some of us do try. But there are those who would paint all Christians with the same brush. As they paint any group with that brush. It makes them all look bad and you look great.

archdukefranz

You mention you can be a Marxist without claiming he was the son of God, first of all, Marx didn't claim to be the son of God, he claimed there was no God.
Jesus claimed he was the Son of God and based all the authority of what he said on that fact.
If you like somethings Jesus said, that does not make you a follower of Jesus, he specifically states what you have to do to follow him, try reading the Bible and see how you live your life fits in with it.

Scofflaw

archdukefranz wrote:

You mention you can be a Marxist without claiming he was the son of God, first of all, Marx didn't claim to be the son of God, he claimed there was no God.
Jesus claimed he was the Son of God and based all the authority of what he said on that fact.
If you like somethings Jesus said, that does not make you a follower of Jesus, he specifically states what you have to do to follow him, try reading the Bible and see how you live your life fits in with it.

Actually, Jesus was quite careful with the phrase, almost cagey. I don't think there's any occasion on which he directly says "I am the Son of God" - on a couple of occasions (Matthew 26:62-64, Luke 22:69-71) he agrees (but not by saying "I am", rather by saying things like "you are right to say it") when people say he is is the Son of God. However, on other occasions (Luke 4:40-42) he rebukes people for saying it (anyway, it's mostly demons, the devil, and various accusers who say it).

Certainly, I don't think that you can claim that Jesus says that he bases his authority on being the Son of God. The apostolic writings claim it, but not Jesus.


cordially,
Scofflaw
(also an atheist)

Excelsior

Akrasia wrote:

i'm an atheist too, But wouldn't it be wonderful to see the real christians distancing themselves from the people who are only bringing dirt onto their name, the decent tolerant, kind and peaceful christians out there should make it clear that they don't want to be associated with those who abandon the true message of Jesus.

How can "the real Christians" (atheists or not!) who acknowledge that whatever your outcome on the divinity of Jesus question, he describes his movement, which we call, Christianity as a feast where God invites all the nobles. They don't show up so he sends his messengers out again and says "Everyone who's hungry, come eat!"

Grace demands that I distance no one, since all who are adopted members of God's family come as rebellious sons welcomed back extravagantly by our Father (who may or may not exist). Can you clarify who exactly is so below me that I can isolate them?

Akrasia

well, what i really meant was, whenever far right christians in America or elsewhere speak out against Homosexuals, or against women or in favour of war, all the other christian groups should shout out loudly that they are being unchristian and are taking the name of Christ in vain.
There should be a vocal opposition by true christians against the likes of Pat Robertsons 700 Club, this is a man who is corrupt to his very core, but he is claiming stake to the title of Christian and he is turning countless people away from the true message of christ.
Christians should also speak out against the aquisition of vast sums of wealth by private individuals, especially if this is at the expense of causing huge suffering to ordinary people.

Excelsior

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, Jesus was quite careful with the phrase, almost cagey. I don't think there's any occasion on which he directly says "I am the Son of God" - on a couple of occasions (Matthew 26:62-64, Luke 22:69-71) he agrees (but not by saying "I am", rather by saying things like "you are right to say it") when people say he is is the Son of God. However, on other occasions (Luke 4:40-42) he rebukes people for saying it

It is strange that so much of the debate about Jesus that takes place here utterly disregards who he was historically. Primarily, his identity was Jewish. He was acting within a Rabbinical tradition and used the methods common to the 2nd Temple teachers.

His statements with regard to his authority offer no other sincere interpretation except that he believed himself to be Messiah, and more, to be uniquely in history, connected in some deep way, to the Godhead. He didn't claim to be the incarnational homousious or whatever later philosophical and theological categories have been placed on him. Of course he didn't, since they hadn't yet been formulated.

But here is what Jesus did claim. He claimed again and again and again and again and again (and so on) to be the prophesied Messiah. He claimed to be God's son. He claimed to be the source of eternal life. He claimed the title YHWH.

