posted
They will know you are Christian by your love
This is a statement that can be often heard at my church. The idea is fairly simple: That our christianity is defined by the way we act and treat others.
But something always bugged me about that. If I am nice to someone, they don't normally come to the conclusion that I'm a Christian. Heck, even if I'm ridiculously nice to everyone they don't conclude that. And if I tell someone I'm a Christian, they don't immediately trust me. What's more, if I tell some people I'm a Christian, they will suspect I might be cruel or hateful.
And should I blame them? After all, it seems like many Christians truly are hateful. If I look at the Religious Right, hate is fairly common and open - of all sorts of things, from pro-choicers to muslims.
And at the same time, if you look at atheists they often seem more adherent to the principles of Christianity than the churches are. Humanism is what it's called - treating other human beings kindly, with love, and with concern for their well being. It's almost as if they took Jesus's teachings and threw away the God part.
So, that makes me wonder... do you have to believe in God to be Christian? Do you have to go to church? Or can the way you act make you Christian, regardless of what you believe?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can atheists be more christian than christians?
Yes.
quote:So, that makes me wonder... do you have to believe in God to be Christian?
Yes.
quote:Do you have to go to church? Or can the way you act make you Christian, regardless of what you believe?
To make my answers less confusing - athiests can live more 'Christlike' lives than many self-professed Christians I've encountered. However, just living your life in a way similar to the teachings of Christ doesn't make you a Christian - a term which refers to a follower of and believer in the divinity of Christ. Beyond that barest definition comes a wide realm of personal interpretation.
So you can be Christlike and an athiest at the same time, but not a Christian Athiest. Does that make sense?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And at the same time, if you look at atheists they often seem more adherent to the principles of Christianity than the churches are.
I don't think this is true. I have certainly seen plenty of strident and hateful atheists, and good Christians. I think people are simply people, and we notice things that are exceptions to what we are taught is supposed to be true, and so I think it just seems this way.
quote: So, that makes me wonder... do you have to believe in God to be Christian? Do you have to go to church? Or can the way you act make you Christian, regardless of what you believe?
This was my feeling too, back when I considered myself Christian. I know a lot of non-Christians find this offensive, but I don't think it really is. As a non-Christian, I don't find it particularly offensive.
posted
The way I see it is, we ought to take up the example of Christ. Christ believed in forgiving people for their sins and mistakes. Christ was compassionate and not held by certain conventions. Chirst loved people no matter what... I believe in trying to make some sort of attempt to incorporate that into every day life. For example, let's say if someone famous does, heaven knows what. Why judge them? Why hate them? Why be hateful towards anyone? It does no good, it doesn't help anyone... One should try to understand them more. But sometimes, it can be hard though. It takes practice, but, it's sort of my religion if I could call it that. Just.. not... a proper one.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Shouldn't the question be, do you have to believe in God to be Good?
No, I think that is pretty clearly true (that you don't have believe in God to be Good).
The question is, should I consider those who don't believe but act like Christ to be Christians? Or should I consider those who do believe but don't act like Christ to be Christians? Or perhaps neither...
posted
Just for the sake of consistency I would say that an athieest can not be Christian period. When someone says "Mormons aren't Christians" I respond with "we believe that Christ is our Savior", in the sense that this should make us Christians. If I want to be consitent then, only faith makes Christians, not works. Besides which then we'd have to judge everyone's acts to discover how good they are and determine their "level" of Christianity and that wouldn't really be in keeping with the tennants of Christianity, or that much fun...
quote: Besides which then we'd have to judge everyone's acts to discover how good they are and determine their "level" of Christianity and that wouldn't really be in keeping with the tennants of Christianity, or that much fun...
Hobbes, you need to read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. I think you'd like it a lot. He agrees with you on the above point, by the way.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been trying to read C.S. Lewis, .. but I've been failing due to lack of a book, perhaps I'll go try to find one in the library... thanks Taalc
quote: Or can the way you act make you Christian, regardless of what you believe?
you cant really define Christianity, by how someone acts i would think. I mean, even if someone is a "bad" Christian, they are still a Christian... right? then again, i am come at this as an athiest, and also a sever lack of sleep.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
The dictionary says no and yes, respectively.
