Who is really A Christian?

[louis c]

Here was my provocative question of the day, it goes like this.

Me(to a anti-Obama, bible thumping Republican): Here's my hypothetical question to you. Suppose an adult male is an illegal alien (undocumented worker)and he is gravely ill. This gentleman, uninsured, arrives at the hospital to receive care at our expense, should the hospital care for him? Now, before you answer I want you to think to yourself, "what would Jesus do?"

Then I walk away and never look back.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. Jesus would kill him, dismember the corpse, and send it back to Mexico in 12 seperate boxes

Oh wait.... sorry. That's what Glenn BecKKK would do, not Jesus!

Jesus would heal him, of course.

[roguevalley]

71. the entire ethics of the believing world is confirmed in Genesis: You

are indeed your brother's keeper. All the rest of the bible is one long discourse upon that one fact.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. The Republican Jesus would kick his ass out into the street

because decent, hard-working American taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab for shiftless illegal immigrants who don't belong here and probably aren't real Bible-believing, saved Christians anyhow.

:sarcasm:

[BOG PERSON]

3. Jesus would stick us with the bill

(Jesus was a cheapo)

[OneGrassRoot]

4. My favorite line I've been using in the last month....

which has been met with silence each and every time is:

"If Jesus were alive today, you right-wingers would crucify that 'bleeding-heart liberal' all over again."

This month, I'm simply going with, "You should be ashamed."


:)

[MissMarple]

5. Right. Jesus could be considered an adult male,illegal alien and might appear to be in need of care.

Good point.

[C_U_L8R]

6. Limbaugh Jesus would pop a few Oxycotin

and go on a sex vacation rampage that would make William Burrough's blush.

[Johonny]

7. Well upon finding out Lazarus was ill

Jesus did nothing for a few days, then arrived after he was dead. Then raised him from the dead to prove a point. That Jesus was the lord and you should believe in him.

A good bible thumping Republican would point out they'd do nothing, let the immigrant die to prove the point that God wanted the immigrant to have stayed home.


A good liberal Bible thumper would probably go into several passages from Matthew.

The Bible has many different theological perspectives. You can use it to justify some stuff you truly don't approve of :(

[orpupilofnature57]

10. Point was after he rose him ,he told him " Don't talk to MSM " and here we

are.

[JuniperLea]

15. Note that Jesus didn't tell Lazarus that death was a pre-existing condition...

Or ask him for a copay.

[Johonny]

22. I don't think RW bible thumpers dig that deep

They'd have the money for the copay if they had God's blessing they'd answer you.

unfortunately

Most of them like the themes of the Bible where your suffering has to do with being in the wrong standing with God, and thus me giving you money or health care can't help you. Only you getting in the right standing with God can help you. (which good for me requires me to do nothing). Personally I think you're better off reciting Matthew at them, then letting them think of an answer themselves. Because their RW preachers hammer home suffering as condemnation from God.

[JuniperLea]

44. But it's not for them to judge

Right?

I was raised in a Fundy church... and was turned Agnostic by the hypocrisy.

I do stick with Matthew... and that's when the truly un-Christian behavior begins! And not on my part! :rofl:

My family really hates that I left the church, and they REALLY hate it when I use the Bible "against them." It's unnerving to them that I consider the kinder aspects of the cult more seriously than they apparently do. Stuttering happens:)

[markbark]

37. For the bible thumpers

who quote Matthew, I refer them to chapter 6.
'nuff said.

(Hey, I may be a non-believer, but it doesn't mean I haven't READ the bloody thing!)

--MAB

[orpupilofnature57]

8. Jesus would make sure he was taken care of ,just like he would of Rockefeller's

and Charlie Manson,and John the Baptist all the same to Jesus.

[condoleeza]

9. But wait! What if this undocumented worker doesn't actually believe in "Him"?

Isn't that one of the rules if Jesus is supposed to intervene? Perhaps you need to add that the hypothetical worker is a devout Christian, or they just won't get it.

[seabeyond]

11. the day i start pointing finger at who is christian, is the day i dont make the list. not my job.

now i dont have issue stating what in unchristian in behavior and words....

