What is a Real Christian?

[PhysBang]

My definition would hold that a real Christian does not kill, whether that be through war or otherwise.

This is like the crappy definition of "god" that semi-evangelicals like W.L. Craig use: it bears little relationship to practicing religion.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I don't believe it is that simple. Having read the book, I definitely got an opinion.

Sure you have an opinion... just like other Bible believers have opinions an call therselfs what ever they want... ie... its just the reality of it.!!!

 

[exchemist]

I hold the bar pretty high. If you look at the above poll, the list is quite long. There are those who say one need only believe, but I think it's more a life's endeavor. I've met many people who claimed to be Christians, but you would never guess judging from the way they live.

In that case I think you should be drawing a distinction between "good" and "bad" Christians, rather than between "real" and - what, "fake"? - Christians. The existence of bad Christians, like bad muslims or bad Jews, for example, is not in doubt. But I really struggle to see what could be meant by a "fake" or otherwise not-"real" Christian.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Televangelists. Politicians. Bowser. The list goes on.

 

[Yazata]

The phrase "real Christian" assumes that there's some essence of Christianity that some forms of ostensible Christianity deviate from and that all Christians need to adhere to.

The fundamentalists and evangelicals usually find that essence in the Biblical text, as they interpret it. The Catholics, both Roman and Eastern, find it in their own church tradition and teaching. More theologically 'liberal' Protestants try to pull what they take to be Jesus' ethical teachings out of their original context and make that idealization their standard.

As for me, I conceive of Christianity as a historical tradition that takes the form of a tree, extending through time. It has generated lots of branches (Eastern Orthodoxy, the Copts, Roman Catholicism, all manner of Protestantism and even the Mormons). It's hard to say which branches of the tradition are "real" and which ones aren't, without privileging certain interpretations of the tradition over others.

There is. They have to believe that:

Jesus was the son of god, he sacrificed himself for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day. Salvation from sin (the only way) can be achieved by accepting Jesus into your heart (faith). There is a heaven and hell. The Bible is the word of god. And Jesus is coming back someday in a final judgement.

You seem to be opting for the idea that there are fundamental beliefs that define the tradition and define who is inside it and outside it. By definition, that's 'fundamentalism'. (The word 'fundamentalist' dates back to a set of pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals that sought to make the same argument you made.)

I think that there are many self-styled 'Christians' who don't really believe that Jesus was God in human flesh, that he rose from the dead, or that the Bible is the literal 'Word of God'. Probably most contemporary Episcopalians don't believe those things, and certainly most Unitarians don't. I'm not sure if Kittamaru (a Methodist) does. It's important to remember that most of the so-called 'higher criticism' of the Bible was conducted by Christians in the 19th century, not by atheists.

There's been a widespread tendency since the 18th century to consider Jesus an ancient teacher of wisdom and righteousness, somebody who had some uniquely special connection to the divine perhaps, and who left profound ethical teachings that still speak to us. Arguably Jesus should serve as our model or exemplar in life. That's at the heart of the theologically 'liberal' moralizing that dominates much of 'mainstream' Protestantism in the US today.

My point is that fundamentalism and 'liberal' Protestantism are just two distant branches on the same historical tree, with their own histories and motivations, and it's difficult to say which of them is more 'real'.

 

[exchemist]

You seem to be opting for the idea that there are fundamental beliefs that define the tradition and define who is inside it and outside it. By definition, that's 'fundamentalism'. (The word 'fundamentalist' dates back to a set of pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals that sought to make the same argument you made.)

I think that there are many self-styled 'Christians' who don't really believe that Jesus was God in human flesh, that he rose from the dead, or that the Bible is the literal 'Word of God'. Probably most contemporary Episcopalians don't believe those things, and certainly most Unitarians don't. I'm not sure if Kittamaru (a Methodist) does. There's a widespread tendency since the 19th century to consider Jesus an ancient teacher of wisdom and righteousness, somebody who had some uniquely special connection to the divine perhaps, and who left profound ethical teachings that still speak to us today. That's the theologically 'liberal' Protestantism that dominates much of 'mainstream' Protestantism in the US today.

My point is that fundamentalism and 'liberal' Protestantism are just two distant branches on the same historical tree, with their own histories and motivations, and it's difficult to say which of them is more 'real'.