Now, satisfying the requirements for getting into Christian heaven is a different story.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The way I see it is, we ought to take up the example of Christ.
Ditto.
quote:Christ believed in forgiving people for their sins and mistakes.
But with terms. "Thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way and sin no more."
Which is different than "Thy sins are forgiven thee. Go and sin some more."
And also different than "Thy sins aren't wrong. I'm going to rename them right"
quote:Christ was compassionate and not held by certain conventions.
True, but he cast out those who defiled his father's house. They were not worthy to be there.
quote:Chirst loved people no matter what...
He loved the sinner, but shunned the sin. He made the impossible, possible. He made it so that ANYONE who chooses can gain Eternal Life. There is no sin that can't be overcome through obeying him.
quote:I believe in trying to make some sort of attempt to incorporate that into every day life.
That is an admirable quality.
quote:For example, let's say if someone famous does, heaven knows what. Why judge them? Why hate them? Why be hateful towards anyone? It does no good, it doesn't help anyone...
It is true, we all make mistakes.
quote:One should try to understand them more.
You can solve a problem that you understand better than one you don't. You can help a person overcome their difficulties, if you understand who and what they are.
quote:But sometimes, it can be hard though. It takes practice, but, it's sort of my religion if I could call it that. Just.. not... a proper one.
It's your belief system. Your Moral System. It's an admirable one.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, the key to being a good Christian is not holding the correct beliefs, but applying a WWJD methodology to your actions. In that respect, atheists are probably more successful on average (at least in America) than Christians are. At least, going by the televangelists. I don't even think they know what the golden rule *is* anymore.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's almost as if they took Jesus's teachings and threw away the God part.
Here I'm going to skirt blasphemy.
Jesus did not teach very much that was new. Most of what he preached was already in the law of Moses. Philosophically, he brought very little new News to the table.
quote:Matthew 22 35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Jesus taught from established notions and principles of his day.
So if what he taught was already in existence, what was the use of Christ? If you take Godhood out of the equation, he's just another rabbi who got lucky with the PR.
Being Christian means following not just Christ's teachings (which were for the most part derived from existing Jewish custom and law), but his full example. I emphasize full, because people forget how utterly scathing he was in his condemnation of sin and hypocrisy. It is very difficult to see love of any type in his denunciation of the pharisees in Matthew 23.
Being Christian means accepting that Christ did as no one else could do. He lived a perfectly sinless life, then sacrificed himself so that we could all have the chance to repent. Repentence, as a matter of fact, is one the most prevalent themes in Christ's teachings. The idea never was 'You're okay as you are,' but 'Repent and be baptised and follow me.'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
The teachings of Christ pretty clearly include a belief in God. So according to both dictionary definitions you have to believe in God to be a Christian.
posted
So, hypothetically, you don't think that an atheist who lived his life, consciously or not, by the teachings of Jesus Christ (except for believing in God) could be considered any more Christian-like than an actual Christian who lived by few of Christ's teachings?
I don't disagree that Christ promoted belief in God, I just think that it's a minor point. It seems a little petty for an omnipotent being to care whether a human believes in him, as long as he's living a virtuous life. In fact, it seems a little more virtuous, to me, for a person to do right because he wants to rather than for hope of reward/fear of punishment.
[edit: There are very few people on this Earth, I'd wager, who live by all of Christ's teachings.]
quote:1) People who beleive in God do not act out of fear of punishment/desire for reward.
I didn't mean to imply that all Christians did. But you're saying that none of them do, and I think you're wrong.
quote:2) Belief in God is not a minor point - how can someone follow the "first and grestest" comandment if they don't?
Likewise, merely believing in God is not the same as following the first commandment. But believing is enough to consider oneself Christian.
quote:3) There's no use confusing the word "Christian" with "good" or "virtuous." It makes the words less useful in language.
A good point. But I know that the second definition of the word exists, and is commonly known. Maybe it would be less confusing to use "Christ-like".
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't mean to imply that all Christians did. But you're saying that none of them do, and I think you're wrong.
True. I meant as a group, probably in a similar usage as you.
quote:Likewise, merely believing in God is not the same as following the first commandment. But believing is enough to consider oneself Christian.