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. The RW Jesus only believes in healthcare (and the right to life) up to

the point of birth. After that, yer on yer own.

[RadicalGeek]

13. Barney Frank Has Said something similar

<EOM>

[Ocracoker16]

14. Life begins at conception and ends at birth

I think Barney Frank said that. That one saying totally exposes the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement.

[RadicalGeek]

23. Correct--I think

Though now it seems that they've become concerned with not allowing people to end their pain in a humane manner as well.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. Two things.

(A) He should be taken care of.
(b) Nowhere in Christian Doctrine does the issue of how we as a nation treat illegal aliens come up.
At minimum, if the guy is baptized and accept Jesus as his savior, he is a Christian. Any member of a Christian church is a Christian. Other Christians may not like that, but that is the way it is.

I see this everywhere here. Christian's want to exclude others from their club because of politics. However, Christianity has a bloody and vicious past that goes hand in hand with the good things it has done. Attempting to shut out the ugliness is nothing more than rewriting Christian history.

What we should do is keep religion out of it. It is ethically and morally wrong to let someone suffer as you describe. This is true in all religions, and among those without any religion.

[louis c]

18. The point isn't "Who is a Christian", but "who acts like a Christian"

[beam me up scottie]

21. There is No True Scotsman, it's a logical fallacy.

Anyone who claims to be a christian is one.

[louis c]

24. If that's the case, there is no need for the word "hypocrite"

However, I believe there is a need for that word, especially among many (but not all) self-proclaimed "Christians".

[beam me up scottie]

54. Only if you believe in christian supremacy.

Many self-proclaimed "Christians" persecuted, tortured and slaughtered thousands of heretics for not being "real" christians or for not being "christian" enough.

Who should I believe, christian conservatives who claim that liberal christians aren't true christians (according to their own personal and specific definition of "christian" - which they can prove is the only correct one by using supporting information from the bible).

Or christian liberals who claim that conservative christians aren't true christians (according to their own personal and specific definition of "christian" - which they can prove is the only correct one by using supporting information from the bible).


Who gets to decide? Torquemada? Martin Luther? Pope Innocent IV? Fred Phelps?

Too bad you can't ask http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics">these people.




"It is one of the Christian delusions that Christianity brought charity into the world. It did no such thing." ~ H.L.Mencken

[louis c]

65. Mercy, tolerance, charity, forgiveness, that's a start

[beam me up scottie]

72. Why don't you answer my question?

Who gets to decide who is and is not a "real" christian?

Are the christians I named not "real" ones?

How about the current Pope?

[louis c]

73. The Good Book. It's all in there

and please don't quote the Old testament. Jesus was "change", in the religious sense. mercy. charity, tolerance and forgiveness. Basic stuff.

[beam me up scottie]

76. Bullshit. The OT is just as christian as the NT.

You're being purposely obtuse, I don't think you're as ignorant as you pretend.

[louis c]

82. "Our father's have taught us an eye for an eye".........

"but I say unto you, if a man strikes on one cheek, turn to him the other. Vengeance is the Lord's."

Sounds to me that the New Testament is chalk full of corrections of the Old Testament. There's not too many stories where God interceder's in behalf of one army over another. Or glorifies killing in the New Testament, but there's plenty in the old. "The meek shall inherit the earth. I'm guessing that's New Testament shit, not old. while we're at it, have you ever noticed that the Right Wing Christians love quoting the old testament more than the new? guess why.

Because I'm not a christian, don't assume I've never read the bible. I'm not a christian because I have.

[yodermon]

33. So the empirical definition of "Christian" is "if i say i am one, then i am one"?

That's a horrible starting point for logical discussion.

At least there is an empirical, verifiable definition of what a Scotsman is.

[Bill McBlueState]

36. What would be the empirical evidence that one is a Scotsman?

I was thinking this through, and it's not totally obvious.

One could require paperwork indicating birth in Scotland, but that excludes certain types of people who might be considered Scotsmen, like citizens who happened to be born overseas.

One could require evidence of Scottish ancestry, but that can be hard to document.

