What is Christianity all about?

I didn’t read the post, but I believe that the point of what he was trying to tell you was that salvation is a free gift with no strings attached. The “being a good person” part is a response to the gift, not a condition of it. When a person realizes the magnitude of the gift, and the cost that was paid so you could have it, then the response is to make every effort to live a life pleasing to God, knowing full well that you can do nothing to “earn” the gift or to repay the gift. The response is to live a life of gratitude and extending the same grace and forgiveness to others that was extended to you.

To be a Christian, in the most basic form, is to accept that humans were created by God, the devil corrupted us early on, God’s punishment for sin is eternal separation from Him “Hell”, So God sent his son to to show us how to live, He then took the punishment for us and died for our sins and then rose again. If you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, I believe that makes you a Christian. (of course, part of accepting Christ is committing to follow Him and try not to sin)

Thank you Judi. I wish I could give you more than one lurve for that.

I agree with Judi and Perchik…I think I’m a good person and I’m also a Christian. But I agree that being a good person alone doesn’t make you one. Several people call themselves good people and they are atheists. From my understanding, believing in God, having trust and faith in Him and knowing that He is your creator, while being a good person is what makes you a Christian – and everything else mentioned above. I think it was wrong of that guy to judge you, for in the end everyone’s day will come. Just continue to pray for guidance and wisdom and know in your heart that you believe in Him. Btw, I’m no shcolar on this subject, I’m just speaking from my own personal belief. Hope this helps! :)

As long as you have the faith in God himself and try and trust and believe in him you are a true christian. he is our father and creator and he is always there for us in good times and bad. never dought yourself as not being a christian, God never does.Pray to him as though he was a really close friend and he will hear you at all you have to say. He never leaves any prayer unanswered. It is on God we trust. Don’t worry, you are a christian. Don’t let anyone tell you differant. Bless you!! :)

@Monty
He didn’t say that you weren’t a Christian in the sense that he thinks your faith/religion/whateveryouwanttocallit is inadequate in some way. The context was that he thought you weren’t a Christian—and wouldn’t claim to be—because of some things that he had seen you say. He thought that you carried a hostility towards Christians and that you would not even want to be associated with them. Assuming now that you do claim the Christian faith, it had a lot more to do with miscommunication than with judgment.

That said, Judi’s answer is quite good.

All human beings seem to have a need to know the unknowable, that is just a characteristic of the species. In developing systematic explanations we develop religious philosophies. Once these religions are codified we can stop looking for answers and spend more time on important matters like survival and watching professional sports.

For example at one time a large number of humans believed that there was a superhuman being that controlled the waterways of the world and could kill anyone crossing a river, lake or sea unless he was mollified. Over time we found this not to be the case, so most of us gave up the multitude of gods religions for the one God serves all religions. (Except athiests who seem to believe that if they couldn’t understand something, then nobody could)

Besides being curious creatures, human beings have a tendency to be competitive and over time have adopted what they believe to be different versions of God and claiming theirs is the best. We Christians started out with the ideas purported to be the teachings of an itinerant Jewish preacher 2000 years ago. His name was Christ in Greek, the classy-cal language of that time, ergo we are Christians.

Those philosophical beliefs were among the most difficult of all to adhere to. It is almost impossible for human beings to do anything without ulterior motives. It is one thing to sacrifice and do good but it is quite another thing to be meek about it.

Over time the original values were overridden by others that were more easily attainable. For example sitting through long, boring, uncomfortable lectures about doing good is much easier than actually doing good. And then it morphed into listening to slightly fewer lectures in more comfortable circumstances promised that not only doing good for just people you like was enough for eternal salvation but it would bring you prosperity here and now. What a deal!

So there are all kinds of Christians. There are those of us who believe we should do the best we can to help the world and everyone in it as a gateway to eternal knowledge and happiness and we must do it for no other reason. The range of Christian belief then extends to those who believe they have the right and duty to force everyone to share their philosophy no matter who or what they destroy in the process. The most on-the-edge Christians believe that God has such an interest in this path that He will bless them with material riches and He will make sure they have no personal difficulties in this life as long as they force their brand of Christianity on everyone else.

You must admit that is a very big ideological umbrella, big enough to cover any of us who calls her/himself a Christian.

