|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What makes for a Christian?
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
what is the internal state that distinguishes between Christians and people who don't profess to be Christians and indeed profess another religion who are nevertheless doing the actions that you feel Christians should do.
I guess different Christians come to different conclusions as to whether Stalin (someone said he was baptized) is in heaven and Ghandi not.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
That's a non sequitur, Belle Ringer. We're not discussing who goes to heaven and why; we're discussing what we use as a definition of "a Christian" here on earth.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I don't mean how do you personally tell about someone else. I mean, what are the theoretical movements in their soul (that if you did know, would tell you). Or, more easily, (which is what I meant originally) what is the internal state that distinguishes between Christians and people who don't profess to be Christians and indeed profess another religion who are nevertheless doing the actions that you feel Christians should do.
I think one fairly general answer (that certainly demands further analysis) is the love of God shown in Jesus Christ. On another level, why do they do what they do? What are the motivations to charity in other traditions?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
With a word like this you'll have to define not only what it means dictionary style, but in what contexts and out of whose mouth. Sort of like "He is not a gentleman," which means very different things in the mouth of Chaucer and my auntie. But "Christian" is about a thousand times more slippery.
In some contexts you have to let people self-define, however much that sets your teeth on edge. I suppose that would be places like the local hospital etc. In other contexts God alone can do the definition, because it's basically something only he has the discernment for.
Since we spend most of life somewhere between these two extremes, I think we basically use rules of thumb to make practical judgments (which might be faulty). So if someone shoots up his local congregation and stands there with a smoking gun in hand saying "I'm a Christian," I'm going to pull out rule-of-thumb X, the one that says "Christians can be expected to show at least a faint resemblance to Christlike behavior," and I'm going to disbelieve him.
On the other hand, if I hear a charming, friendly person opining at great length and on multiple occasions that Jesus is no more than a great moral teacher, and that we really don't need to believe all that nonsense about his deity, the resurrection, etc, well, I'll use a different rule of thumb--the one that says "Christians can be expected to believe at least the broad outlines of the major doctrines found in the New Testament." (And if I'm fool enough or concerned enough to say anything, she'll likely lose her temper with me--because that rule of thumb is one she refuses to acknowledge.)
Autenreith Road, you were asking about recognition and inward states and all--sometimes I think of it as similar to the way one part of the body recognizes another part as still being "self." It's not wholly a logical process, more a case of "something's wrong (right) here, and I don't know what, but I can smell it." The DNA is just wrong (right) enough to trigger a reaction in another member of Christ's body.
To be sure, this is not a very safe way to function. The human body makes mistakes all the time, sometimes in the form of auto-immune diseases, and sometimes when it accepts something it ought to reject. But it's probably the best we're going to do right now.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In some contexts you have to let people self-define, however much that sets your teeth on edge.
I'm having trouble thinking of any context where it would make sense to me not to let people self-define as Christian. I understand about having our own opinions about other Christians, but when would it make sense or be a good idea to challenge anyone who self-identifies as such?
And I don't know if those teeth you refer to are someone else's or your own, but the idea of that kind of reaction is perplexing to me. Why would someone else's concept of themselves be a matter that grates so much? I realize that your situation is completely different than mine, and that you have to deal with people in ways that I never have to, but my imagination is failing to help me understand. Perhaps when you speak of rejection, you refer to situations where you find that rejecting someone as mistakenly (or delusionally) Christian is necessary and appropriate?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
I recently read a book by Dan Clark (I'm a Christian, aren't I), in which he said there were five elements:
Believing (in a personal God that saves from sin)
Belonging to a church community
Behaving (I think in a Chrst-like manner)
Baptism (connected with personal conviction)
Being born again
I thought it was quite a good list, although plenty can be said about what they actually mean. I think its right to say that being a Christian is a mixture of inward belief and outward signs. I think the list fits into the features identified by Ninian Thingy above.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A Christian is someone who believes they are a Christian - no one else is to judge otherwise.
My understanding is otherwise...
So you define "Christian" as "one who will enter into the kingdom of heaven"?
Interesting.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
I recently read a book by Dan Clark (I'm a Christian, aren't I), in which he said there were five elements:
Believing (in a personal God that saves from sin)
Belonging to a church community
Behaving (I think in a Chrst-like manner)
Baptism (connected with personal conviction)
Being born again
....
How, then, do you deal with those who don't have all five elements? For example, the one who feeds the poor, but does not believe Jesus was the Son of God. Or, the one who belongs to a church, who fails to follow several of the Christian teachings on behaviour (loving your neighbour, not coveting, being faithful to your spouse, following the 10 commandments or the spirit of the beatitudes, the Great Commission, etc.).