[yodermon]

42. You listed some items that actually could exist though.

There are no such items for Christianity (or any religion) except the say-so of the person claiming it.
Being scottish has definable existential elements (i.e. born in the territory, has n number of scottish ancestors, etc.)
Religion (or political ideologies too for that matter) are states of mind: unfalsifiable, unprovable.

"no true anti-capitalist would make a profit".
The truth-value of this statement depends entirely on the definition of "anticapitalist" so therefore is completely up for grabs.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Of course not. "No true christian", like "No true Scotsman", is a logical fallacy

Definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy from SkepticWiki:

No True Scotsman

Definition

No True Scotsman is a type of logical fallacy in which the arguer claims that elements of class X have a property, and, when presented with a counter example Y, asserts that Y therefore does not belong to class X.

The argument is a fallacy since it redefines the class as needed to suit the argument. In doing so, it can make any claim at all vacuously true under the new definition.

Examples:

Antagonist: "Because Christians fear God, they will act more ethically."

Protagonist: "But Jim Bakker wasn't acting ethically when he stole millions from his church."

Antagonist: "Yes, well, Jim Bakker seemed to be a Christian, but apparently, deep in his heart he was not."

***

When the amendment to the definition is actually a necessary condition for membership in the class, this type of argument is not a fallacy. For example:
Antagonist: "A vegetarian would never eat meat."
Protagonist: "But my friend Avinder eats hamburgers all the time."
Antagonist: "I wouldn't exactly call Avinder a vegetarian then."

This is not a fallacy since "not eating hamburgers", while not an explicit requirement of being a vegetarian, is a necessary condition. On the other hand, in the "Christian" example given above, "acting ethically" has not been established as a necessary condition of "being Christian"; in fact, this is the very matter under debate.

"At least there is an empirical, verifiable definition of what a Scotsman is."

I don't think you understand the logical fallacy.

"True Scotsman" is a humorous term used in Scotland for a man wearing a kilt without undergarments. Though the tradition originated in the military, it has entered Scottish lore as a rite, an expression of light-hearted curiosity about the custom, even as a subversive gesture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Scotsman#cite_note-0

Are Scotsmen who wear undies not "True Scotsmen"?

[Lerkfish]

46. do you accept the concept of DINO?

Democrats in Name ONly?

its a term used a lot around here. It refers to someone who labels themselves as one thing and acts like they are another.


If you can accept or understand this concept, then you can also extrapolate it.


Anyone can claim to be a christian, even disingenuously. It is how they live their lives that makes them a christian.

I know you are blind to that concept in regards to christianity, having been round and round with your in the so-called religion forum.

But if you apply the same conditions to something like politics, you can easily see how conservatives can call themselves "compassionate" when they are not.
Joe Lieberman can call himself a democrat when he does not act like one, and in fact did not win the democratic primary.
Republicans call themselves the "family values" candidate while having affairs and using prostitutes and even enticing children.



Merely proclaiming yourself to be something does not make it so, anymore than I can claim to be George Clooney (no matter how happy that would make my wife)

:)

[beam me up scottie]

58. No, I am not qualified to define the beliefs of others. And neither are you.

The definition used by http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn3.htm">religioustolerance.org is the only logical choice.

Who is a Christian? A simple question with many answers and no consensus.

This question assumes that there is one and only one correct definition of the term "Christian." However, depending upon your understanding of the nature of truth, many definitions may be "true" to various groups:

To conservative Protestants, a Christian is often defined according to their salvation status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with some of their foundational beliefs: that the Bible is inerrant, that salvation is by grace, and that one must be "born-again" to be saved and avoid eternal punishment in Hell.

To Roman Catholics, a Christian is often defined according to their baptism status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with their fundamental beliefs about the nature of sacraments, their understanding of the Bible, the declarations of many Church Councils, the statements of many popes, and their church's tradition.

To many in the very early Christian movement, a Christian was defined as a person who was baptized and proclaimed "Jesus is Lord." Their definition was "true" to them because it agreed with their understanding of their religious belief at a time when the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) had not yet been written and assembled.

And so on, with other faith groups.