I think we use the word "belief" differently. You're using it as in "I believe you exist." I'm using it as in "I believe in you."
quote:A good point. But I know that the second definition of the word exists, and is commonly known. Maybe it would be less confusing to use "Christ-like".
Definitely more accurate. However, Christ's moral teachings were not that revolutionary - lots of moral teachers taught and teach similar things. His teachings on humanity's relationship to God were. One of the most radical things he said was, "I forgive you" to someone who's sin had not been against Jesus the man.
quote:I think we use the word "belief" differently. You're using it as in "I believe you exist." I'm using it as in "I believe in you."
I don't differentiate between the two. Explain more, maybe.
quote:However, Christ's moral teachings were not that revolutionary - lots of moral teachers taught and teach similar things. His teachings on humanity's relationship to God were. One of the most radical things he said was, "I forgive you" to someone who's sin had not been against Jesus the man.
I agree. I think all of the best messages he had were the ones around since the beginning of time. But since he's the best example of an actual person who taught and lived the ideals, "Christ-like" is fitting.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first can be used for a factual assertion: I believe the Earth is round, I believe the Sun is composed primarily if hydrogen fusing into helium.
The second is used to say what the person has faith in. It's not just believing God exists, but believing in God - that God loves, cares, and has a plan fo you. A father who says to his son, "I believe in you" clearly isn't commenting on his son's existence.
posted
I was hoping it was more complicated than that.
No, I think that when a person claims to be a Christian, he is also claiming to believe in god, and I can't see how that person would claim that god exists yet not acknowledge it as the man with the Plan.
I think that there are people who believe in god and Christ, making them Christians, yet for some reason incomprehensible to me, do not live their life as if they did. Perhaps these people are lying, and are further working on making the definition of "Christian" less useful.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw a preacher recount the following conversation:
quote: "Hey, why don't you come to church with me?"
"Oh, you know it's just full of hypocrites..."
"Exactly, you'll fit right in, come on!"
It is human nature to be a hypocrite, it's just more fun to skewer the Christian ones because they actually have injunctions against it and seem to be more judgemental than agnostics or atheists because they tend to have more sharply defined dogma (which, BTW, I think a good thing).
Xap, all Christians fail in their efforts to be Christ-like to varying degrees. The song "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love" is a warning to avoid scandal and hypocrisy, not a brag about how much we love each other. The question you are asking is akin to "should I discount Mathematics because I keep running into people who can't add?"
Edit to add to Frisco: They don't live their life as they did believe in Christ because *really* doing that is hard for most of us: not everyone is dealt the same hand of cards-- it's why we're supposed to leave the judging to God: there's a difficulty factor involved that we can't measure or understand. Unfortunately, we can't seem to leave the judging to the appointed experts in the olympics, so leaving it up to God is, perhaps, one of those unreachable ideals.
Should I discount the study of mathematics because I keep running into math professors who can't tell me what two plus two equals?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that there are people who believe in god and Christ, making them Christians, yet for some reason incomprehensible to me, do not live their life as if they did.
quote:Should I discount the study of mathematics because I keep running into math professors who can't tell me what two plus two equals?
If math contained within it a doctrine that even the best math professors would not be able to add correctly all the time without constant help and intervention from the Creator of Math, then yes, that's a good analogy. Otherwise, no.
closer for you, perhaps. Unless I missed something, Xap is talking about ordinary people, not professed experts.
And I would countersharpen your own analogy by saying that it's more akin to disagreement among the professors than an inability to answer... and also suggest that the metaphysical disagreements are somewhat more subtle than 2 + 2.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How useful would math be as a discipline if, every time someone brought you a sum, you had no way of telling whether they had correctly checked with the Creator of Math or not?
Would YOU drive on a bridge made by engineers trained in this sort of math, the kind of math you can never reliably depend upon?
------
Jim, the vast majority of Christian religions out there believe that the common people can also obtain their own answers from God. Ergo, they are ALL professors.
posted
No, but I would drive on a bridge designed by engineers who disagreed over the Finiteness of the Universe or the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How useful would math be as a discipline if, every time someone brought you a sum, you had no way of telling whether they had correctly checked with the Creator of Math or not?
Would YOU drive on a bridge made by engineers trained in this sort of math, the kind of math you can never reliably depend upon?