@Judi,

“salvation is a free gift with no strings attached… “being a good person” ... is a response to the gift, not a condition of it.

So, I gather then that Christianity is all about salvation, that you can assume that you are saved, and that in gratitude you will spontaneously wish to live in a manner “pleasing to God.” And that’s it, you don’t have to believe anything particularly illogical.

@Perchik,

Your idea of Christianity seems to be all about redemption, where the essential thing to believe is that we were created by God, but with a spiritually inadequate and corruptible nature, which immediately became corrupted, requiring the whole human race to be punished. Christ was sent to provide us with a model how to “live right” and to be a human sacrifice which expiates the collective sins of the human race so that God’s punishment could be lifted. What I find unclear is whether it is Christ’s example of unconditional altruism, his martyrdom for the sake of that example, or his actual death-in-sacrifice which redeems us.

joni1977,

“Several people call themselves good people and they are atheists.”

You mean they aren’t good people?

“believing in God, having trust and faith in Him and knowing that He is your creator, while being a good person is what makes you a Christian…”

Somehow I get the feeling that there is quite a bit more to “believing in God” and having “faith in Him” than is being said here. If not, then being good makes you a true Christian.

@rossi_bear,
“have the faith in God himself and try and trust and believe in him you are a true christian.”

Your idea of Christianity seems to be all about having Jesus as a really close personal friend. Once you make that connection, you will be a good person and all the rest of it takes care of itself.

@aidje,
What I found insulting was that he claimed to know who was and was not a true Christian, and then refused to explain himself or apologise when called on it.

@galileogirl,

“there are all kinds of Christians”

Yes, but what do they have in common? What is necessary and what is unnecessary? So far, pretty much everyone seems to think that a “belief in God” is necessary.

Personally, I don’t think you have to believe in God, salvation, redemption, or any of the rest of it in order to live your life by Christ’s example. In my view, Christianity is not about “believing in God,” or salvation, or declaring your allegiance to any particular religion, or even Christ. It is all about accepting Jesus’ invitation to a change of heart, where you put aside your selfish concerns for material wealth, power, status, and abstract principle, and you act toward others with genuine unconditional Love—not out of expectation of reward or punishment, but because it is right and a joy to do in it’s own right.

I think its possible to view Christianity in purely human terms, and I am not alone. The post-modernist, ecumenical church is very much concerned with the problems of living in this world—with social justice, speaking truth to power and remediating the human legacy of bad faith.

@MontyZuma, The redeeming factor is that Christ took the punishment for our sins. I should add, you must believe that Christ died for us, and that he is the ONLY way into heaven (living with God eternally).

I’ll quote Wikipedia. I know it’s not the most trustworthy site, but the authors of this particular page (Christianity) seem to have a clear grasp on just what it is that unites Christians.

“Christianity (from the word Xριστός “Christ”) is a monotheistic religion[1] centered on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.[2]

Its followers, known as Christians,[3] believe that Jesus is the only begotten[4][5] Son of God and the Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (the part of scripture common to Christianity and Judaism). To Christians, Jesus Christ is a teacher, the model of a virtuous life, the revealer of God, as well as an incarnation of God, and most importantly the savior of humanity who suffered, died, and was resurrected to bring about salvation from sin.[6] Christians maintain that Jesus ascended into heaven, and most denominations teach that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, granting everlasting life to his followers.”

If you believe these things, you are a Christian. Simple enough. I’ll add, though, that in most denominations, you must also believe that it is right to make God happy, and that the best way to do this is to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. You could argue that many Satanists are Christians, too, only they seek to please and worship the Christian devil Satan.

Are you a Christian by this definition, Monty? I ask because I’d been under the impression that you weren’t. I’d like to see how that fits into some of the other perspectives that you’ve written about on this site.

Generally, asking a question implies that one is looking for answers beyond what they have already decided is true…otherwise, it’s called baiting. If you are seriously looking for answers and not just opinions to belittle, some good ones have been given here. I found Judi’s the most concise and easy to understand. To answer your response above, no you don’t “assume you are saved”, you must first, as you put it, “believe something illogical”. This is what gains the salvation…your own belief. John 14:6 states ”Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” Yes, anyone can be a good person without being a Christian, but simply put, Christianity is all about believing in Christ, as the name implies. From that belief, but not exclusive to it, should come good living.