What term did Jesus actually use to describe himself? Son of Man. As every Jew in Palestine would have known, this was a reference to Daniel 7, where the Ancient of Days appoints a plenipoteniary to inaugurate his reign on the Earth. Jesus is recorded as using this term to describe himself 80 times in the Gospel.

Historic Christianity does not believe that Jesus' self-conssciousness took the form of:

Jesus waking up: "Argh. Good stretch. What will I do today then? Oh yeah! I forgot. I am God walking the Earth. I have to go sustain everything and listen to those freaking prayers those Malaysians keep throwing up at me. Also, I must tell some cryptic riddles to some Jewish farmers."

Jesus' self-understanding, as you can sense from the Gospels if you sit down and read them tonight, is much more like a vocation. He realised he was called to do these things- these setting captives free, offering sight to the blind, seeing the lame walk things- and he follows that vocation as far it goes. Interestingly, for the topic at hand, Jesus is constantly alluding to his prayer life with God, who he calls again and again Father and he is clear that it is the sustaining force in his life. He seemed to have glimpses of where his mission was going (he certainly never shrunk back from battles that would lead to his murder) but not exact co-ordinates. He always is saying "The time has not come". I first saw this clearly in Mark where abruptly about the middle of the book he turns towards Jerusalem and from then on his "time had come". In the Garden we see how the awareness of his mission kept becoming more keenly focused.

This self understanding was not the kind of thing that could be summed up in a pithy mission statement. Instead he drew on the millenia-old Hebrew tradition, using dense, meaningful phrases like Son of Man. Crucially though Scofflaw, no Jew could look at the description of Jesus and deny that this man is purported to be the Son of God. He did the Messiah job of healing and restoring, rejuvinating and fixing. But then he raised people from the dead, forgave their sins (!) and finally, as the ultimate proof, is claimed to have come back from life after death. The Jews who heard this story in the years after Easter had two reactions: "that is sick demonic crap" or "I thank God I have seen the day".

scofflaw wrote:

Certainly, I don't think that you can claim that Jesus says that he bases his authority on being the Son of God. The apostolic writings claim it, but not Jesus.

I'd debate anyone on it. The only way Jesus didn't think his authority came from God is if he was not a Jew.

Humbly submitted for your consideration,
Excelsior
(Also a follower of this Jew they call the Christ)

Excelsior

Akrasia wrote:

well, what i really meant was, whenever far right christians in America or elsewhere speak out against Homosexuals, or against women or in favour of war, all the other christian groups should shout out loudly that they are being unchristian and are taking the name of Christ in vain.

On many of these issues, this does happen. But it shouldn't happen in public. You don't lose your place in God's family because you shame your siblings. And it would be inappropriate for Rowan Williams to take out a full page ad in the Times of London to condemn whatever crap Jerry Falwell utters tomorrow. Just like it was inappropriate for predeccessors of the Archbishop to use their status as a public pulpit in which they waged war with the non-Christian culture of their time.

Both God-denying preachers and God-denying culture needs to be challenged. But it has to be done in the hope of resolution, not just for the sake of protecting our reputation. Remember that Paul gives Christians this identity: "The scum of the Earth, the trash of the world". We of all people should deal calmly and lovingly with the fools in our midst. We are the fools in our midst.

So what I am taking a long time to say is that the challenge that occurs should not be full of pomp and bravado for all the world to see. The challenge that occurs should take place in the prayer room and over the dinner table. That ought to be the Christian way.

Akrasia wrote:

There should be a vocal opposition by true christians against the likes of Pat Robertsons 700 Club, this is a man who is corrupt to his very core, but he is claiming stake to the title of Christian and he is turning countless people away from the true message of christ.
Christians should also speak out against the aquisition of vast sums of wealth by private individuals, especially if this is at the expense of causing huge suffering to ordinary people.

He isn't just claiming the stake. He is a Christian. You don't "get in" by earning it. And no other human can "kick you out" because you have earned that. To be a Christian is to be adopted by God as his son. You don't repudiate your son just because he is an embarrassing asshole. You don't even repudiate your son if he is an evil murderer. But you do punish your son yourself. You don't let his siblings do it for you!

