Ship of Fools: Who isn't a Christian?

Thread: Who isn't a Christian? 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=023952

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Go on then, tell me who you don't consider to be a Christian (that self-identifies as one) and why.

I'll get my coat.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

According to the ancient belief of the Church, unbaptized people aren't Christians.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

But who has been baptised?

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

you must first state what you believe to be the conditionality for being considered *Christian*

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
you must first state what you believe to be the conditionality for being considered *Christian*

Self identification with the label Christian.

Who says they are a Christian but isn't?

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Go on then, tell me who you don't consider to be a Christian (that self-identifies as one) and why.

I think that approach (not that I think it is yours) is not only unhelpful, but is counter-productive.

Christians who don't consider other Christians to be Christians are not Christians. [Big Grin]

Perhaps they are the ones who will say "Lord, Lord didn't we cast out these non-Christians in Your Name". You know what the answer will be.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

The Church Of Jesus Christ-Christian

Though, since I assume the point of this thread is for The Long Ranger to tell us why groups we don't consider Christian are in fact Christian, I'd be interested to hear his defense of the Jesus Christ-Christian tendency.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Oh I see. So we're all entirely comfortable with Jehovah's Witnesses being Christians, are we? No, didn't think so.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Nope the point was that I noticed some dancing around people the question of which other people were not Christians and thought maybe I should invite people to stop dancing around and come out and say it.

I don't assume my opinions are any more right than anyone elses, just interested in who and why.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

I thought we were meant get over this Jew-Samaritan thing and who worshipped in the right way.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Nope the point was that I noticed some dancing around people the question of which other people were not Christians and thought maybe I should invite people to stop dancing around and come out and say it.

Well, alright then. The musical chair I'm sitting on is the Church Of Jesus Christ-Christian.

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

I'll bite [Big Grin]

...

I've been told I'm not a proper Christian because I haven't been born again and neither did I say the sinner's prayer. I've also been told I'm not a proper Christian because I am not a young earth creationist and will argue about the inerrancy of the Bible (which won't surprise anyone who's seen me in Dead Horses). I'm not convinced that these are measures of Christianity.

Personally, I think there's a bit more to Christianity than praying the sinner's prayer, having seen a few people declaring that they're now Christian having said it once ...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

At a first approximation, I'd like to go for anyone who self-identifies as Christian.

As a second approximation, I'd like to build in some qualifiers. There has to be some sense in which they see themselves as using the word 'Christian' in the same way as the rest of us. If they refer to Jesus, they have to see the rest of us as being not entirely misled about who Jesus was and what he was up to. Likewise, I think they have to think that they're more similar to the rest of us in some relevant way than they are to any other body of belief. There needs to be a reason why they use the word 'Christian' rather than 'Muslim' or 'neo-pagan' or 'spiritualist', for example.

Jehovah's Witnesses don't really qualify for me chiefly because they would regard the rest of us as not Christians in the sense that they call themselves Christians.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Oh I see. So we're all entirely comfortable with Jehovah's Witnesses being Christians, are we? No, didn't think so.

If they say they are Christians, what's the point of me telling them they are not? Or vice versa?

Isn't just to get some self-satisfaction.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
you must first state what you believe to be the conditionality for being considered *Christian*
Self identification with the label Christian.

Who says they are a Christian but isn't?

in in whose opinion?

[ 12. October 2012, 20:55: Message edited by: Jahlove ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
According to the ancient belief of the Church, unbaptized people aren't Christians.

The question was who do you not consider to be a Christian. The above is answering some other question altogether [Big Grin]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid
Christians who don't consider other Christians to be Christians are not Christians.

I guess that's true if the word 'Christian' means next to nothing - or actually nothing as in the case of so called "Christian atheists". Patronising uses of the word 'Christian' - as in the example I gave - are not recognised by the Christian writing this post, so I guess, according to your definition, this person is also not a 'Christian'. This judgment is, of course, self-contradictory, given that my definition of 'Christian' is just as valid as that of the "Christian atheist" or indeed your definition!

[ 12. October 2012, 20:57: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
isn't in whose opinion?