James 2:14–26

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Amen, jholler!

In essence, to be a Christian is to believe in Christ and his teachings.

I’m compelled to say that rossibear’s definition of a Christian has nothing to do with Christ and is therefore invalid. It describes faith in a supreme being but the nature of that being could be any god ever invented.

Judi nailed it.

@Zuma, Yep, just accept the free gift. Most of us who have chosen to accept the gift have been transformed by it. We (sometimes immediately and sometimes over time) begin to see the world through new lenses. It changes our perspective and what once seemed illogical now makes perfect sense.
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18

@Perchick,
So you are saying that Christ was a whipping boy or proxy for the human race, whose death satisfies God’s vengeance on the human race—but now you add that Christ is the only way to get to heaven. So, then, are you saying that Christianity is all about getting to heaven?

@shadling,
So are we looking to Wikipedia as an authority as to what Christianity is?

While I am sure that most, if not all, Christians would agree that Jesus was a teacher, a prophet, and a model for a virtuous life, not everyone agrees that he was the incarnation of God. Views differ as well on whether the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible was supposed to be an earthly leader, a spiritual deliverer from the corruption of Roman values, or a “savior” whose sacrifice redeems humanity’s original sin.

As I said above, I don’t think you have to believe in God, salvation, redemption, or any of the rest of it in order to live your life by Christ’s example. In my view, Christianity is not about “believing in God,” or salvation, or declaring your allegiance to any particular religion, or even Christ. It is all about accepting Jesus’ invitation to a change of heart, where you put aside your selfish concerns for material wealth, power, status, and abstract principle, and you act toward others with genuine unconditional Love—not out of expectation of reward or punishment, but because it is right and a joy to do in it’s own right.

I think its possible to view Christianity in purely human terms, and I am not alone. The post-Enlightenment, ecumenical Christianity is very much concerned with the problems of living in this world-—and is concerned with social justice, speaking truth to power, and remediating the human legacy of bad faith.

So, while some Christians believe that Jesus ascended bodily into heaven, or that there will be a literal Last Judgment, I don’t think you necessarily have to believe in these things in order to be a Christian.

@jholler,
“I found Judi’s the most concise and easy to understand. To answer your response above, no you don’t “assume you are saved”, you must first, as you put it, “believe something illogical”. This is what gains the salvation…your own belief.”

So then salvation is not a free gift, like Judi says, you must first believe something illogical as a precondition.

“Christianity is all about believing in Christ, as the name implies.”

What does “believing in Christ” mean? That sounds like it could mean any number of things, depending on who says it.

@fireside,
“In essence, to be a Christian is to believe in Christ and his teachings.”

Is “believing in Christ” something different than believing his teachings? Either way, what does it “believing in Christ” mean?

@Judi,
“It changes our perspective and what once seemed illogical now makes perfect sense.”

First, what is this gift exactly? Is it the invitation to a change of heart, or is it something else? And how does it change one’s perspective in a way that makes “illogical” things make sense? And are those things really so illogical in the first place?

Ok, you’re baiting and I’m through with you.

@ Monty – Is “believing in Christ” something different than believing his teachings? Either way, what does it “believing in Christ” mean?

You can’t really have one without the other.
That’s like saying that you mirror every investment Berkshire Hathaway makes, but you think Warren Buffet is an idiot. Part of believing the teachings is to trust in the teacher.

Without that trust in the teacher, you won’t be able to open your heart to the teachings. You may follow some of them, but that is not the same as being a Christian.

@Monty So you are saying that Christ was a whipping boy or proxy for the human race, whose death satisfies God’s vengeance on the human race—but now you add that Christ is the only way to get to heaven. So, then, are you saying that Christianity is all about getting to heaven?

It’s a bastardization of the term proxy, and I know you will take this out of context but yes, Jesus was in essence a proxy. God is not vengeful, He said the punishment for sin is eternal separation from him. We sinned, someone has to pay. Jesus paid for us, but was strong enough to overcome the death and separation after 3 days.