***

Each group has their own definition of "Christian" which agrees with their own beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, church tradition, written text, evolved theology, the cultures in which they are implanted, etc. There appears to be no way to compromise on a single definition that is acceptable to all. One apparently cannot call on a higher power to resolve the problem, because there seems to be no way to assess the will of God on such matters. If there were such a method, then different definitions would have been harmonized centuries ago. People would simply have prayed to God and asked Him to define what a Christian is. Then, a consensus would exist today on the true meaning of the word "Christian."

There is no consensus on what the "correct" definition of "Christian" is. There is only a near consensus within individual faith groups. Therefore questions like "Are you a Christian?" or "How many Christians are there in the U.S." are only meaningful:

* Within a single denomination, or among a group of similarly-minded denominations.

* In a public opinion poll where the definition of "Christian" is either clearly stated or left up to the subject to define.

***

The definition used on this web site:

We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe themselves to be a follower of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ).

Now if the question is "who really follows the teachings of Jesus Christ?", the answer would be obvious.

I believe liberal christians do the right thing in spite of their faith - not because of it. :hi:

[Bandit]

28. Which Christians?

The Spanish Christians of the Inquisition period or those opposed to the Calvinist, or those that brought Christianity to the Savages of the Americas by lining them up to see how many a musket ball would go through?

[daedalus_dude]

25. Actually, the parable of the good samaritan is relevant to the illegal immigrant issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan


One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?” The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!” The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

Jesus replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was traveling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Temple assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.” New Living Translation

[noel711]

27. Yo, Ozy, a couple things....

The concept of 'Christian doctrine' is fuzzy,
because there are so many stripes of Christianity,
there is NOT one definitive doctrine. Trust me on this.

That being said, as to aliens,
the Bible has at least 102 references to how
people are to treat aliens, and all of the references
say that aliens are to be given the same rights
as citizens, and are to be treated fairly,
given fair pay for work, and fed and housed with justice.

I don't wanna bore you with the passages; to find them
just turn to any concordance, and look up 'alien.'

And not all Christians want to shut people out,
just the ones who are screaming in the news reports.

Real christians are out there feeding the hungry,
housing the homeless, and visiting the ill and dying.
Trust me on this. Real Christians don't like publicity.

[blondeatlast]

49. Well said. +1. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

50. And you say that because you alone define Christian.

History invalidates that concept.

Yes, real Christians are feeding the Hungry, housing the homeless, and other other good things. However, real Christians burned crosses in the yards of people of color in the South. Real Christians lynched people. Real Christians took children away from American Indian families, forced them to speak English and attend Church. Real Christians, such as Henry Ford, advocated that Jews were plotting to take over he world. Real Christians have, repeatedly, used murder and intimidation against peoples of other religions. Real Christian run Oral Roberts University. Real Christians (Huckabee) run for President.

Now, if Jesus will sign up here and DU, post incontrovertible proof of his existence, and gives us a definition of Christianity, I will consider it a done deal. Otherwise it is simply based on one who follows the teachings of Christ. I can link you to tens of thousands of ministers, books, pamphlets, and historical records that show that, while Christians are often good, they are also the most vile monsters walking the face of the planet.

This is true of every religion and, also, of atheists and agnostics.

Now, I will accept you judgment on someone being a Good Christian or a Bad Christian, as long as you add In your Opinion, or In the opinion of your church, or a revered Christian teacher. But there are plenty who would consider you to be in error, and I see no reason to hold you higher than I hold them in evaluating Christian morals and ethics.

I don't doubt that you and most of the people here at DU are scales of magnitude better humans than most of those on the right that profess Christianity. But being Christian and a decent human being are not synonymous.

[noel711]

53. Dear Ozy....

History invalidates my opinion?
I didn't realize my opinion was that powerful! Sheesh!

I threw in my 2 cents on what defines a Christian
because you threw in your 2 cents.
I did not say I had the definitive answer on christianity,
just my humble, obviously uninformed, opinion.
But from what you're saying, your opinion is more 'true'
than mine. Is that the definition of 'opinion'?

NO, I am not a good christian.. I try...
but there are times I lose my patience,
there are times I am ungrateful for what I have,
there are times I judge others instead of seeing
them thru the eyes of compassion.