What about the perosn who believes, behaves and is baptized, but doesn't attend/isn't a memeber of a church?
When you define something, I think you need to look for the thing (or things) without which the person clearly does not meet the definition. If you list five essentials, failure to meet any one of those is an exclusion from the definition.
In my opinion, it is belief that is the defining rule.
That being said, there is considerable discussion about what beliefs are essential for the Christian, which brings me back to the creeds, which is where I was at the beginning of the thread.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And basically, if someone claims to be Christian who the fuck am I to say they're not?
Apologies in advance for spiking in the atheists' favoured canard, but Hitler self-identified as a Christian.
Now we can all say - "ahh, but he obviously wasn't", but why is it obvious? You need to be very rigorous in your definitions to avoid the trap.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Did Hitler really self-identify as a Christian? He was a baptized Catholic and used religion/Christianity to serve political ends, but he also persecuted Christians like Bonhoffer who opposed his regime due to their faith. And wasn't above killing Christians who happened to of the "wrong" ethnicity.
Are there writings where he calls himself a Christian in the first person? I attempted to read Mein Kampf years ago, never got through it but don't remember anything.
(Of course, even if so, one could make the same statements about Stalin's atheism. Stalin was a student at a Georgian Orthodox seminary in his early years so had a fairly deep understanding of what he ultimately rejected.)
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I don't think the word can be taken back and given a specific meaning (although some Evangelicals seem to be trying to give it their own meaning). I sometimes introduce myself as "a Christian but not that kind" without defining "that" and those I say it to seem to understand. More often I avoid the word anymore, because I cannot know what strange meanings it will have in a hearer's mind.
I'm blanking on that current political leader who is killing many while claiming to be a Christian. And in the minds of some elderly Jewish acquaintances "Christian" is associated with persecution, I guess some followers of Islam from long-memory cultures think that way, too. (But I have met Christians who say the Crusades were good, so one can't even say Crusades were not Christian behavior and have agreement.)
Then there are the church-going clergy who deny the resurrection or teach pursuit of money, disagreements on Jesus' status then or now, as well as the Catholic/Protestant divide and the liturgical/nondenominational divide, and pick a doctrine some Christian group doesn't do it - baptism and Salvation Army but I'd pick SA ahead of some baptizing groups as followers of God.
I guess Christian is anyone who claims the word and non-Christian is anyone who claims they aren't but the word is meaningless now except in it's broadest sense of "not atheist and not following a specific religion that self-defines as not-Christian."
One has to be careful about making judgments based on the word - like seeking a "Christian" book to read, a "Christian" viewpoint about something, a "Christian" worker to hire, a "Christian" community to participate in. Jonestown, anyone? Look beyond the word and decide based on something else.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And basically, if someone claims to be Christian who the fuck am I to say they're not?
Apologies in advance for spiking in the atheists' favoured canard, but Hitler self-identified as a Christian.
Now we can all say - "ahh, but he obviously wasn't", but why is it obvious? You need to be very rigorous in your definitions to avoid the trap.
Is there any evidence that this was more than lip service to the "Christian" culture he lived in?
And I'll grant that "the love of Christ" is hard to define sometimes, but I also think you'd have to really do some wacky linguistic contortions to explain how the love shown in Jesus Christ was evidenced in his life.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And basically, if someone claims to be Christian who the fuck am I to say they're not?
Apologies in advance for spiking in the atheists' favoured canard, but Hitler self-identified as a Christian.
Good for him.
quote:
Now we can all say - "ahh, but he obviously wasn't", but why is it obvious? You need to be very rigorous in your definitions to avoid the trap.
No I don't, because I don't say that.
He wasn't a very nice person, of course. But that's a different issue.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Candide
Apprentice
# 15755
|
Posted
Definitions are always problematic. I'm a fan of definitions that work well with the greater context. When it comes to religion and members of religion, I think there are two major types of discussions wherein the definition of who is and who is not a Christian is relevant. (These aren't the only ones of course, just what I've experienced to be the dominant ones).
-Normative discussions - wherein the issue at hand is what is the ideal sort of life and actions for a member of the religion. Who is a member and who is not a member is determined by their adherence to the religious code (which can be either very specific or very roomy).
-And what you might call social discussions - wherein the entirety of the religion and its members are debated in connection with their effects on this world. Who is a member and who is not is determined by whether or not they themselves identify as members of the religion, and is accepted as such by at least some others who also belong to the same faith.