Right. So actually your analogy totally sucks - math is not like morality, spirituality,, or metaphysics.
posted
No, the original analogy stands - people who know something about a discipline but not all do not disprove the entirety of the discipline.
Extending that analogy to attempt to say experts not knowing everything about the discipline disproves the discipline is what fails, for the reasons stated.
posted
Tom (assuming from context that was directed at me), I know guy who had to prove 1 + 1 = 1 for a theoretical math class, does his teacher disagree about the fundamentals of math?
People always come up with kooky theories. There is a powerful consensus among the majority of Christians about the fundamentals... having read Mere Christianty, I'm sure, you probably know this already.
Also regarding all people being professors, I beg to differ. Most believe God gives us a conscience and speaks to us through it, very few believe that to be a mere matter of listening to "the voices" and doing whatever they say.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All it takes to be a professor of math is to teach it to students. But being an expert requires that you know it well - and if someone doesn't know 2 + 2 then they really are no expert.
Which is analogous to one real question at hand.... If I should not consider math experts those who don't know the basic principles of math, why should I consider Christian those who don't follow the basic teachings of Christ?
Are you Christian just because you call yourself Christian, or because you invoke Christ when you explain your beliefs?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Xap is questioning whether Christians who don't act it make being a Christian a useless excercise.
First thing, as I said earlier, that's based on a misinterpretation of the song. Our Christianity is NOT defined by how we behave... but we should be aware that others will define us by our actions.
Second thing, in logical argument, this is called Ad Hominem. "Christians seem to be bad people, therefore Christianity is untrue."
Finally, to answer the actual question, yes, many atheists can be more Christian than many Christians, but, well... so what?
posted
I'm not sure I follow, Dag. Can you provide me an example of what, in math terms, a "normal" Christian is?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xap is questioning whether Christians who don't act it make being a Christian a useless excercise.
Actually, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what IS Christianity? A belief in a given God? A belief in a given way of life? Or both?
quote:First thing, as I said earlier, that's based on a misinterpretation of the song. Our Christianity is NOT defined by how we behave... but we should be aware that others will define us by our actions.
It's not based on the song. It's based on sermons I've heard in church (from different pastors even) to the effect that it is our actions that make us Christian.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: All it takes to be a professor of math is to teach it to students. But being an expert requires that you know it well -
I had a thought (I hope it's ok to post as it's pretty benign) tied to that.
All it takes to be a professor of math is to teach it to students. But being an expert requires that you know it well - Being God requires that you know it all.
Please tell me if that is not ok.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, not having heard the sermons you are speaking of, I would disagree with the gist I am getting from you.
And yes, a Christian is someone who assents to particular set of theological principles, whether or not they live up to them.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Besides which then we'd have to judge everyone's acts to discover how good they are and determine their "level" of Christianity and that wouldn't really be in keeping with the tennants of Christianity, or that much fun...
um, no you wouldn't. Why do you need to be categorizing people as Christian or not?
-o-
quote: Should I discount the study of mathematics because I keep running into math professors who can't tell me what two plus two equals?
quote:the monstrous wars about small points of theology, the earthquakes of emotion about a gesture or a word. It was only a matter of an inch; but an inch is everything when you are balancing. -GKC
posted
Chad, almost no thoughts are not okay to post. The key is how you post them. Posts which insult other posters, posts which show a disregard for other people's points against you (you have in particular been guilty of this one, making many posts talking about how people aren't refuting your points, when you've ignored many calm refutations of your basic logic skills and kept insisting you were absolutely correct), these sorts of posts should not be made.
And to clarify a bit about the last. If you disagree with someone, but can't support the why at all, you shouldn't post that they are wrong. This does not mean its not okay to disagree without a reasoned argument, this means you shouldn't be saying they are wrong without a reasoned argument. It would be perfectly okay to give your position without reference to their position.
Furthermore, Because someone does not refute you does not mean you are right, or they think you're right, or you have won the argument. It may very well mean, as it has for several of your posts, that your argument is considered too simplistically wrong to bother refuting, particularly given your behavior of ignoring people's refutations. It may also mean the person just doesn't feel like posting, or have time. Many of us are busy people, and many of us also recognize that even if we are right, inflammatory discussions can make us worked up and tense, situations we prefer to avoid.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