But the point is: being intelligent and well informed,
I believe we want what is best for the world.

Not all christians are your enemy.
Not all christians are right wing bigots.
Not all christians are ignorant fools.
If you have the experience that christians
are your enemy... then I am sorry; that is
not the way it should be...

I choose to live graciously seeing the good that can
be done, and striving to make the world a better place.
And yes, I am a christian, hopefully not the kind
you find so offensive.
But if my faith, and my defense of it offends you,
I am sorry. I am not Huckabee, Palin, or any of those
fools who do damage in the name of Jesus.
Sadly, they are what the world sees, and the world judges
their behavior as Christian.

[Ozymanithrax]

59. When people point out that the other side are un Christian because...

I feel it necessary to point out that Christianity, or any religion, is not a wholly beneficent and wonderful creation. Christians have perpetrated, and continue to perpetrate monstrous acts in the name of god. I see no difference between a Christian who donates to the poor and helps the sick and one who lynches people or forces children from their home in order to teach them a superior religion and a superior language. Now, such individuals are enormously different, even when they share a religion. The same would be true if they share a political party, or were both Shriners.

The whole point of this thread was to gloat over some kind of spiritual superiority over right wing Christians when religion grants no superiority. Such gloating actually would be considered the sin of pride.

[Jokerman]

41. +1

Very well said.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Thank you.

I was going to abandon this thread because some people just don't get it; Christians are no better than anyone else.

I've been called a bigot for pointing that out in the past.

[elocs]

17. Jesus was a homeless man and if alive and walking the streets today

most RW Evangelicals would not recognize him, would probably tell him to "get a job", and would likely in the end want to kill him just as in his first visit.

[BuyingThyme]

19. I find Atheists to be the most Christian.

[louis c]

20. Amen

I am a Secular Humanist, and Damn proud of it.

[PassingFair]

32. As an atheist, I prefer the term "Christ-like" over "Christian" when....

people are referring to me.

:evilgrin:

[gkhouston]

55. Sometimes, but not always. I find the people most hung up on calling themselves

"Christians" and most concerned about who is and isn't a Christian (I'm talking concerned, not someone merely discussing the issue) are very likely not Christian.

[hobbit709]

26. Any loudly proclaiming Christian is NOT.

[Stevenmarc]

29. This would be an easier question to answer if the Bible specified...

who picked up the check at the last supper.

[Lerkfish]

30. actually, it does.

one of the disciples was given money to arrange the meal.

so..... not sure what you're referring to, nor what that has to do with the OP.

[Lerkfish]

31. A follower of Jesus would remember the parables and when Jesus

talked about those who went to heaven, and Jesus told them, "when I was hungry, you fed me. When I was naked, you clothed me" to which the people say "Rabbi, when did we feed or clothe you?"
"When you have done this to the least of them, you have done it to me"

== best recollection of the parable, might be off a little bit.

the point is the RW Pharisees are NOT followers of the teachings of Christ. They follow the old testament when it comes to homosexuality and Paul's letters when they want to justify their own prejudices. But if they actually wanted to be Christ=like, they would listen to his words, which they obviously do not.

[Jennicut]

34. Exactly. I am a Christian and ashamed that these people even call themselves Christians.

Clearly, they are not.

[samsingh]

35. repugs are not.

they do not demonstrate any of the charity that Jesus is known for.

[timtom]

38. That is the perfect question to pose to all who purport Christianity.

So much cognitive dissonance out there...so much.

[jonnyblitz]

39. apparently the only true christians are the ones that post at

DU.

[Festivito]

40. Literally, they only need to help if stripped, beaten, and in a ditch.

Must also be half-dead.

Luke 10:30-37

Matt 22:37
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

...only works if you love yourself. I'd suggest that most Republicans are self-haters and they are just following the scriptures as they see it.

Not my take on it.

[piratefish08]

43. Who is really a Scotsman?

[Lerkfish]

47. atheists love to use that one.

no, really, they do. They like to claim that no christian can make a discerning judgement on whether someone else is a christian.