Yours. Your church or group.

I don't know - what's with the difficult questions.

Posted by Flossymole (# 17339) on :

Originally posted by the long ranger

quote:
Oh I see. So we're all entirely comfortable with Jehovah's Witnesses being Christians, are we? No, didn't think so.

I'm not entirely sure Jehovah's Witnesses are that comfortable with being Christians. I asked one on my doorstep if he was a Christian (I wanted to know) but he just kept repeating that Jesus Christ was the first Jehovah's Witness. Not the same thing. [Confused]

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
isn't in whose opinion?
Yours. Your church or group.

I don't know - what's with the difficult questions.

LOL

AFAIK, the RCC (my lot) does not pronounce on the *non-Christianity* of anyone - only proclaims the fullness of faith may be found in her.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
what's with the difficult questions.

You started it!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
According to the ancient belief of the Church, unbaptized people aren't Christians.
The question was who do you not consider to be a Christian. The above is answering some other question altogether .

Imma go with the ancient Church on this one.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I have difficulty calling Christian anyone who rejects the divinity of Christ. After all there are Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists who like the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, and the former even believe he was sent by God. What makes Christians different is believing that he was and is God, and hence is worthy of worship.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
AFAIK, the RCC (my lot) does not pronounce on the *non-Christianity* of anyone - only proclaims the fullness of faith may be found in her.

Not sure all of your co-religionists would agree...

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Those who do not wish to be called a Christian are not Christian.

The rest including self I class a doubtful.

Jengie

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
AFAIK, the RCC (my lot) does not pronounce on the *non-Christianity* of anyone - only proclaims the fullness of faith may be found in her.

Oh, now you're just being modest.

Seriously, the game of "who's in, who's out, who's burnt at the stake?" is one of the historically most popular Christian passtimes.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
According to the ancient belief of the Church, unbaptized people aren't Christians.
The question was who do you not consider to be a Christian. The above is answering some other question altogether .
Imma go with the ancient Church on this one.

I see.

Which Church? I've just had my knuckles rapped on another thread for not realizing that in one expression of our Lord's Body on earth, even baptized people can be in danger of being 'un'saved, which kind of indicates that some who are Christians according to their baptism are likely to be bitterly disillusioned. No doubt after the example of 'not all those who say "Lord, Lord"' etc. Or, seriously, can one be a Christian but not on the way to the Heavenly Realms?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

The Long Ranger:

quote:
I don't know - what's with the difficult questions.

Surely you could have worked out by now that "difficult" questions are what these boards are about.

There are actually people who post here who realise that black/white is just part of the many shades (some say fifty!) of grey.

If you want simple answers, don't come on to a Christian board that recognises many flavours of Christian.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Or, seriously, can one be a Christian but not on the way to the Heavenly Realms?

"Christian" does not mean "Person who is saved." There are Christians who will be cast out, and non-Christians who could be saved in the end.

God decrees that a person is a Christian in baptism, and I praise God that no human faithlessness or failure can annul God's decrees. But it is not a free ticket into heaven either.

[ 12. October 2012, 21:31: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
AFAIK, the RCC (my lot) does not pronounce on the *non-Christianity* of anyone - only proclaims the fullness of faith may be found in her.
Oh, now you're just being modest.

Seriously, the game of "who's in, who's out, who's burnt at the stake?" is one of the historically most popular Christian passtimes.

quite - but that's wot the catechism sez innit

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

I can think of a few individuals I have my suspicions about, particularly American politicians, but I simply daren't name them. I could be wrong.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

What I mean is there may be some who simply feign christianity to gain votes from the Bible Belt (for example) but in reality don't believe a word of it.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Go on then, tell me who you don't consider to be a Christian (that self-identifies as one) and why.

I'll get my coat.

Not my pay grade.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I can talk about beliefs that are not Christian beliefs. The beliefs of the Watchtower Society are not Christian. The beliefs of the CoJCoLDS are not Christian. The beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist are not Christian.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
According to the ancient belief of the Church, unbaptized people aren't Christians.

So where does that leave the Salvation Army?