To your second question, Yes.
Earlier I defined Heaven and Hell. Heaven is spending eternity with God. Hell is spending eternity without God. Therefore yes, the point of Christianity is to spend Eternity with God. The only way to do that by Christian teachings is to accept that Jesus Christ paid for your sins.

Only being a good person does not make you a Christian.
Only calling yourself a Christian does not make you a Christian.
For that matter, just because you go to a Christian church every sunday, does not mean you are a Christian.

To be a “Christian” you must ascribe to what I previously said- We are sinners, Jesus took the punishment for our sins. If you accept that Christ died for your sins, you are called to follow the teachings of Christ. That makes you a Christian.

In the Amplified Bible, John 3 :16 says “For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten ([a]unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.”

So if you’re asking what “believes” means, I would say it means to “trust in” and “rely on.”

There’s a part of the problem, trying to explain the liturgy with writings that were originally penned decades after the events and passed down as hearsay through some seriously biased sources and then translated through 2 millenia of additional biases and prejudices. The Bible is useless as a serious source is useless.

BTW did anybody see the anti Prop 8 skit with Jack Black as Jesus? The ‘church’ people pointed out that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination then Jesus points out the Bible says the same thing about shellfish. Anybody for prawn cocktail?

@judi,
So then, you could trust in him as a teacher, regard his teachings as a reliable guide toward how you should act toward your fellow man, and you would be covered. What’s illogical about that?

@galileogirl & all,
Bias does not necessarily invalidate a point of view. You can correct for bias. In addition to the textual ambiguities of the Bible, there have been several distinct Christian theologies layered one on top of one another.

There was the original Jesus movement, for Jews only, which was carried forward by St. James and Jesus’ family in Jeruselem. This was a reform movement within rabbinical Judiasm. It regarded Jesus as a man, a teacher and a prophet, and its whole point was to provide a more loving, justice-oriented alternative to the materialistic, legalistic traditions within Judiasm.

There was the Egalitarian Christianity of St. Paul and the commune dwellers of the early church; where the whole point seemed to in living together as equals, and in so doing, replace worldly striving for wealth and power with a form of brotherly love where people could live together as equals, without social distinction.

This was followed by a period of intense theological in-fighting, as the egalitarian theology of St. Paul had to be revised in order to accommodate a church which had grown wealthy and politically powerful, and in which a heirarchical priesthood headed by a pope in Rome now interceded between God and Man. One sees the beginnings of this authoritarian theology in St. John, who was almost certainly not one of the original apostles, and whose theology is distinctly later and different from the other Gospels.

This was followed by a period of millenarian Christianity between the fall of Rome and the 14th Century, and peaking around the year 1,000. Renewed anxieties about the end of the world impelled ascetic saints, heretics and processions of self-flaggelants to purge themselves of sexual thoughts through mortification of the flesh. This also led to crusades, pilgrimages, witchhunts and Inquisitions in order to expell evil, prepare the world for the end, and preserve the lucrative trade in indulgences and dispensations.

This was followed by the Protestant Reformation, which after doing away with papal indulgences and priestly forgiveness of sin, created a theology that became positively obsessed with the problems of sin and salvation. To hear Protestants today, you would think that this was always the main concern.

This was followed by an Ecumenical post-enlightenment theology which pays close attention to the problems of this world—such as preserving and realizing the humanity of the individual, especially in response to the soul-deadening materialism of mass market societies. This shades in to Post-modernist Christianity, which is concerned with the problems of reviving egalitarian society amid the virtual strip-mining of the human psyche by mass marketing in the information age. The main point of this theology is the individual’s realization of his most authentic himself—which is loving and Christ-like once you strip away the accumulated bad faith.

The fundamentalist born-again Christian movement rejects modernity, and is very much opposed to Modern and Post-modern Christianity, although it is born out of the same hunger for authenticity. This version of Christianity seems to place a priemium on Faith and believing—the more difficult the belief the better.

Okay, I get what you’re saying. I suppose my own Catholic background was shading my opinion about what Christianity. Obviously, to Catholics, there is a huge emphasis on belief in Jesus as the Son of God.

So, if we cut that out, then we’re left with a simple definition. A Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Jesus.