Ha, yes, and most Catholics or Orthodox would claim to be more "real" than either, on the basis of following a more ancient tradition!

 

[Yazata]

"Real Christian" just indicates the author of those words wishes to disparage the beliefs or behavior of another group, denying them the self-identified label of "Christian."

Isn't that what Sciforums does every day to "pseudo-science"?

It's similar to wartime propaganda where the enemy is portrayed as beastial or sub-human — by drawing a line in the sand and trying to portray the enemy as on the other side of that line the author hopes those not on the "enemy's side" will flock to his cause. Essentially, it's like in-group racism rather than out-group racism.

How did you get all that perjorative stuff from Bowser's rather good and inoffensive question about what is a Christian's greatest virtue?

"People “like us” would never do such a thing (because no right-thinking person would)." Therefore counter-examples to the stereotype the author wishes to advance are summarily tossed into the outer darkness with this rhetorical slight-of-hand defining the "true" in-group to consist only of admirable examples of the "in-group."

Don't sets of ideas typically define belief systems? You seem to have some kind of background in physics, so wouldn't you agree that physical theories like quantum mechanics or relativity theory possess content, and that if somebody disagrees with or deviates from too much of that content, then he or she can no longer be said to be doing physics (or orthodox physics, or physics as it's currently understood)? Paddoboy certainly thinks that way and is always eager to burn heretics at the stake.

"No Scotsman drinks wine at the dinner table." "Idol of millions Angus MacLeod drinks wine." "Well then, he's no true Scotsman."

My question (it isn't rhetorical) is why do we make that kind of 'no true Scotsman' argument regarding Christianity (I did, right up above in #25), but not regarding science?

 

[Yazata]

In my mind it is more than simply wearing a cross around your neck, more than simply talking the talk. Though Christianity strikes a chord with me. I don't consider myself a Christian, because I don't believe I can walk the walk, or be what I believe is required. I'm a lover of the world.

I'm not a Christian either, so when I try to answer your question about creating a hierarchy of virtues, I'm going to be addressing it from my own perspective.

You didn't give us an 'all of the above' choice. I think that all of these virtues are valuable.

If I have to pick and choose among them, think that I'd put 'piety' at the bottom, and probably put 'humility' and 'love' at the top. It's important to reduce the 'me, me, me' thinking that dominates our inner lives, and love is perhaps the best and most socially positive way to do that. That should naturally lead to charity and temperance.

'Faith' is an important one too that belongs near the top, since to me it implies commitment. So it implies virtues like courage.

Bottom line, I picked 'love' in your poll.

 

[PhysBang]

Isn't that what Sciforums does every day to "pseudo-science"?

No, because while being a Christian is something that one can self-identify, doing science is not something that one can self-identify. Or rather, it should be something to which a community should hold standards that are somewhat inter-subjective if not objective. People engaging in pseudo-science are ignoring norms of rigor and reasoning that should be a part of science; it is impossible to find good grounds for such rigor and reasoning in religious choice.

How did you get all that perjorative stuff from Bowser's rather good and inoffensive question about what is a Christian's greatest virtue?

This is because Bowser is engaged in something like a complex question fallacy. A common example is, sadly, "Did you stop beating your wife?" The question is phrased in a way to attempt to force an assumption into the argument. Bowser is trying to force a false definition of Christianity upon others, as is evident from his other posts. Like wellwisher and his anti-Catholic rant, Bowser has an agenda to deny certain people the title of Christian. Bowser has a strange fascination with an idealized Christianity that does not exist; this seems to be part of his general hatred of women, homosexuals, and non-white people.

 

[rpenner]

Isn't that what Sciforums does every day to "pseudo-science"?

Sciforums isn't a monolith. You seem to have particular behaviors in mind which should be fairly attributed to particular posters, not "Sciforums." Some posters do hurl a lot of small pieces of natural aggregate from domestic structures that look very vitreous.

But while there are no minimum qualifications to being a Christian, there are for making scientific claims. Someone who purports to make scientific claims without doing the necessary work is not a scientist. Usually the decision as to which category they fall into is an easy one. We've even had people claim they knew the sign of a mathematical quantity which flew in the face of reason without lifting finger one to justify such a claim.

