Ship of Fools: How Christian is your life?

Thread: How Christian is your life? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023906

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Consider this scale:

1 - The most Christian you can imagine yourself being

4 - Neither one nor t'other

7 - The least Christian you can imagine yourself being

Consider these terms in any way you like.

I'd say I was close to a 3 - much of my thought process is still fairly Christian and I retain an ability to find meaning in Christian religious services and so on.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

What do you mean by 'being Christian'?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

I think a person is either a Christian or they aren't. IMO, There is no such thing as a black belt Christian. Some Christians are really sinful and some Christians aren't so much, BUT they're still 100% Christian.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Whatever you like. The question is how you perceive yourself.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Then the question, I think, is meaningless.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

You missed the opportunity to use a 14 point scale!

I do agree, this is really open, so many ways you can count yourself Christian.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

I'm with daronmedway here. I'm a Christian, or as I prefer to say, a follower of Jesus. My life is ordinary, with ups and downs. Sometimes I feel closer to God than at other times. Sometimes I wonder if there IS a God. Sometimes I do that which I should not, or don't do that which I should. But if push comes to shove, I'm still set on following Jesus and hope to do so for the rest of this life.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Curiosity wrote

quote:
You missed the opportunity to use a 14 point scale!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Probably not very. Maybe a 5.

Of course, the fact that that doesn't really bother me is one of the main reasons I'd rate myself as not living a particularly Christian life.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I don't think it is up to me to judge myself on this matter.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Curiosity wrote

quote:
You missed the opportunity to use a 14 point scale!

Sorry, it was a reference to the Dawkins Theistic Index thread, which I suspect is what suggested the idea for this thread. And the pH scale is 14 point with 7 as neutral.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I am a law-abiding, happy, confident person, living my life in the best way I can, confident too in the knowledge that there is no God/force/power-out-there-somewhere to spend any time or energy on. If you met me and a 'christian' person, you would perceive no difference unless you asked about religious belief/non-belief, would you?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

If you ask me, are you any better than a non-Christian? I would think that that is a rather weird question. The entire doctrine of Christian original sin teaches that everyone, non-Christian or Christian is ultimately in the same boat so to speak. An atheist/agnostic might say as Susan wrote that there is no moral difference between her and a self-professed Christian. To which, the Christian says "Of course" To use C.S. Lewis's words, we are all "sons and daughters of Adam and Eve."

So what's the point of being a Christian? A Christian asserts that human beings were created for eternal flourishing, made to grow into the likeness and image of God. This journey to eternal flourishing is not a matter simply of being a "better" human being, but is tied to encountering the transcendent. An atheist/agnostic/materialist to some extent, denies the reality of the transcendent and, for them, Christianity is useless because it promises something that does not exist. So if affirming the reality of the transcendental, a Christian asserts that the way to this reality is through the Christ-encounter, the notion that in the historic person of Jesus Christ, the transcendental entered our world decisively, in what we affirm as the Incarnation.

[ 27. September 2012, 17:16: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

An atheist/agnostic/materialist to some extent, denies the reality of the transcendent and, for them, Christianity is useless because it promises something that does not exist.

Ideals like 'justice' probably don't exist in a platonic sense but seeking justice still seems worthwhile. Ideals exist to pull us towards them - even if we're never going to get there. On that basis Christianity can be vitally valuable.

So though I agree entirely with SusanDoris, I don't deny the value of religion.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I suppose most theists would argue that even if someone denies the transcendent, they still live in it and through it.

This reminds me of that well-worn phrase, 'being good without God', which for a Christian is quite odd, since there is no such thing. There is being good without the belief in God, but that is different.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I tend to think the question may be meaningless.

Even people who believe in God and are excellent Christians may not have a specific definition of "Christian". Why worry about labels?

I suspect many Christians--however good they are--will answer "not enough".

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

I see two different things (which itself is indicative of the way I view Christianity): how "Christian" are my beliefs, and how "Christian" are my actions/way I live my life. Either way there is a lot to be debated about the definition of Christian, but I see them as two different but not mutually exclusive scales. One can have very Christian beliefs and be very bad about living up to them, or one can have absolutely non Christian beliefs and yet live a very Christian life.