I agree Robertson (and many more like him) does more harm than good. I think he might be crazy. He is definitely preaching a false Gospel. But would I be living the true Gospel if I was to make him my enemy or isolate him?

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

But here is what Jesus did claim. He claimed again and again and again and again and again (and so on) to be the prophesied Messiah. He claimed to be God's son. He claimed to be the source of eternal life. He claimed the title YHWH.

Hmm. I certainly didn't claim that the Bible didn't claim Jesus to be the Son of God - I said that he himself was cagey about it. None of your quotations (no offence intended!) have any relevance to my point. The closest is the reading of the scroll, but actually I think my original quotations are closer than that.

Excelsior wrote:

Jesus' self-understanding, as you can sense from the Gospels if you sit down and read them tonight, is much more like a vocation. He realised he was called to do these things- these setting captives free, offering sight to the blind, seeing the lame walk things- and he follows that vocation as far it goes. Interestingly, for the topic at hand, Jesus is constantly alluding to his prayer life with God, who he calls again and again Father and he is clear that it is the sustaining force in his life. He seemed to have glimpses of where his mission was going (he certainly never shrunk back from battles that would lead to his murder) but not exact co-ordinates. He always is saying "The time has not come". I first saw this clearly in Mark where abruptly about the middle of the book he turns towards Jerusalem and from then on his "time had come". In the Garden we see how the awareness of his mission kept becoming more keenly focused.

The same can be said for George Bush! Indeed the same can be said for a lot of people, throughout history, within and without the church - they believe they have been called, by God, to do something.

I'm not denying that Jesus felt his authority came from God - I was specifically arguing against the proposition that he has no authority if he is not the Son of God, and that he himself said so. He certainly alluded to it on certain occasions when he was feeling bold, but on a lot of occasions he absolutely passed up the chance to assert it, or denied it to those who asserted it. Why so?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

By the way, Excelsior, I was reading your account of Grace - that it is a gift from God, which is fundamentally independent of your actions in this world with the important exception of accepting Christ.

In the context of this debate, what position is someone in with respect to Grace if they follow Christ as a teacher but not as a saviour? Is it too late to qualify for the First Circle?


cordially,
Scofflaw

pbsuxok1znja4r

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. I certainly didn't claim that the Bible didn't claim Jesus to be the Son of God - I said that he himself was cagey about it. None of your quotations (no offence intended!) have any relevance to my point. The closest is the reading of the scroll, but actually I think my original quotations are closer than that.

I would beg to differ...I think his quotations have much relevance to the point. But, I was wondering, on what historical sources, other than the bible (the accuracy of which you come across as being skeptical of (?) ), are you basing this assertion that Jesus was "cagey" on the question of whether he was actually the son of God? In the Bible he is quoted as saying these things, which, given the Jewish context and tradition, can only mean that he is the son of god, as Excelsior pointed out. This is independent of whatever other claims the bible's authors themselves make about Jesus. So, *if*, (and I say "if"!) you don't believe what's said in the bible, on what do you base the knowledge you lately profess of Jesus' words? i.e. his cageyness?

Scofflaw

scouser.tommy wrote:

I would beg to differ...I think his quotations have much relevance to the point. But, I was wondering, on what historical sources, other than the bible (the accuracy of which you come across as being skeptical of (?) ), are you basing this assertion that Jesus was "cagey" on the question of whether he was actually the son of God? In the Bible he is quoted as saying these things, which, given the Jewish context and tradition, can only mean that he is the son of god, as Excelsior pointed out. This is independent of whatever other claims the bible's authors themselves make about Jesus. So, *if*, (and I say "if"!) you don't believe what's said in the bible, on what do you base the knowledge you lately profess of Jesus' words? i.e. his cageyness?