As mentioned above, there are even issues with this very basic notion. All of the “layers” that have been added to the Bible and the Christian understanding of it. Everyone seems to have their own opinions. “Truth” seems hard to get at through traditional means, as meanings are mangled through various regurgitations.

I always viewed Christianity as a tree with many branches and twigs. There are times when I look at Christianity as though it were one massive stew of ideologies (some of which conflict… a stewed brouhaha? Hah!). Your view seems to be of a cake with many layers that bleed into each other. The bottom layers harden to stop the intrusion of foreign ideas.

Enough metaphors!

I have to wonder… Is this view of Christianity going “back to the basics”, or simply adding a new layer? Every time Christianity is revised, a new level of complexity is added that makes it harder and harder to communicate these ideas.

Great. Now I have to reconcile this new understanding with my own personal lack of faith. Maybe Wikipedia can help me out? =P

@Zuma;
If you believe in, trust, rely on and cling to Jesus, then I’d say you’re a Christian. You can just leave it there and stay stagnant or you can pursue a deeper relationship in the person you’re clinging to. I realize you’re just looking to argue every point, but I am hoping that somewhere inside you really want to know the truth and not just win an argument. If you are really seeking the truth you will find it. It’s not my job to enlighten you. That’s between you and God. You obviously have all the information. If you’re just seeking to be right then all we have is a robust debate. That can be fun too I guess.

Trust, rely on, CLING to?? Follow the teachings of, yes. I also agree with and model my choices after some of the founding fathers of this country, enlightenment philosophers and my father but I stand on my own two feet, use my natural intelligence and CLING to nothing!

Detachment is not a Christian tenet

I could cling to that Alexander Hamilton. he was kinda cute.

LOL, laureth.

The deadpan delivery combined with your avatar just had me spitting cookies.

@Judi,
To me, the word “cling” has unfortunate connotations of inequality and neurotic neediness, so I would prefer to say that I adhere to Jesus’ invitation to seek him in my fellow man. “What you do for the least of my brethren, you do for me.” What I do, I do because I trust and believe it is the right thing to do, and because it needs to be done. I find all the supernatural rigmarole distracting, divisive and unnecessary—and a huge turn-off when people use it as a basis for passing judgment. The reason I asked the question I did was to help me decide whether I should call myself a Christian or not. For now, I think it will remain a private matter.

MontyZuma,

Not sure if you’re still interested in answers, but I would think that the generally accepted definition of a Christian has something to do with what Perchik and others suggest eg..

“To be a “Christian” you must ascribe to what I previously said- We are sinners, Jesus took the punishment for our sins. If you accept that Christ died for your sins, you are called to follow the teachings of Christ. That makes you a Christian.”

That said, many in Scandinavia are more cultural Christians, in other words the supernatural is all but gone but some still define themselves as “Christians” on the basis that they believe that being nice to other people and their practiciing of Christian traditions is enough to be a Christian. So they would have no problem with seeing you as a Christian.

I would think though that if you see Christ as an important philospher who had some good ideas, and you pick and chose the passages of the bible that agree with your own philosophy but ignore the one’s you don’t, and you acknowledge that other philospher’s had great ideas too…then I can’t say i personally would think of you as a Christian. I think that most Christian’s also ignore some passages, but they general acknowledgement that the bible is an authority on what to believe and what to do in order to please god.

So for my two cents, I would ask why would you want to be thought of as a Christian, if you don’t want all the aspects commonly associated with Christianity?

I acknowledge that Christianity can be defined as you define it…sure….but why not just leave the labels and accept that there are a multitude of people throughout history who have done wonderful things and challenged humanities perceptions of morality and ethics at the time, but none of them should be held in such high esteem that all of their thoughts and actions must be considered perfect (which is what I imagine being the son of god would kind of necessitate). And we should always be willing to consdier moral guidance and judgement where we find it. Im sure 2000 years ago the concept of giving monkeys some rights to avoid undue suffering would be bizarre (considering the prevalence of slavery and the lack of specific proclamations from god that rule against it). Same goes for homosexual rights, and sexual equality.

You state yourself that you use your own moral compass to decide right from wrong. If that means that you would not allow any literalist reading of a religious text to dictate what is right or wrong to you, then you are not the product of an adherence to someone elses teachings.