Me, I consider my beliefs to be around a 2 or 3 assuming that accepting all the required beliefs of my own Christian church to be a 1. My life, however falls way short.. I'd guess a 4at best. Some days I'm better than others.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

It's hard to give anything other than a dumb answer. God is our father, and as a father myself, though evil, it seems the daughter I think about the most is the one having some trouble. My daughters are my daughters because they are my daughters. I want them to do what is right but that isn't the basis of our relationship.

Luke 18:9-13

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

[ 27. September 2012, 20:05: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Only one person has mentioned the 'J' word.

You are a Christian or not depending on your relationship with Jesus Christ. If you can say that Jesus is Lord with sincerity and faith then, ta da!, you are a Christian.

If you can't, then that's fine; but whatever you are, by definition and with no value judgment whatever, you are not a Christian.

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

As a struggling Christ-follower I'd say I was 100% sure I cannot be anything else than a Christ-follower, and 100% sure I fail miserably in the following. My only hope is His mercy and forgiveness, because I'm seriously rubbish at being a 'good Christian' on any scale.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If you can't [say Jesus is Lord], then that's fine; but whatever you are, by definition and with no value judgment whatever, you are not a Christian.

Nah. Thankfully those who insist on relationships with imaginary people don't get to decide such things. As for how Christian my life is, I'd probably say 100% if someone convinced me such a statement had value. To be Christian is to inhabit the Christian tradition in some form or other, and for better or worse that's where I find myself to be.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If you can't [say Jesus is Lord], then that's fine; but whatever you are, by definition and with no value judgment whatever, you are not a Christian.
Nah. Thankfully those who insist on relationships with imaginary people don't get to decide such things. As for how Christian my life is, I'd probably say 100% if someone convinced me such a statement had value. To be Christian is to inhabit the Christian tradition in some form or other, and for better or worse that's where I find myself to be.

An imaginary person?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

There's only One who can judge to which degree I'm a Christian or not.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
There's only One who can judge to which degree I'm a Christian or not.

But surely there is a difference between your 'status' as a Christian and your subsequent likeness to Christ.

If being a Christian was something we attained to through worthy behaviour, then I would agree that very few of us could claim to 'be Christian'. The term 'Christian' is not a quality we aspire to.

To be a Christian is simply to be someone who believes and trusts in Christ and his work of salvation. The process of 'becoming' - sanctification: now that's a whole different matter.

So, how Christian is my life? Well the fact that I believe in no other gods or religious systems and that I believe wholly in Jesus to save me and to keep safe my eternal soul - well, that makes me 100% Christian.

How 'Christian' is my life, i.e. how much do my thoughts, actions, words and attitudes reflect Christ? Well, that's an ongoing process whereby my intentions are usually far more certain than the actuality. It's all grace.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Yeah, but the challenge I see here Mudfrog is what SusanDoris says. Beyond possibly having a fish sticker on your car, going to church or citadel or whatever it's called in your tradition and knowing your Bible, is there really any objective difference between your life and hers?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mudfrog: To be a Christian is simply to be someone who believes and trusts in Christ and his work of salvation.

While I don't pretend to fully know what it means to be a Christian, I don't adhere to your definition of it.

If I would try --hesitantly-- to formulate a definition of my own, it would be something like "A Christian is someone who tries to follow Jesus' example, in his/her relationship with God, with other people, and with him/herself."

Posted by Trin (# 12100) on :

That would depend on the degree of success or failure SusanDoris experiences at living a selfless and loving life (for whatever purpose she finds to do so), compared with Mudfrogs success or failure at doing the same (for the purpose of trying to be like Christ).

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If you ask me, are you any better than a non-Christian? I would think that that is a rather weird question.