It comes from a basic misunderstanding of christianity.

merely declaring yourself a christian does not make you one, any more than Democrats in Name Only will suddenly vote for progressive causes merely because they have a D after their name.

that's ok, though, many religious people have misconceptions about atheists, as well.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Yes, because it's accurate. Unless you can explain why it's not a logical fallacy.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrdefnresp.htm">religioustolerance.org

Definitions of "Christian" -- our understanding:

* Many, perhaps most, Christians are totally convinced that their personal definition of "Christian" is the correct one.

* We have listed over 40 different definitions of the term "Christian."

* These definitions differ significantly from each other; many are mutually exclusive.

* Each definition has been developed by one or more sincere, intelligent, devout, thoughtful person(s). Most or all of them sincerely believe that their definition is the true one.

* According to the ARIS study in 2001, 76.5% (159 million) of American adults "said" that they are Christian.

* Many people who consider themselves to be Christians do not recognize others as Christians.

* Some definitions are quite inclusive and include approximately 160 million American adults -- over 70% of the population. Others are so restrictive that they might only include a few tens of thousands of adults (perhaps 0.02% of the total number of adults) in the U.S. as Christians.


***


Common negative comments we have received about our definition of Christian:

* You have no academic qualifications to make definitions: Ours is a multi-faith group consisting of an Agnostic, Atheist, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. None have a theological degree or diploma from a Bible college. We consider this an asset, because such an education would bias us in favor of one wing of Christianity, and against other wings. We look upon ourselves as reporters, not theologians. We feel that we have done a competent job in collecting a broad range of definitions created by others. We do not create any theological beliefs. We merely report what others believe.

* Why not use the Bible's definition of "Christian?": The Bible is not clear on what a Christian is. Its text is ambiguous. If it were clear, then there would be a single, universally accepted definition in use among all Christian denominations. We have collected over 40 conflicting definitions. There are probably many more out there that we have not included.

* Why not use God's definition of "Christian?": We could have the theists in our group attempt to pray to God to determine his definition. But we conducted a pilot study on assessing the will of God through prayer. We found that it doesn't work. Again, if people could assess the will of God through prayer, then there would be a single universally accepted definition of "Christian" among all Christian denominations. If prayer worked in this way, there would have been no schisms in Christendom over theology. In fact, all of the religions in the world would be consolidated into one denomination or tradition in one religion.

Exactly what makes you qualified to redefine the beliefs of others?

[jdp349]

45. Best definition is the simplest

one who professes to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and claims to follow his teachings. It seems that from that basic belief we have ended up with the various Christian sects and churches.

The definition cannot be expanded to encompass those who do not believe in the divinity of jesus despite proclaiming they are Christians otherwise it sort of becomes all encompassing and useless. If we try to narrow it down to find who are the "true" Christians, well then we're just engaging in inter-sectarian bickering.

Any argument as to who is a "true" Christian is founded on equally arbitrary assumptions and is sort of a useless exercise.

Most arguments as to who or what is a true christian seem to confuse the concepts of true and good/bad. If one believes in the divinity of Jesus, but repeatedly violates what they interpret to be his teachings than that seems to mean one a bad christian rather than a false christian. However there is an important nuance here, one must also hold that their sins or transgressions of the teachings as bad. That's just my take, but what do I know, I'm an atheist.

[Mimosa]

51. Amen!

jdp349: "
Any argument as to who is a "true" Christian is founded on equally arbitrary assumptions and is sort of a useless exercise."

You are so right.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Brilliant answer.

A belated welcome to DU. :hi:

[Winterblues]

48. Isaiah 32...5-8 pretty much sums up the answer to this...

I am proud to be Liberal..

[Winterblues]

78. The Liberal deviseth Liberal things

Isaiah 32:5-8
5. The vile person(Republican) shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl(GOP) said to be bountiful. 6. For the vile person (Republican) will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail 7. The instruments also of the churl(GOP) are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. 8. But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

King Jammes version

[cbdo2007]

52. Your simplistic view on this speaks more to your lack of understanding the issues

contained in your question, than to the teachings of Jesus or some "bible thumping Republican".