While everyone does tend to have their own image of what is a minimum definition of a Christian, then most would agree that Hitler was not a Christian in a normative sense, he did not live by a Christian code. However he was part of Christianity in a social sense, belonging to the group of people who identified with Christianity.
Personally, I've had a good bit of use from letting context determine definition in this way. It has a duality that allows violent extremists to be part of the "Christian social phenomenon" (or the Islamic social phenomenon, or whatever), but to exclude them from being Christian in a normative sense.
True, such a method can easily be misused if you set the normative standards too high, a not too uncommon problem with minority sects that tend to think they are only true members of their faith. But if you avoid that trap, then this is a general approach that tends to have good practical use.
Posts: 36 | From: Norway | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
This was in response to sabine's post on the RC thread, but as I'm not RC, I figured it wasn't appropriate to post there.
And yeah, it turned into a rant. I think what's frustrating me isn't the people involved but a set of principles that I'm wrestling with at the moment. I think I've avoided anything personal, but if anything seems so...well, I've yet to be called to Hell before, but there's always a first time.
Enjoy!
If religion is a man-made thing, then everyone who claims Christ religiously is by definition an idolater, fundamentally a fraud in the biggest scam the world has ever known.
It's my view that to separate faith from practice is the beginning of a lot of spiritual fucked-up-ness. They're two things, yes, but they're bound to each other intimately. James' dangerous little epistle is in the canon for a very good reason.
Practice is one of the two only things that matter. The other is faith. Again, separating the two isn't something I condone. In the gospels, Christ never told us what to think, he told us what to do.
Sometimes hard things need to be done. Again, maybe I'm spending too much time with John Wesley, but there's a point where "But it's haaaaard!" is only a lame excuse. I'm not going to say that every person who struggles with the Church falls under that category, but I'd like to see if we can figure out where that line is instead of pretending that it's not there when there's plenty of evidence in the Bible, in the Tradition, in Logic, and even in my own Experience that there must be a line somewhere. Again, the whole Do this thing...
At the same time, I have no interest whatsoever in figuring out who's "real" and who's "not real." I'm much more interested in finding out where "reality" is for my own selfish interest in salvation, healing, ultimate concern, or whatever you (rhetorical) want to call it that brings you to the Church. I would think that a person who professed any faith at all in Christ would want to know what Christ was all about, rather than thinking that it's all a self-serving lie made up by people who want to comfort themselves with so much spiritual wanking. Discipleship to one's naturally self-serving ego is not discipleship. It's sanctified laziness.
Lots of people go out on limbs. I'm one of them. But some of those limbs snapped. Sometimes certain things are wrong because they're wrong, not merely because they're minority views and the Big Bad Institution doesn't like them. As a limb-crawler, I will not accept that my climbing out on a limb is going to legitimate every single fucked up theology the Fred Phelps brigade comes up with under the gauzy blanket of ultra-subjective "tolerance" that leaves every matter of Christian discipleship up to "well, it's whatever you want it to be."
If an organism doesn't have some control over the boundaries between what's inside and what's outside, I think there's a good argument that it's functionally dead.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
old codger
Apprentice
# 14325
|
Posted
I like to describe myself as a "sort of Christian" - but I am not sure what that means myself !
--------------------
Old Codger
Posts: 23 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Sarkshooter
The list may represent things that amount to a full Christian life (normative definition?) I think it's probably putting it too high to say they are all essentials. E.g. Salvationists and baptism, and it's a bit medieval-sounding to say 'be baptised or else!' I'm sure it's possible to be a Christian without belonging to a church, but for many I think it would make it difficult. Even belief (which I'm not great at) probably isn't as defining as you might think. If elements are missing or not prominent, they may be areas that could grow to give a fuller Christian life (I think that's how Dan Clark sees it).
I wonder, if you try to pin it down too much, whether you end up with a definition that either excludes too many or leads to a social construction of Christianity (70% of UK citizens identify as Christian).
Welcome to the Ship Candide. I liked your post and have nicked your ideas. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Old Codger, speaking as someone who was a demi-Christian for years, I think I know what you're getting at! Personally speaking, bits of Christian life were present, but not enough for me to feel that I was bona-fide.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
To me a person who claims to have a belief in the saving power of Jesus Christ,that person is a Christian.
We are,I think, all sinners and all fall short of perfection,but it doesn't make us any the less Christian - if we want to be considered as a Christian.