In relation to this question perhaps a Christian is someone who(in part) would allow the teachings of Christ to negate their own views of morality because of Christ’s divine mandate from god. That’s what following Christ’s teachings probably means to most. If that’s not you then you’re not a Christian as I would define it.

But feel free to call yourself whatever you wish. My thoughts are irrelevant in how you think of yourself.

Hope that helps and all the best…

@Critter,

“why would you want to be thought of as a Christian, if you don’t want all the aspects commonly associated with Christianity?”

A good question, but I think you already know the answer. Why should I cede Christianity, whose central message I am in whole-hearted agreement with, to those who have a narrow view of it, and who would to define Christianity in terms of their own beliefs, and their beliefs only? Why would I not want to be included? Why are your beliefs more worthy than mine of being placed on such a pedestal?

“you pick and chose the passages of the bible that agree with your own philosophy but ignore the one’s you don’t”

That isn’t true. I simply accord different passages of the bible different weight, as any intelligent reader would and as most Christians do. When Moses quotes God from the Burning Bush, I take that more seriously than when St.Paul writes a pastoral letter to the Corinthians. For me, St. Paul’s authority begins and ends with St. Paul. I take the words and example of Jesus much more seriously than the commentary on them; and, in this, I take the commentary of those who knew him more seriously than those who did not.

I am also mindful that Jesus’ followers devolved into rival factions, some of whose accounts (i.e., the apocryphal gospels) got left on the cutting room floor at the Council of Nicaea. So, the bible is already a document fraught with “picking and choosing.”

”[Y]ou use your own moral compass to decide right from wrong.”

You say that like it’s a bad thing. Yes, I find Love to be a very reliable moral compass. Together with reason, you have all the tools you need to preserve your integrity, and the rights and dignity of your fellow man.

“If that means that you would not allow any literalist reading of a religious text to dictate what is right or wrong to you, then you are not the product of an adherence to someone else’s teachings.”

Really. My understanding is that a literalist interprets things according to the letter of what is said rather than the meaning or spirit of what is said. For example, Jewish law forbids doing any kind of work on the Sabbath. So, when a Samaritan’s ox cart falls into a ditch and Jesus helps him haul it out, and the Pharisees draw nigh to rebuke Jesus for having violated the Sabbath, Jesus tells them that the Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath.

Now a literalist would say that the whole point of this parable was to clarify the meaning of the Sabbath, perhaps so that Christians could work on it if they had to. But to someone reading for the deeper message, this is not just a run-in with the Pharisees, this is an important statement of man’s duty to one’s fellow man vis a vis one’s duty to the law: People come first. Why? Because the Law was made for Man, not Man for the Law. Here, a literal reading actually destroys the sense in which this parable has always been interpreted.

So, in my view, literalism is not a “clinging” to the essence of Christianity, it is a clinging to a narrow, indiscriminate, and distorted reading of Christianity. Interpreting every word of Scripture as the literal Word of God a relatively recent and peculiarly American phenomenon, which the majority of Christians reject. In my view, placing Scripture at the center of Christianity is a form of idolatry. So, I could just as easily ask of you why you insist on calling yourself a Christian?

“a Christian is someone who(in part) would allow the teachings of Christ to negate their own views of morality because of Christ’s divine mandate from god. That’s what following Christ’s teachings probably means to most.”

If Christianity were a free-floating consensus of what “most people” believe, you would probably not be included either. Fortunately, its a big tent and nobody is guarding the entrance.

Like most cultural, ecumenical, humanist Christians, I read Jesus as a man, not as a God. I think that this helps keep his central message in perspective: We should do what we do out of Love for our fellow man, not because we are commanded to, or because there will be a Judgment and supernatual consequences if we do not, but because loving is the right and worthwhile for it’s own sake. Love is at the heart of the Golden Rule.

If that is not enough for you and you need some supernatural Holy Terror to frighten you into acting morally, then at least you acknowledge your moral development. But you should not think of yourself superior, more holy, or worthy of the name “Christian” than anyone else who claims it. And, on that basis, you shouldn’t be using the power of the state to tell other Christians whom they can and cannot marry.