Excelsior has quoted several points where other "voices" say that Jesus was the Son of God - for example, John says that he is in one of the quotes. I'm not arguing that - my point was the infrequency of Jesus himself saying it. Whatever the accuracy of the Bible, there's still a difference between someone saying "Jesus is the Son of God" and Jesus saying "I am the Son of God". My comment on his caginess is based on the my inability to find many points where the latter is the case - the number of occurrences of the former is irrelevant.


cordially,
Scofflaw

pbsuxok1znja4r

Scofflaw wrote:

Excelsior has quoted several points where other "voices" say that Jesus was the Son of God - for example, John says that he is in one of the quotes. I'm not arguing that - my point was the infrequency of Jesus himself saying it. Whatever the accuracy of the Bible, there's still a difference between someone saying "Jesus is the Son of God" and Jesus saying "I am the Son of God". My comment on his caginess is based on the my inability to find many points where the latter is the case - the number of occurrences of the former is irrelevant.


cordially,
Scofflaw

To be honest, I kind of doubt you could ever find a sentence spoken by Jesus that literally translates into English as clear-cut as "I am the son of God". To use a crude analogy, if I were to say, "I am that only professional golfer in history who has held all four major titles at once, and has spent the longer than anyone else at no.1 in the world golf rankings.", you, provided you knew something about the sport, could only conclude that I was saying I was Tiger Woods, the messiah of pro-golf
I notice you use the word "infrequency" to describe how often Jesus did/didn't say he was the son of God; am I to infer that you believe that he, in all probability, did say so at least once? Isn't that enough - given what we know (or believe, if you like) about the character of Jesus?

bmoferrall

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. I certainly didn't claim that the Bible didn't claim Jesus to be the Son of God - I said that he himself was cagey about it.
...
He certainly alluded to it on certain occasions when he was feeling bold, but on a lot of occasions he absolutely passed up the chance to assert it, or denied it to those who asserted it. Why so?

Had he explicitly claimed this early on, he would have been arrested prematurely (w.r.t his mission/plan). It was this very claim that gave the Jewish leaders reason to arrest him in the end (Matthew 26). Usually, questions about Jesus' divinity came from (transparently) hypocritical Pharisees/Saducees attempting to wrong-foot him (Matthew 21). Understandably, Jesus wouldn't give them straight answers; rather, he chose to expose their hypocrisy with his replies. I think we would all react in similar fashion when faced with duplicitous questioning.

It's true that Jesus appeared coy about applying grandiose titles to himself.
However, the NT is littered with implicit references to his true identity, that is, the identity he lay claim to. e.g.

* The very same who dealt with the OT prophets: 7"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing" (Matthew 23)

* The eternal 'I am': "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" (John 8)

* His reinterpretation/distillation/exegesis of OT laws in the Sermon on the Mount ("But I say...", "Anyone who listens to my teaching...").

* Projecting to the future Judgement day: "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matthew 7)

* Confidently predicting the future: "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 7)

* Demons referring to his true identity: "9'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. 'Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?'" (Matthew 8)

* Authority to forgive sins: "Take heart, son! Your sins are forgiven" (Matthew 9)

* Authority over creation: "For I, the Son of Man, am master even of the Sabbath". (Matthew 12)

* The Messiah: "25For whoever wants to save his life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it" (Matthew 16)

* His kingdom: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16)

* Looking to his future kingdom: "And so it is, that many who are first now will be last then; and those who are last now will be first then." (Matthew 20)

* Warnings about future impersonators: "For many will come in my name, saying, 'Im am the Messiah.'" (Matthew 24)

* His second coming: "And they will see the Son of Man arrive on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matthew 24)

* His resurrection (Matthew 28)

* Oneness with the father: "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me" (John 14)

* The Word made flesh, God incarnate: "Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will remain forever."

These are not the words of a mere prophet or teacher, they are the words of one claiming to be God.


Aside from the countless miracles (which Atheists presumably dismiss as author embellishments, or some kind of magic), his divinity was confirmed to Peter, James and John with the transfiguration ("this is my beloved son. Listen to him")...and the (much-debated) exchange with Peter (Matthew 16).