No, I would not ask that question. Our evolution has made us a successful species; we now know that our genetic make-up has a great deal to do with our personalitiesand we have brains which enable us to think of anything, either existing or not existing. (I was listening to 'In Our Time' yesterday about Anselm, and, later, Hume et al!!) As humans, we all have equal value, but some of us have been lucky enough to live in much better surroundings than others.

quote:
An atheist/agnostic/materialist to some extent, denies the reality of the transcendent and, for them, Christianity is useless because it promises something that does not exist.

Not useless ...it has been used for so many different - human- purposes, as have all of ther religions, but it retains beliefs that have long been proved wrong by scientific knowledge. I think there will be a gradual change to religions occupying a far less influential place, but not for a while yet!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Mudfrog: To be a Christian is simply to be someone who believes and trusts in Christ and his work of salvation.
While I don't pretend to fully know what it means to be a Christian, I don't adhere to your definition of it.

If a clear definition were available, then (blind) faith would no longer be required.

quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
That would depend on the degree of success or failure SusanDoris experiences at living a selfless and loving life (for whatever purpose she finds to do so), compared with Mudfrogs success or failure at doing the same (for the purpose of trying to be like Christ).

Looking back, I think and hope that the things I've done right outweigh the things I did wrong. In recent years I have met by chance several pupils from classes I taught back in the 70s and 80s who remembered me as one who encouraged them, which of course made my day! I am alive because of medical science for which I am most grateful. (no God involved!! [Smile]

)

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SusanDoris: If a clear definition were available, then (blind) faith would no longer be required.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but at least we agree that there's no clear definition of what it means to be a Christian.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Oh dear. I find myself in agreement with SusanDoris and Mudfrog. That is because they, and not they alone, are looking at the question differently.

Mudfrog take the view that you are either Christian or you are not, and your life follows that. I'd agree, but suggest that some lives follow more closely than others.

SusanDoris looks at ones actions and deeds and could be equated to behavious or works.

Rather like those measures of where you are politically there is probably some mileage in a two-dimensional representation, with a relationship with the Risen Saviour on one axis and the extent to which you follow His example on the other.

YMMV.

[ 28. September 2012, 09:58: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

The whole Christian is better than non-Christian is a bit of an overreach by some of my co-religionists.

Are Christians more moral than non-Christians? Well, the most secular countries in Europe, the Scandinavian countries have the lowest crime rate when the United States, the most religious country in the west, has the highest crime rate. Yes, there are Christians of high moral standing, Mother Teresa and others. But there are also non-Christians of high moral standing: Gandhi for example.

Are Christians more happy than non-Christians? Well Soren Kierkegaard isn't exactly a bundle of joy.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
SusanDoris: If a clear definition were available, then (blind) faith would no longer be required.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but at least we agree that there's no clear definition of what it means to be a Christian.

I've been trying to think of a neat, sensible answer to this since reading your post, but unsuccessfully! However, I think a clear definition would have to be one which provided the evidence which would make non-believers believers. I'll keep thinking....

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Sioni Sais
[Smile]

I like your post!!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SusanDoris: I've been trying to think of a neat, sensible answer to this since reading your post, but unsuccessfully! However, I think a clear definition would have to be one which provided the evidence which would make non-believers believers. I'll keep thinking....

I don't think there is one, but I'm looking forward to hearing about your thought process.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

(PS Aren't you confusing 'definition' with 'evidence'? I mean, I can define myself as the most handsome guy in the world, but I'm not sure if that will convince many people [Biased]

)

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(PS Aren't you confusing 'definition' with 'evidence'? I mean, I can define myself as the most handsome guy in the world, but I'm not sure if that will convince many people )

I'm not sure, but a definition, whether evidenced or not, must have wide acceptance, I think. I think there will never be a definition of Christian which is common to a large percentage of people who call themselves Christians, let alone to all!

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(PS Aren't you confusing 'definition' with 'evidence'? I mean, I can define myself as the most handsome guy in the world, but I'm not sure if that will convince many people )
I'm not sure, but a definition, whether evidenced or not, must have wide acceptance, I think. I think there will never be a definition of Christian which is common to a large percentage of people who call themselves Christians, let alone to all!

To a certain extent the OP allows for that, though, by offering a gradated scale of Christianity.