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

And what about Mormons?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Go on then, tell me who you don't consider to be a Christian (that self-identifies as one) and why.

Well, there ARE a few, but in the end my opinion doesn't really matter.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
According to the ancient belief of the Church, unbaptized people aren't Christians.
So where does that leave the Salvation Army?

Oh god, let's not have this fight again.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

That is a bit of a dead horse. Or is it trolling?

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I can think of a few individuals I have my suspicions about, particularly American politicians, but I simply daren't name them. I could be wrong.

I think you will find Richard Dawkins agrees with you on that.

In reply to to an earlier suggestion on baptism as a requirement, that would also leave out Quakers, ancient and modern.

As a non-Christian, if they call themselves Christians (or consider Jesus as lord), then I consider them Christian. I leave it up to the various denominations to define who is in or out of their denomination (e.g., Latter Day Saints, Church of England, ...).

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh god, let's not have this fight again.

No need to worry. I assure you I have no intention of having that fight again.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
In reply to to an earlier suggestion on baptism as a requirement, that would also leave out Quakers, ancient and modern.

I had understood from past conversations that Quakers didn't necessarily identify themselves as Christians. As in, there might be some Quakers who are Christians, but there are also Quakers who aren't.

I could have that completely screwed up, of course.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
In reply to to an earlier suggestion on baptism as a requirement, that would also leave out Quakers, ancient and modern.
I had understood from past conversations that Quakers didn't necessarily identify themselves as Christians. As in, there might be some Quakers who are Christians, but there are also Quakers who aren't.

I could have that completely screwed up, of course.

Quakers vary but I would say only in the last century would a small minority say they aren't Christians. However the most liberal meetings aren't likely to throw someone out for not considering themselves a Christian. Conservative meetings such as in Kenya (the country with the largest Quaker population in the world) likely would. I sometimes find it interesting to browse various "Faith and Practice" (most yearly meetings publish these and they express the sense of that meeting).
The Britain Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice consists almost entirely of quotes (chapter 27 might be relevant since it discusses the Christian Church).

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
...

As a non-Christian, if they call themselves Christians (or consider Jesus as lord), then I consider them Christian. ...

I think most discrete Christian denominations these days have a fairly tolerant conception of what it takes to be a Christian. However, some may be much more rigorous in defining which Church truly represents the fullness of Christian truth. Of course, there are always organisations which are totally exclusive.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Go on then, tell me who you don't consider to be a Christian (that self-identifies as one) and why.

Nobody.

If someone tells me they are a Christian I believe them. Why should I not?

I no longer tell people I am a Christian as the common perception of the label is homophobic, anti women, YEC, and PSA - none of which are part of my beliefs. So, I don't use the label for myself any more.

Labels mean very little, it's how people speak and behave which matter imo.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Go on then, tell me who you don't consider to be a Christian (that self-identifies as one) and why.

Nobody.

If someone tells me they are a Christian I believe them. Why should I not?

I no longer tell people I am a Christian as the common perception of the label is homophobic, anti women, YEC, and PSA - none of which are part of my beliefs. So, I don't use the label for myself any more.

Labels mean very little, it's how people speak and behave which matter imo.

Oooh no Boogie, if you don't identify yourself as a Christian, then the term will be left to the homophobic, anti women, YEC and PSA brigade, let's reclaim the name!

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I can think of a few individuals I have my suspicions about, particularly American politicians, but I simply daren't name them. I could be wrong.
I think you will find Richard Dawkins agrees with you on that.

Maybe, but there is a big difference:

Richard Dawkins will name such people, and he will consider such a position as a betrayal of his humanist/atheist brothers and sisters.
I would consider such a position as a betrayal of my fellow christian brothers and sisters

btw. I wouldn't say the same of british politicians - I think, where christian allegiance is concerned they are what they say they are.

What could possibly be achieved by Tony Blair, Iian Duncan Smith, Anne Widdecombe et all, saying they are christians when it isn't true?

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

If someone tells me they are a Christian, I treat them as a Christian.

Jesus judges, not me, and we're told that he judges according to whether people have a relationship with him, whether their names are written in the book of life, and how they treat other Christians.