I really don't think there's any argument about who Jesus claimed to be. The question is really how accurate a reflection the gospels are of his teachings and life. Skeptics will argue that the Gospel writers would naturally want to garnish the story with tall tales and miraculous works. I would argue that such exaggeration would be anathema to any true, mature Christian, which the Gospel writers obviously were. Were I :rolleyes: in such an unlikely position I would have absolutely no interest in presenting a false account; I believe that would be equally true of any Christians here. Of course there are Christians who would be susceptible to hyperbole in such circumstances, but I simply don't believe that is true of the NT authors.
Is the Gospel story really indicative of what human minds would conjure up to 'promote' a new movement called Christianity? For me, one of the most persuasive aspects of the NT is the faith and committment, to the point of martyrdom, of the Apostles, as they sought to spread faith in a movement whose leader had just been publicly and brutally crucified.

UU

This is my opinion so if you don't like it - tough! :

What's the point of claiming oneself to be Christian when one can't even follow the ten commandments and Christ's teachings? It seems totally pointless to me. Following Christ's footsteps is following his teachings. He says that you'll know his followers by their actions: "A healthy tree bears good fruit, but a poor tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit and a poor tree cannot bear good fruit."

If I claimed myself to be communist and was an active supporter of the democratic party, would I be communist?

Jesus didn't come down to Earth for the laugh, he came for a reason - to spread his message of God and his teachings.

In my terms a TRUE Christian follows Christ's teachings, beliefs and belief in him as a Messiah / Saviour and Son Of God. I try to follow Jesus' teachings yet I don't claim myself to be Christian as I believe he was a prophet. . . . . .

Asiaprod

UU wrote:

This is my opinion so if you don't like it - tough! :

Good post UU, interesting thoughts. However, do you really have to set it up in such an argumentative fashion though. That kind of statement does not really encourage anyone to debate with you. Kind of closes the door if you know what I mean. And that's a shame when you probably have a lot you can add to the topic.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Asiaprod wrote:

Good post UU, interesting thoughts. However, do you really have to set it up in such an argumentative fashion though. That kind of statement does not really encourage anyone to debate with you. Kind of closes the door if you know what I mean. And that's a shame when you probably have a lot you can add to the topic.

I think the colon UU typed after "tough!" was intended to produce a smiley of some description, hence sugar-coating it etc etc
That seems to be most peoples unspoken attitude, anyway, I'd give some credit for openly admitting it :rolleyes:

UU wrote:

What's the point of claiming oneself to be Christian when one can't even follow the ten commandments and Christ's teachings? It seems totally pointless to me. Following Christ's footsteps is following his teachings.

No human can flawlessly follow what Christ did/taught. (There's no distinction, because he practiced what he preached). The point of 'claiming' oneself to be Christian is to make a kind of declaration or mission statement, if you will, to at least try to follow Christ's teachings. Failure to completely do so should not therefore forbid you from calling yourself a Christian.

Out of curiosity, who would you have more tolerance for? Some one who claims to be a Christian but doesn't always act like it; or someone who claims to be a complete asshole and always acts like it, too?

UU wrote:

If I claimed myself to be communist and was an active supporter of the democratic party, would I be communist?

I don't know much about Communism, but I'm fairly sure that communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. In any case, if they are, you would still be a communist, just a pretty bad one.

What you're arguing about here is just simple terminology. This issue was covered in the preface to a (yes, yet another) CS Lewis book. The example was given, of the word; "gentleman". A century or two ago, the word gentleman meant something different from what it means now. It was a word to describe any landowner; i.e. a member of the landed gentry. Now, in those days, synonymous with land ownership were these things; good breeding (e.g. somewhat 'noble' birth), refinement, intelligence, taste, manners etc etc
So, anyone who was a member of the gentry was thus generally assumed to have all those desirable qualities that we now associate with the word "gentleman". This is how the word came to be associated with those things. The difference being that, nowadays, we apply the word to people with the attributes, but not the land-ownership part. In this way, the word has become abused.
Now, what you're (or if not you, then many others) attempting to do with the word "christian" will eventually lead to the same perversion in meaning of the word. You claim that anyone, secular or otherwise, with good, 'decent' qualities - a nice guy - is more of a 'christian' than the other guy who may be a churchgoer; an official, baptised initiate of the church, etc. Eventually 'christians' would come to signify not people with any religious or spiritual beliefs, but simply folk that we thought had desirable qualities of character. The word would become damn near useless, with the confusion it would cause; the ambiguity it would afford.
Let us instead call those who we deem to be lousy people - if they are a member of the church - "bad christians". If they are not a member of the church, simply call them 'bad'. I'm sure you can work out what to call the other kind of secular/non-secular folk Agreed?