I think you might have misunderstood me. I’m not a Christian nor have I ever been one and I have no vested interest in whether you call yourself one or not. Furthermore, I applaud the approach of starting with reason and love and letting one’s own moral compass lead the way. My post might come across in a different light now that you are aware of that.

I absolutely agree with your arguments regarding doing the right thing because it is right, rather than in order to please some perceived supernatural being with a penchant for damnation.

I also think that your slant on Christianity takes the Christian religion in the right direction, at least from an outsiders point of view.

So, just to reiterate what my point really was…it was not to challenge your right to define Christianity as you see fit. Go for it. I am merely curious as to why if you start with reason and love for your fellow man as a basis for your morality, why do you feel the need to go back and examine second hand accounts of Christ’s teachings? It seems as if you are seeking support for your own moral compass in the piecemeal remains of a theology which has been (as you yourself indicate) taken apart and put together by multiple generations of people with their own political agendas?

So in essence, why go to the trouble and seemingly restrict yourself to the teachings of one guy when there are so many wonderful philosophers, each of which have good and bad aspects we can pick and chose from? The golden rule is a great basis it has its limitations), but it originated in many separate philosophies and I would suggest well and truely predates Jesus and likely predates our species.

That is my reason for asking why you want to be considered a Christian, versus say just you are who you are, nothing more. Really it’s a question about the costs and benefits of labeling yourself as something. I personally don’t understand the benefits that’s all.

and….I support people’s right to marry who ever they want, as long as their consenting adults.

Oh and I don’t put anyone’s beliefs on a pedestal, especially not my own.

All the best, hope that clarifies.

@Critter38
Yes, Critter, thank you for the clarification. Your post comes across very differently now. Previously, it looked to me as though you were arguing that only someone who arrived at Christianity through a literal reading of Scripture could (or should) claim to be an “adherent.” Usually, only folks who believe in biblical inerrancy argue from such a premise.

Why limit myself to Christ’s teachings? I don’t. I’ve studied the Tao Te Ching off and on since age 15, and I am more likely to consult it or the I Ching than I am the Bible for wisdom or things to meditate upon. Its just that in this culture one has to be bible-literate in order to engage people in a conversation about religion. I’m also well read in Western philosophy, particularly Nietzsche and William James.

My renewed interest in Christianity came from reading Thomas Cahill’s Desire of the Everlasting Hills, a book I heartily recommend, along with “How the Irish Saved Civilization.” Cahill is an historian who approaches Christianity from a historian’s point of view. Basically, he asks, “What contribution did Christianity make to Western Civilization?” And the answer is, “Quite a bit.” In my view, the part of it that has made a difference is separable from supernaturalism and is now the guiding ethos of our secular humanist culture, and it’s concern for human rights and the dignity of man.

In my view, the Christian preoccupation with original sin and salvation is superstitious holdover from our earliest animist ancestor’s need to propitiate the spirit world, in this case, by appeasing the Supreme Being presumed to be in charge. I find that these exercises tend to cultivate a sense of exceptionalism, entitlement and self-flattering unreality that seems to justify people’s immoral acts toward others. Hence, my reading of human redemption is that Christ’s Passion has symbolically ended the cycle on all of that. We are now free to use human reason to repair the human condition. And, to that end, Christ points us to the homeless, the starving, the thirsty, the ill-clothed, and people in prison—anyone in need.

I don’t consider faith irrational. I lend you money in good faith because I believe that you will keep your word and pay me back. There is nothing irrational about this leap of faith, even though game theory predicts that you will try to stiff me on the last transaction. Even so, the loss on that final transaction is more than offset by the many benefits of the intervening period of trust.

Thanks for the clarification in turn!

Once again I like your take on Christianity.

In regards to your last point, I guess it might be a semantic distinction. As you mention, the game theory of reciprocal altruism is really an excercise in probability and has been selected for based on past experience within a social network which traditionally would extend for much if not all of an individuals life. As no one can know when and if a transaction is likely to be final in a social group, and it is not just the transaction with the individual but the fact that within any group there is likely to be knowledge of who screwed who in previous transactions (ain’t gossip fun), I think it is reasonable for most of us to be able to trust most of us most of the time. Which is what we find within our closest circles.