There is no point in arguing ,for example, about whether Stalin was a Christian or not because he was baptised. He was baptised,he was raised as a Christian and was,I think, supposed to train as a priest before he abandoned belief in christianity.
None of this is important,however.Each person's life,here on earth,irrespective of whether they call themselves Christian or not,will be scrutinised by Almighty God,who will take everything into account -(things which we mortals cannot necessarily understand) before admitting their soul to Heaven or banishing them to Hell - is that not Christian belief ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Hitler was not a Christian in a normative sense, he did not live by a Christian code.
There were a few Popes who didn't live by what we would recognise as a "Christian code" - were they not Christians either?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In some contexts you have to let people self-define, however much that sets your teeth on edge.
I'm having trouble thinking of any context where it would make sense to me not to let people self-define as Christian. I understand about having our own opinions about other Christians, but when would it make sense or be a good idea to challenge anyone who self-identifies as such?
And I don't know if those teeth you refer to are someone else's or your own, but the idea of that kind of reaction is perplexing to me. Why would someone else's concept of themselves be a matter that grates so much? I realize that your situation is completely different than mine, and that you have to deal with people in ways that I never have to, but my imagination is failing to help me understand. Perhaps when you speak of rejection, you refer to situations where you find that rejecting someone as mistakenly (or delusionally) Christian is necessary and appropriate?
Well, let's get personal. Frankly I'd love to tell Phred Phelps and Co. that you may not, under any circumstances, call yourself a Christian. Phred behaves in a manner that brings major pain to thousands of people and major shame on the whole body of Christ. Moreover, he does it in the name of Christ himself, claiming that God is commanding him to do so, and not just as an ordinary act of jackassery.
This makes Phred an ass and a blasphemer, many times over. It offends me deeply to hear him pull the Christian blanket over actions that are clearly from the adversary. And you have only to read the news to see how offensive that is to any number of other people, Christian or not.
But ... I can't stop Phred from hating. I can't even stop him from doing it under the name of Christ. Yes, it puts my teeth severely on edge, particularly when various non-Christians cast him up to me and demand to know why they should give a second thought to Christ if this is the kind of behavior He encourages.
The best I can do is to explain that by all the available evidence, Phred has never been within smelling distance of real Christianity. No doubt that's offensive of me. I'll just have to live with it. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Candide
Apprentice
# 15755
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Hitler was not a Christian in a normative sense, he did not live by a Christian code.
There were a few Popes who didn't live by what we would recognise as a "Christian code" - were they not Christians either?
From a normative perspective, if said Pope for instance murdered hundreds of innocents, and had no regrets about doing so, then I would indeed have a hard time considering that Pope to be a Christian in a normative sense. However in a sociological sense than any major church leader is obviously a Christian, (at least as long as they are accepted as leaders by some of their followers.)
It's not a yes/no question. The definition, in my mind, needs to be dependent on the greater context of the discussion you need the definition for. If you are discussing Christian morality then you need a slightly different definition than if you are discussing Christian hierarchies and decision-making.
(Just what specifically should be the minimum definition of a Christian in a normative sense is not something I'd dare to specify. But I do think there should be one, and that violent, unrepentant mass murderers usually have crossed over on the other side.)
Posts: 36 | From: Norway | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Hitler was not a Christian in a normative sense, he did not live by a Christian code.
There were a few Popes who didn't live by what we would recognise as a "Christian code" - were they not Christians either?
I'm sure there have been lots of Protestants who'd say they weren't.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It offends me deeply to hear him pull the Christian blanket over actions that are clearly from the adversary. And you have only to read the news to see how offensive that is to any number of other people, Christian or not.
I see what you mean now - thank you. The fact that he is so public about his type of Christianity makes it perfectly legitimate for the rest of us to publically voice our opinions about it.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The Jewish version looks to have far more serious consequences than the Christian version. Wow it will be interesting to see how that plays out.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
<tangent alert> I see that the Jews are having the same problem.
lead article here
<carry on>
I've often wondered why Jewish communities didn't get caught up in these identity crises as much as Christian communities seem to. Apparently they do.
I guess ordaining the state to make the call does lend it a certain enforceability, but then you get the question of whether the state can really speak on behalf of God. Are these the new Sadducees?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I probably should have noticed that this thread was having the exact same problem about conflating "who is a Christian" and "who gets to Heaven" as is occurring in another thread about Spongites.
I didn't notice until now. But now I have.
They are two different steps in a reasoning process. It really is a non sequitur to leap from one to the other.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
In some posts, yes, but only a small minority. Unless you choose to read the posts that don't mention Heaven through that lens as well.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