UU

Hi scouser.tommy!

Yes I do see where you're coming from and I'll admit that I was wrong in my previous post. I suppose the terms "true Christian" and "false Christian" would be more applicable.

Here's food for thought which I've prepared especially for you , Christianity has many definitions but perhaps the most acceptable one would be that Christianity is composed of two parts - belief / faith and ethic. It's the belief that differs it from any other religion - the belief of Jesus Christ as the son of God is unique only to Christianity for example.

But its the ethnic part of Christianity which is a challenging and spectacular part. Christianity is much more than mere beliefs but in fact, an act in which one lives (i.e. a way of life). A very paramount and valuable part imo is "Sermon On The Mount". It is here that Jesus clearly emphasised the true moral and ethic nature in which his followers should try live according to. This has stood for over 2000 years as the the standard by which Christians must judge their own behaviour. Jesus said that the world will know his followers not just by their creed by also their actions. It seems that those who are true Christians will take this onboard.

But Tom, I'll challenge you here = NOT agreed.
Saying that someone is a "bad Christian" because they don't attend service is ridiculous. Why can't somone be Christian by praying in solitude? My father is Christian - he believes in most of the beliefs, is rather good with in his actions but never bothers attending mass. He said to me that he finds it boring as he'd prefer to read a passage from the Bible or pray rather than falling asleep. He does attend on very special occasions but himself and my mother didn't even get married in a church but in a registary office. He says life is short enough as it is so he'd prefer not to waste time sitting in church but would make more value of his time spiritually by exploring the world God gave him. Why not, eh? A true Christian isn't judged by if they attend service or not......

P.S. C.S. Lewis is great, ain't he? I especially love Narnia! It's so beautiful and touching.

UU

Asiaprod wrote:

Good post UU, interesting thoughts. However, do you really have to set it up in such an argumentative fashion though. That kind of statement does not really encourage anyone to debate with you. Kind of closes the door if you know what I mean. And that's a shame when you probably have a lot you can add to the topic.

Yes I didn't complete the smiley face after it. I was just messing to see what reaction I got. The folks on this thread are very dramatic, don't you know? (Of course that includes myself!)

Excelsior

Scofflaw wrote:

By the way, Excelsior, I was reading your account of Grace - that it is a gift from God, which is fundamentally independent of your actions in this world with the important exception of accepting Christ.

In the context of this debate, what position is someone in with respect to Grace if they follow Christ as a teacher but not as a saviour? Is it too late to qualify for the First Circle?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Grace is all about being saved Scofflaw. I don't know if you can be saved by someone and not have them as your saviour. I am sure your reasoned approach to life will leave you in the Castle of Plato and co, just outside the gates.

pbsuxok1znja4r

UU wrote:

But its the ethnic part of Christianity which is a challenging and spectacular part. Christianity is much more than mere beliefs but in fact, an act in which one lives (i.e. a way of life). A very paramount and valuable part imo is "Sermon On The Mount". It is here that Jesus clearly emphasised the true moral and ethic nature in which his followers should try live according to. This has stood for over 2000 years as the the standard by which Christians must judge their own behaviour. Jesus said that the world will know his followers not just by their creed by also their actions. It seems that those who are true Christians will take this onboard.

True, but someone not of the Christian creed can technically still never correctly be called 'christian', no matter how 'good' their actions alone are by christian standards. TBH it's just a label, which needs to be agreed on for clarity's sake.