How did you get all that pejorative stuff from Bowser's rather good and inoffensive question about what is a Christian's greatest virtue?

You are ignoring the provocative title of the post which doesn't match well with the content of the OP. I am using a model to estimate thread development. The history of Christian schisms have started with attempts to clarify who is a "real Christian." Similarly, the pejorative term "RINO" (Republican in name only) was coined to demonize the out groups. In politics and in history, names matter and once you get people thinking about putting a wall around the in-group it is bound to lead to alienation and divisiveness.

With respect to those labeled as pseudo-scientists, if they want the respect given to the opinions of scientists, they need to copy the behavior of scientists, not just the outward form. Because there is just one reality, schisms in science arise from ignorance and tend to be self-healing to the point that one may fairly claim there is just one "science" as opposed to dozens of national and regional variations.

Don't sets of ideas typically define belief systems? You seem to have some kind of background in physics, so wouldn't you agree that physical theories like quantum mechanics or relativity theory possess content, and that if somebody disagrees with or deviates from too much of that content, then he or she can no longer be said to be doing physics (or orthodox physics, or physics as it's currently understood)?

In mathematics, 2 is defined as 1+1, 3 is defined as 2+1, 4 is defined as 3+1, so with appropriate axioms one may prove 2+2=4. The claim 2+2=5 is wrong if it rests on the mainstream axioms and definitions and incomprehensible as a mathematical statement without additional statements that the symbols stand for objects in a certain alternative axiom system, such as the trivial ring where 0=1. Thus one can subscribe to non-standard axiom systems and still be doing mathematics so long is honest about it.

In mathematics we do not appeal to authority, but rather you are responsible for what you believe.

“Mathematics on a Distant Planet”, American Math Monthly, vol 105 no 7​

In physics, the behavior of reality is the arbiter of the content of the models which can be used. To "do physics" one must be seeking confrontation between the precise description of the behavior of phenomena according to the model and the precise observations of the phenomena in reality. That's why advocates of new models do themselves a disservice by not knowing the mainstream theories which are precise summaries of the observed behaviors of many phenomena and thus for many systems are going to serve as gateway tests for new models. New models have to do at least as well as the old, pretty good models, so they can not be too far apart in their descriptions of the behaviors of common events even if their internals are wildly different.

You can do quantum physics without subscribing to any belief about the nature of reality. Physical theories are about precisely describing the behavior of observable quantities — the nature of reality or what quantum theory really means is metaphysics. There are many co-existing interpretations of quantum mechanics, but until evidence supports one over the others, they are philosophical musings about what reality might be.

Between math and physics there is a borderline of mathematical physics -- explorations of new mathematical structures that might become physics models if ever they become compatible with experiment. (Like General Relativity in two dimensions of space and one of time.) Such exploration is necessary since we have evidence that the universe has quantum behaviors, gravitational behaviors and relativistic-space-time-motion behaviors but we don't yet have a single mathematical framework which predicts all these behaviors comphrehensively. Since neither do we have observations of where reality displays all three behaviors simultaneously, the valley of ignorance is filled with many speculative monsters. You might call this mathematical metaphysics, since while even a hypothetical candidate from this pool might one day be promoted to physics via successful confrontation with observations of reality, even in this hypothetical future they still won't be able to tell us what reality is, only how it behaves.

Paddoboy certainly thinks that way and is always eager to burn heretics at the stake.

That's paddoboy's behavior. Not the behavior of a scientist or a teacher.

My question (it isn't rhetorical) is why do we make that kind of 'no true Scotsman' argument regarding Christianity (I did, right up above in #25), but not regarding science?

Because the judge of what is science is the precise behavior of reality, not beliefs or creeds.

 

[C C]

What is a Real Christian? defined by key element or attribute or question mingled with something / whatnot, yata, yata

Faith in terms of the original religion. (I.e.., good deeds, ritual, and adherence to Jewish law didn't amount to squat if there was no legitimate, sustained belief or eventual recovery of it that lead to "repentance of sin, acceptance of Christ and salvation". Along with other OT partriarchs, even the character of David was still tooted to receive a top position in the Christian afterlife despite repeated crimes / sins, because he was such a crawling beggar for forgiveness -- a lion of faith.)