I'm sure as you "walk away and never look back", the "bible thumping Republican" is smirking to himself as well for having a more complex thought process than you have and ultimately will think he's the winner of your hypothetical challenge as well.

[louis c]

66. It's a simple question and a simple answer

Jesus would heal and comfort. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I am not a Christian. I'm a Secular Humanist. But those who believe in Christ as our Savior and follow his teachings deserve our respect. Those who focus on intolerance and revenge as some sort of Christian teaching (mostly the Old Testament) deserve our scorn.

[cbdo2007]

75. That's my point. You think it's a "simple question and a simple answer"

because you focus on one aspect of your question rather than the situation as a whole, and you have an odd view of Christianity which is explained by you not being a Christian.

[louis c]

80. I read the book

and Right Wing Christians defile the word. That's why I'm not a Christian.

[cbdo2007]

83. "right wing christians defile the word" - Just because they aren't good Christians

doesn't mean you shouldn't be one. What they do and how ignorant they are has nothing to do with you...but I think that explains a lot about your viewpoint and probably your life in general. You're looking for the easy way out and you need a villian for you to be mad at and hate and blame stuff on. Christianity is about what's inside of YOU and what YOU do with that.

[The Straight Story]

56. So you want them to put their religion into law?

;)

[kenny blankenship]

60. The only person I know of that lived up to the title of Good Christian died on the job.

(NB: I don't mean in the Brit sense of 'on the job'.)

[beam me up scottie]

61. What makes "real" christians morally superior to fake christians. Or other non-christians?

What exclusive "teachings" do they follow as christians?

What exclusive virtues do they possess?

I can't answer your question until you specifically define what makes your hypothetical christians different than the rest of us.

[louis c]

67. The point is not that we should all be Christians

It's that if you do proclaim yourself a Christian than Peace, Mercy, Tolerance, Charity and Forgiveness should be your guide. Not Pro-gun, Pro-War, anti-Gay, anti-immigration Christians. That's the point.

[beam me up scottie]

68. So you are trying to redefine christianity.

What part about 'christians are not morally superior' do you not understand?

If every christian is required to be christ-like then there are no christians.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

69. Jesus was in favor of a lot of cruel things.

So not only is anyone a Christian who says they are, they can do just about anything and still be a christian, since Jesus was in favor of lots of cruel, hateful stuff.

Examples of Jesus' hateful and cruel opinions:

MATTHEW

# Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

# Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

# Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

# "The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

# Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

# Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

# Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

# Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

# Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

# Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

# Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

# Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

# Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

# Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

# "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

# In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

# Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

# God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

# The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

# Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

# Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

====================

MARK

# Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

# Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13

# Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

# Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) 7:9-10

# If you're ashamed of Jesus, he'll be ashamed of you. (And you'll go straight to hell.) 8:38

# Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49

# Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16
===============

LUKE

# God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel's words. 1:20

# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3:9

# John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17

# Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37

# Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15

# Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5

# Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47

# "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 13:3, 5

# According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30

# In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31

# Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27

# Jesus also believes the story about Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32

# In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27

===============

JOHN

# Jesus believed the stupid and vicious story from Numbers 21. (God sent snakes to bite the people for complaining about the lack of foood and water, and then God told Moses to make a brass snake to cure them from the bites.) 3:14

# As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16

# People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36

# The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

# Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14

# Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

# Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66

-======================

This is why I want nothing to do with xtianity, or Jesus, if he in fact A) Existed; and B) Said these things. The bible is a horrible book to use for a moral guide.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Thank you, that list kicks ASS.

"The bible is a horrible book to use for a moral guide."

It sure does come in handy when you need to justify rape, slavery, torture, murder etc.

[louis c]

74. It's the attempt to be Christ like

and not favoring attempting to heal the sick and denying them care is not difficult to see that that attempt would make one fall far short of "Christ like".

[beam me up scottie]

77. Make up your mind, either you're describing christianity or being "Christ-like".

The current Pope is a christian even though he's directly responsible for the death of thousands.

Would Jesus hand out condoms in Africa and South America?

[louis c]

79. Catholicism is far from Christ like

[datasuspect]

81. anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior

period.

end of thread.