UU wrote:

But Tom, I'll challenge you here = NOT agreed.
Saying that someone is a "bad Christian" because they don't attend service is ridiculous. Why can't somone be Christian by praying in solitude? My father is Christian - he believes in most of the beliefs, is rather good with in his actions but never bothers attending mass. He said to me that he finds it boring as he'd prefer to read a passage from the Bible or pray rather than falling asleep. He does attend on very special occasions but himself and my mother didn't even get married in a church but in a registary office. He says life is short enough as it is so he'd prefer not to waste time sitting in church but would make more value of his time spiritually by exploring the world God gave him. Why not, eh? A true Christian isn't judged by if they attend service or not......

Quite right, I apologise if I've implied that they are judged by that. I merely used the issue of church attendance as an example of something that a christian is, by definition, supposed to do, as a means to differentiate between what someone might call a 'good christian' or a 'bad christian'. So long as someone professes to be Christian - they are. Regardless of whether they are good christians or bad christians. (Which one should never set out to judge anyone as, IMO). But you should keep in mind that for many christian denominations one of the most important aspects would be attending mass to recieve the sacrament/s, communion, etc. If your father is not part of one of these denominations, then by no means does his absence from mass imply that he is less christian, or even a less good christian.

UU wrote:

P.S. C.S. Lewis is great, ain't he? I especially love Narnia! It's so beautiful and touching.

I've actually never read any of the Narnia books...He's certainly an imaginative writer, though. Bit of a jack of all trades. Part-time poet, philosopher, theologian, apologist, science-fiction author, etc. Knew his classics, though. Unrivalled for sheer common sense. Should be a Legend of the boards, really.

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

Grace is all about being saved Scofflaw. I don't know if you can be saved by someone and not have them as your saviour. I am sure your reasoned approach to life will leave you in the Castle of Plato and co, just outside the gates.

That seems entirely reasonable, although it does rather leave open the question of what it means to "accept Christ as your saviour"...I suspect I'd always be worried that I hadn't accepted him sufficiently.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Excelsior

Scofflaw, that is a connundrum. All Jesus asks for is everything etc etc cliché cliché. But accepting him involves the squatting of the Holy Spirit in your Self. She is a pain to remove once she moves in. And she has an annoying habit of clearning the house up a bit, emptying the gutters, cleaning the windows and then pursuing wholesale renovation of the structure to make it fit for eternity.

Analogically Clichéd,

Excelsior.

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

Scofflaw, that is a connundrum. All Jesus asks for is everything etc etc cliché cliché. But accepting him involves the squatting of the Holy Spirit in your Self. She is a pain to remove once she moves in. And she has an annoying habit of clearning the house up a bit, emptying the gutters, cleaning the windows and then pursuing wholesale renovation of the structure to make it fit for eternity.

Analogically Clichéd,

Excelsior.

Ah. There have been times in my life when I have been tempted - it's the old "you who are heavily laden" bit, I think, which, alas, makes more and more sense as you get older! Still, I shall stagger along for the moment, although a drop of Grace would be nice.


cordially,
Scofflaw

R0ot

Havent read all the posts as im a bit tired atm but from some ive read i have this to say:

Whatever you believe about God, Jesus etc if you believe that you can just be a good person and get to heaven or wether you think god has to forgive you no matter what or wether you think you have to be baptised to get to heaven, it doesn't matter believe what you want, there will be a day though where we will all find out if we were right or wrong about our beliefs and by my beliefs (personally) i believe in God, and that jesus christ was his son and he died on the cross and rose again and will come again to judge all, and i practice what i can discern from the bible that ive read.

But i will leave you all with a little side note, don't judge others, wether they are a different belief structure or a different colour of skin or different accent to you, we'll all be judged at some stage so no use throwing around false judgement now. Get on with your life instead. Worship whoever you want to or don't want to.

Excelsior

Scofflaw wrote:

Ah. There have been times in my life when I have been tempted - it's the old "you who are heavily laden" bit, I think, which, alas, makes more and more sense as you get older! Still, I shall stagger along for the moment, although a drop of Grace would be nice.


cordially,
Scofflaw

As a young 'un, I can't sing "Amen brother!" yet. But I'll propose marketing a Grace fragrance with the Big Guy Upstairs next time we are communing.