Charity in terms of Christianity's practical value to average folk over the centuries. (In North America, early Spanish missionaries lured indigenous peoples with community aid / assistance so as to assimilate them culturally; whereas Anglos primarily wanted to "drive the savages out".)

Justice in terms of the philosophical influence of Christianity or its egalitarian draw to the unwashed masses. (Even the poor and slaves had a shot at garnering elite-hood or at least an upgrade in status in the "Kingdom of God". Whereas in other post-death traditions the underworld or whatever realm often just resumed business as usual and restored one's previous rank in the class systems. Potentially putting Abodulc the Mange back in his old job of following elderly noblemen around to clean up the latter's piss stains and other effects of aging bladders and GI tracts. Granting that royalty could still grow old and croak before moving on to yet another afterlife for the afterlife).

 

[Enoch2]

Hi, I'm a Christian and I really can relate to the first post. I too when I read the Bible and especially the New Testament, saw the extremely high calling of a Christian in terms of morality. It seemed that the Christian was to rely upon God for everything, not only material things, trusting in God for his future, but also for inner needs like peace and rest and satisfaction. I was accustomed to chasing all kinds of things like sex and drugs and alcohol in the attempt to satisfy myself. I couldn't imagine myself ever voluntarily giving those things up for the sake of God or heaven that seemed very far off. How would I live without these things that I used for relaxation, excitement, self-esteem and pleasure in life? Wouldn't I be miserable? In other words, like Bowser wrote, Christianity "struck a chord with me" but I couldn't live up to it, I could be what it called me to be. Little did I know that this is 100% the truth and the Bible is telling you this. Sin is not just a collection of actions, it is a state of being. Man is a sinner, he cannot live righteously because he is not righteous by nature! In the end I discovered that the very things I took pleasure in had become my worst misery! As the Bible says, sin is the sting of death: it gives pleasure for a season, like the injection of a fatal toxin that causes contortions of pleasure before death. I couldn't stop my self-destructive habits and patterns of thought, they had become my master...maybe they had been my master all along only I hadn't known it. Leading up to the time at which I was saved, I became convinced through study that the Bible was true and was stronger than the objections and criticisms against it (I had given the objections a very fair hearing but I had also searched the scriptures to see what answers to the objections they provided). So I said to myself one day while sitting in an isolated place that since I believed it was true, what did it say to do? It said, "Whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved" (Rom 10:13). I called upon the Name of Jesus and immediately I had a vision. I was looking at Jesus on the cross from behind and above his left shoulder. I knew that He was suffering for my sins, and I saw a book and my sins filling the many pages of this book. For the first time in my life, I was brought to the place where I acknowledged my sins and saw them, not from a self-justifying point of view, but from the point of view as God saw them: shameful, ugly, hurtful, inexcusable--and yet I was being held in His Love for He loved me so much He took them all upon Himself so that I could be justified from them. I was crying like a baby over my sins. And then instantly the vision changed, and above my right shoulder I saw into heaven and the Lord Jesus seated in the Throne of Majesty. There are no words adequate to describe the glory of that moment, when I saw the Resurrected King in absolute authority over everything and yet the very fount of perfect peace. The vision of heaven closed and I literally gasped and said, "You're really alive!" and then I saw again Jesus crucified for me and the book of my sins with the pages of the book being flipped through faster and faster before my eyes with each one being stamped in red, "Paid in Full." When some time later after thanking God with more tears I left the room, I looked back as I was closing the door and at the foot of my bed I saw my dead body and--not understanding these things yet--I whispered to myself, "What just happened?!" The answer came back immediately as a voice in my mind: "You've been born again." So that's salvation, my friends, and it's a real thing . However, I want to tie this in to what Bowser wrote about "not being able to walk the walk or be what is required". That is absolutely true: you must receive Jesus Christ into your heart before you can walk the walk or be what is required. When you call upon His Name believing that He died for your sins and rose again, Jesus comes and dwells within you. The man you were is dead with Christ and a new man is created that is risen with Christ and who after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. At this point, now, you can (and will want to) walk the walk for you have been made what is required. It is what God does, not what you do, when you believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is why the Bible says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." So the essential matter is belief in Jesus the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose again the third day for our justification. This is the Gospel by which we are saved unto eternal life.