We're also told (and it's pretty obvious) that there are people who claim to be Christians but don't know Jesus and don't love his church. Can I point to individual cases of that? I'm not going to, because I never know all the facts.

[ 13. October 2012, 10:07: Message edited by: Custard ]

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

I tend to agree with custard. Who is, or isn't, a Christian is not for me to say. Although I am constantly surprised to hear from others here, and elsewhere, that, as a Catholic, I am not a Christian.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

@Custard:
[TANGENT]
I loved your blog! (I don't say that about many blogs):
Custardy Blog

I'm just wondering whether, if you'd been my vicar, I wouldn't have left the Church of England!
[Overused]

[/TANGENT]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
In reply to to an earlier suggestion on baptism as a requirement, that would also leave out Quakers, ancient and modern.
I had understood from past conversations that Quakers didn't necessarily identify themselves as Christians. As in, there might be some Quakers who are Christians, but there are also Quakers who aren't.

I could have that completely screwed up, of course.
Quakers vary but I would say only in the last century would a small minority say they aren't Christians. However the most liberal meetings aren't likely to throw someone out for not considering themselves a Christian. Conservative meetings such as in Kenya (the country with the largest Quaker population in the world) likely would. I sometimes find it interesting to browse various "Faith and Practice" (most yearly meetings publish these and they express the sense of that meeting).
The Britain Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice consists almost entirely of quotes (chapter 27 might be relevant since it discusses the Christian Church).

As a church in the UK, we are non-creedal and therefore not explicitly trinitarian (and many Quakers are not trinitarian in the UK) which I believe can be a barrier to institutional co-operation in certain areas, and churches together groupings. On the ship, for example, they don't mystery worship Quaker meetings because we are not a trinitarian church.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

If people wish to identify themselves as Christians in the sense of followers of Christ who are we to deny them that name.
It doesn't necessarily mean that they are visible members of any particular church.
Mainstream Christian communities of the historic churches count baptism as the entry into the Chrsitian church and with it the 'right' to be called Christian. But surely in a free society where the churches have few rights to determine laws no one can be prosecuted for calling themselves a Christian if they want to.
By the strict understanding of the meaning of baptism unbaptised members of the Salvaion Army are not Christians but they are generally followers of Christ.The Catholic church would probably say that if the members of the Salvation Army understood the importance given to baptism by the Catholic church then they would indeed have themselves baptised.In that case ,in a sense, they are as good as baptised (baptism of desire).
However one classifies oneself as a Christian does not necessarily guarantee one automatic entry to the Heavenly Realms and there may well be others who do not call themselves Christian who will more easily be admitted to the Heavenly Realms.
Baptism is the start,not the end,of the journey towards eternal life.As followers of Christ,however one wants to define the meaning of Christian,we have to make sure that we follow the way of Christ without straying too far nor too long from the straight and narrow path of righteousness.If we simply lose our way and ask for help God will bring us back.Those who deliberately choose the way marked 'Hell' rather than 'Heavenly Realms' will arrive where they want to go.

Or is it just a medieval idea which we should abandon as old hat that God will bring us back to the right way - if we ask him ? From the Catholic point of view it is our contrition/sorrow for our sins which brings us back to the right way.At the same time it is right to seek the help of a minister of the Church to determine the seriousness or otherwise of our losing the way (sin) and formally to give us 'absolution' in the name of the Father ,Son and Holy Spirit when we can rejoice once again ion the name of Christian.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
As a church in the UK, we are non-creedal and therefore not explicitly trinitarian (and many Quakers are not trinitarian in the UK) which I believe can be a barrier to institutional co-operation in certain areas, and churches together groupings. On the ship, for example, they don't mystery worship Quaker meetings because we are not a trinitarian church.

Someone just mystery worshiped the Wanstead meeting.

Personally I've always considered Unitarians and Quakers as Christian (unless they disavow the term) but that might be because of the large number of Unitarian and Quaker ancestors (mostly UK) who certainly considered themselves Christian. More important is that we are all humans with hopes and fears, strengths and weaknesses.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

That'll be a change of policy since I last asked about then it - good to see [Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0