So you could have something like:

I am a practising Christian and most other self-identified Christians would accept me as such.
I call myself a practising Christian, but most self-identified Christians do not accept my self-identification. (Examples: Mormons, some very liberal Christians.)
I have a set of beliefs that draws heavily on the Christian tradition but I hesitate to call myself a Christian. (Examples: many Unitarians and some Quakers.)
I am a purely nominal Christian by my own admission.

And then below that you could have things like 'I don't believe in Christianity' and 'I think Christianity is actively dangerous and campaign against it.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

When I joined the church, I vowed to attend church regularly, to read the Bible and pray regularly, and to give a fitting proportion of my time, talents and money to the church.

I don't think that's a definition of being a Christian, but it has the advantage of being something which can be benchmarked and measured.

So, in terms of keeping those vows, I'd be 2.5.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To a certain extent the OP allows for that, though, by offering a gradated scale of Christianity.

I've had another look, but I can only think of putting myself somewhere on it if I substitute humanism for Christianity! In this case, I think I'd put myself nearer to 6 than 5.

quote:
So you could have something like:

I am a practising Christian and most other self-identified Christians would accept me as such.

But only if this was referred to in words.

quote:
I have a set of beliefs that draws heavily on the Christian tradition ...

Which of course itself draws heavily on earlier societies' rules for behaviour.

quote:
I am a purely nominal Christian by my own admission.

I think I was that for just about the whole of the time I believed there was god.

As always, this web site really makes me think more than others.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

For me, being a Christian is being Christ in today's world. There are some things I am good at, like welcoming the stranger, empathizing with those who are hurting, being present for my family. There are some things I am bad at, like trying to love the unlovable, looking at my own self interests, not taking care of my body. I know some of this is contradictory. I am a saint and sinner. I thank God Jesus has taken care of where I fall down. I pray God's Spirit to empower me to be more like Christ in the world.

Interesting question, though, considering the second lesson for the past month our so has been been from the Letter of James who is asking what does it mean to be Christian.

Posted by BessHiggs (# 15176) on :

Well, let me think a bit about myself...

1. I believe all that stuff Jesus said about loving each other, and taking care of each other, and turning the other cheek etc.
2. I think my actions, for the most part, demonstrate those beliefs to others.
3. At one point in my life, I believed I was called to ordained ministry, attended seminary and worked as a youth minister.
4. I haven't been inside a church, except for weddings and funerals in several years.
5. I sell beer for a living.

Here 'bouts, the last point I mentioned excludes me, in many people's minds, from any consideration as a Christian, or follower or Christ.*

Some of the most awful behaviour I have ever witnessed has been perpetrated by Good Christians with a Personal Relationship with Christ. Some of the most Christ-like behaviour I have ever witnessed has been by folks who the Good Christians write off as horrible sinners. I don't know.

For me, I'll keep on trying to do all that stuff Jesus said we should do and let God be the judge when my day comes.

*Oddly enough, I have a great relationship with the local pastors. They all know what I do, and on several occasions, we have worked together, my 'flock' and theirs, to pitch in and help when help was needed.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

@ Bess: Selling beer makes you a horrible sinner? Not according to Luther (his wife actually ran the family brewery). And if you sell wine Jesus would have a great time with you.

Didn't the Pharisees accuse Jesus of always partying with the sinners? Sounds like you are in great company.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Looking back, I think and hope that the things I've done right outweigh the things I did wrong.

This seems to me antithetical to the Gospels. We are not weighed in any quantitative balance, and if we were, we would, in justice, be condemned. The Good News is that a lifetime of sin can be redeemed by giving a cup of water to someone in the name of Christ. And that we will be weighed up in a qualitative balance, judged rightly and receive mercy.

So I have no idea whether - right now, or at the end of my life - my "good deeds" whatever you would consider them to be will outweigh my "bad deeds" - whatever you would consider those to be. And that hypothetical balance has nothing at all to do with either whether, in binary terms I *am* a Christian or whether, in relative terms, I am living a Christian life.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0