So I think although acknowledgement of game theory with respect to reciprocal altruism or kin selection could be argued to be having faith in evolutionary ethics, I wasn’t using the word in that context. Just as I could argue that I have faith my bicycle will work in the morning. In many ways game theory and my bicycle working are based on past experience and therefore have some basis in reason and evidence based thinking. Yes this does meet the definition of faith, but it wasn’t what I was referring to based on the context of the discussion in which in the term came up.

When asked in a religious context, faith generally seems to refer belief or certainty in that for which there is no evidence. There is no other field of discourse I am aware in which such arguments (lack of evidence is not a hindrance to the strength to which a person hold’s a position) hold sway other than in discussions of the supernatural. It is faith in this regard that I think of as irrational.

@monty I think you’re trying to live a good life. But I still maintain that without the idea of acceptance and original sin, a person is not a Christian. I’m not sure why you want the title so much, but refuse to accept the foundations of Christianity. It’s not yours to pick and choose what you like or what you don’t. If you do that, sure, you may live life in a good way, you may do great things, but you wouldn’t be a Christian.

@Perchick,
Who died and anointed you pope?

@Monty, I’m just confused as to why you want the title “Christian” so much, when you don’t want to ascribe to the core values of Christianity.

First of all, I think I do subscribe to the core values of Christianity—Love and compassion toward one’s fellow man, especially those in need; acting in good faith; and putting people before principle. Original sin is not a “value,” its a doctrine, and it is by no means a core doctrine if history is any guide.

Second, there are three distinct theories of original sin, the earliest of which was not introduced to Christian theology until the 5th Century by St. Augustine, who imported a number of other Manichean doctrines as well. The other two theories date from the 17th Century, and they are drawn from Protestant theological treatises, not from Scripture.

You will not find any reference to “original sin” in the Bible, nor will you find any support for any of the the theories of original sin in Scripture. Jews and Muslims have the same story of Adam and Eve that we do, yet there is no concept of original sin in Judaism or Islam. Also, as you will see if you consult the link above, each of these theories is plagued by fatal internal contradictions. Not only is the doctrine nonsensical, it is not even originally Christian.

So, just because original sin may be central to your belief in Christianity doesn’t make it central for all Christians. In other words, your Christianity is not the only Christianity, or even the main Christianity. And I am surprised that, given the fact that there are over 25,000 Protestant denominations alone, that you would flatter yourself into thinking that your beliefs just happen to be what “most” Christians believe.

I would like to apologize for my previous two posts. I did not mean to say that you were wrong. I’ve thought about it, prayed about it, and asked some people for advice.

I think that we are both followers of the same teachings, therefore we should unite over our similarities instead of quibbling over our differences. You believe you are following the teachings the best way for you and I believe I’m following them the best way for me. Jesus said that there would be divisions of ideas between those close as well as distant, but he wanted us to understand as Christians that we should try to find the common ground in Him. We both chose to follow Him, and that should be enough.

I’m deeply sorry. Let us be brothers instead of enemies.

Thank you, my brother in Christ.

@Monty: Does that mean you are a Christian? Sorry I don’t have the right state of mind to stay up and read the whole post.

Well i’m a Christian, and i personally think that religions are just a NAME. What matters is if you believe in something. And whether that something is good or bad.

Agreed.

We can split hairs over how we determine what is good or bad later.

Welcome to Fluther gciochina

Christians, fundamentally, pertain to a religious denomination originating in the original discipline established by the historical Jesus of Nazerath. He is accepted as being God, in part or in whole, and the attitude and preference of that God changes according to your denomination.

It’s much too varied to generalize more than that.

Important detail: Catholics, regardless of what some Protestant leaders want to insinuate, qualify as Christians and are in fact the largest official denomination of Christians in the world.

Those who believe in Christ are Christians, “but” we do vary in our response to our our Christianship..Mind you ‘demons believe that Jesus is the son of God, and tremble at His mentioning, but what? they do not worship or submit to His Kingdom Him. The underlying factor is that we should be as He was, Christ Jesus, we are called to display His virtues. Our lives should reflect whom we follow or believe in, but the enablement comes from above. It is no body’s decision to get saved, but God’s. God has a plan that everything fullfils. We can make plans but God has the last decision.