 

[Yazata]

Sciforums isn't a monolith.

It certainly seems to be, sometimes.

But while there are no minimum qualifications to being a Christian, there are for making scientific claims.

Bowser's point seemed to be that there are minimum qualifications for being a Christian as well. He expressed it in terms of exemplifying particular virtues, which isn't the only way of looking at it (Spidergoat suggested another), but it's one that I personally like.

Someone who purports to make scientific claims without doing the necessary work is not a scientist.

And someone who claims to be a Christian without exemplifying the appropriate virtues arguably wouldn't truly be a Christian. Spidergoat's version would insist that someone who claims to be a Christian without believing suitable things isn't a Christian.

You are ignoring the provocative title of the post which doesn't match well with the content of the OP. I am using a model to estimate thread development. The history of Christian schisms have started with attempts to clarify who is a "real Christian."

My point was that I didn't think that anything Bowser said justified the hostile vehemence of your response. Bowser never suggested that anyone was "beastial or subhuman". He was just trying to suggest that Christians should exhibit Christian virtues, something that I agree with. Nothing he said suggested "in-group racism". Nothing in his remarks suggested 'racism' at all, but uttering that word is guaranteed to make left knees jerk.

With respect to those labeled as pseudo-scientists, if they want the respect given to the opinions of scientists, they need to copy the behavior of scientists, not just the outward form.

Isn't that what Bowser was suggesting about Christians? If people want to be truly Christian, then they need to behave so as to display Christian virtues in their real lives, not just show up at church on Sunday and say all the expected things.

I'll add that creating a science/pseudoscience distinction is "drawing a line in the sand and trying to portray the enemy as on the other side of that line". Social groups and belief systems typically have defining characteristics that place people on different sides of lines (members/nonmembers, adherents/non-adherents). That's just how those things work.

In physics, the behavior of reality is the arbiter of the content of the models which can be used.

Which may justify drawing a line in a particular place, but doesn't mean that it's not a line.

Many Christians would give Christian tradition (Biblical and ecclesiastical) the same role in their system. That's what defines Christian theology amongst other intellectual pursuits. Theology is reasoning about Christian tradition that takes place within the context of that tradition. (I think that science can be defined in much the same way, as reasoning that takes place within the context of scientific tradition.)

Perhaps one way that Christian tradition differs from scientific tradition is that Christian tradition is more elaborated and diverse than scientific tradition, perhaps for the kind of reasons that you have suggested (the evolution of science being disciplined and constrained by continued observation and experiment).

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Hi, I'm a Christian and I really can relate to the first post.
I too when I read the Bible and especially the New Testament, saw the extremely high calling of a Christian in terms of morality.

Good ponts... im also a born agan Christan (im guranteed to go to heaven) an i dont know of anybody who has beter morals than me.!!!

 

[PhysBang]

Bowser never suggested that anyone was "beastial or subhuman".

This is not true. He clearly suggests that homosexuals and women are bestial and subhuman.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Sort of like some other prophets we've (sort of) heard from. Hmm..

 

[Bowser]

This is not true. He clearly suggests that homosexuals and women are bestial and subhuman.

I suppose I should reply to that statement. I think there is something terribly wrong with homosexuality. I would go into detail, but that would probably provoke a response from the staff and possibly get me banned, and I do so much enjoy this forum. As for women, I love each and every one of them (with the exception of Hillary Clinton (Satan)). I can't imagine a world without them. I think a woman who is motivated and determined can accomplish anything.

 

[Bowser]

You didn't give us an 'all of the above' choice. I think that all of these virtues are valuable.

That would have been a good choice to include. I think it would be very difficult to live all those virtues.

 

[Daecon]

I suppose I should reply to that statement. I think there is something terribly wrong with homosexuality. I would go into detail, but that would probably provoke a response from the staff and possibly get me banned, and I do so much enjoy this forum. As for women, I love each and every one of them (with the exception of Hillary Clinton (Satan)). I can't imagine a world without them. I think a woman who is motivated and determined can accomplish anything.

I think there's something terribly wrong with you.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I think there is something terribly wrong with homosexuality. I would go into detail, but that would probably provoke a response from the staff and possibly get me banned...

To bad... id like to hear what you have to say.!!!