The dishonest use of the name "Christian"

[Katzpur]

A Theological Test

Do you know your doctrine? If you are interested, you can take a little theological test. Following are 20 basic Christian Doctrine questions. All you need to do is write down the answers to the questions, and when you are done, click on the Answers Page at the end of this test and find out how you did. Of course, there are a lot more questions that could be asked, but these will serve as a sample.
Also, some of the questions deal with essential doctrines. In other words, if you deny them, then you are not a Christian. Do you know which ones are essentials?
A Theological Test | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

So now a test devised by CARM determines who's a Christian and who isn't. I can just imagine it now... When I stand before God to be judged, He'll say, "It's good to see you, Kathryn. Let's see. Down there on earth... well, you did okay. Sure, you fell short of what I'd have liked to see from you, but overall, I'm pleased with how you lived. I know how much you love me and how much you appreciate the sacrifice of my only begotten Son. I know you trusted in His atoning sacrifice to make it possible to be forgiven of your sins. It was His pleasure to be able to do this for you. As much as you love Him and and much as you love me, your love can't even begin to compare to the love we feel for you. We're so happy to see you again. Welcome home, my child. Enter into my joy and stay here with me forever... Oh, wait just a second. That CARM test. You failed it miserably! You're not a Christian after all! I can't believe this! I'm... so sorry. The door to Hell is just to the left."

 

[Revoltingest]

.....The door to Hell is just to the left."

"Just follow Revoltingest. Oh, & here's your accordian."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So now a test devised by CARM determines who's a Christian and who isn't. I can just imagine it now... When I stand before God to be judged, He'll say, "It's good to see you, Kathryn. Let's see. Down there on earth... well, you did okay. Sure, you fell short of what I'd have liked to see from you, but overall, I'm pleased with how you lived. I know how much you love me and how much you appreciate the sacrifice of my only begotten Son. I know you trusted in His atoning sacrifice to make it possible to be forgiven of your sins. It was His pleasure to be able to do this for you. As much as you love Him and and much as you love me, your love can't even begin to compare to the love we feel for you. We're so happy to see you again. Welcome home, my child. Enter into my joy and stay here with me forever... Oh, wait just a second. That CARM test. You failed it miserably! You're not a Christian after all! I can't believe this! I'm... so sorry. The door to Hell is just to the left."

Man, even heaven is going with standardized testing now? SATs, GRE's and now this. I have to buy another study guide.

 

[Shermana]

I find it interesting that this test has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus or the morals and philosophy, but only about the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and afterlife (which many early Christians did in fact believe in Reincarnation), in fact, they seem to say that being a Christian involves believing your salvation has nothing to do with it by question 11, it's as if they are absolutely terrified that the very basis of their doctrines are being exposed. It's as if nothing about being 'Christian" involves obeying the teachings of Jesus. Rarely do I see such arrogant displays from religious apologetics. It seems that CARM is basically an ego-stroking organization for "Christian" reductionists who don't like actually reading the Gospels in context because it may make them suddenly start thinking there is more to being a "Christian" than the minimal "orthodox" creeds.

So there you have it, CARM-"Christians" don't believe you actually have to obey Jesus's teachings to be a Christian. Let it be noted. I would have to say that the fact that so many "Christians" believe stuff like this, makes them fair game for the most critical heavy handedness.

 

[paarsurrey]

Have Catholics not been teaching Protestants burn in hell for centuries now? When did this change?

Catholics still hold that they are the only true Christians and Protestants are just heretical; in response the Protestant also say the same thing. I think everyone of the 32000+ Christian denominations say the same thing for others.

We have to understand each others viewpoint instead of name calling.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well I have a "litmus" test to know if one is a Christian or a Muslim. Is anybody interested in it?

 

[Katzpur]

"Just follow Revoltingest. Oh, & here's your accordian."

Accordian!?!?! That would be Hell!

 

[Alceste]

"Just follow Revoltingest. Oh, & here's your accordian."

Accordian!?!?! That would be Hell!

* note - the one in the front on the right is not playing in the same key as the other two.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bob Dixon]

* note - the one in the front on the right is not playing in the same key as the other two.

It's called avant-garde music, Alceste.
The one in the front on the right can play in any damn key she wants, and you can't stop her.

 

[paarsurrey]

I think anything Jesus did or said, in the original language he wrote or dictated to somebody or revealed to him from Yahweh or Allah in the original language and understood correctly in other languages, should be named "Christian"; and if it is not, it is unchristian.

I think everybody agrees with me. Do you?

 

[McBell]

I think anything Jesus did or said, in the original language he wrote or dictated to somebody or revealed to him from Yahweh or Allah in the original language and understood correctly in other languages, should be named "Christian"; and if it is not, it is unchristian.

I think everybody agrees with me. Do you?

I have no idea what you are talking about, so I cannot agree or disagree.

To me a Christian is any one whose belief system includes Jesus Christ and who claims them self a Christian.

 

[paarsurrey]

What if one doesn't consider Paulian Christians Christians at all, because Paul usurped the meaning of the word apostle without ever having met Jesus?

I agree with you.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Would the atheists and agnostics have a problem if I tried to redefine what those words mean? Certainly not as much as people who worship Jesus would have a problem with the redefinition of "Christian" considering we've had our name for almost 2000 years. Nevertheless, lets say I decide to call myself an atheist on some ridiculous grounds that defies logic and yet in practice I still worship Jesus. Let's say this practice actually caught on and was seen in large numbers. So much that the word "atheist" actually came to represent people that worship Jesus. Would you feel that it was an honest way for worshippers of Jesus to conduct themselves? Would you guys just sit indifferent to what was happening or would you be thinking that it's time to either reclaim your name or come up with a new one?

 

[Shermana]

Certainly not as much as people who worship Jesus would have a problem with the redefinition of "Christian" considering we've had our name for almost 2000 years

Those who worship Jesus as God as opposed to worshiping him as one would worship David or an Angel have used the name "Christian" for about 1800 years or so, about 100 years after the original Christians who were non-Trinitarian Messianic Jews and likely viewed Jesus as "The Angel of God".

Now if the issue is about the word "Worship", I think I've gone over it on this thread, maybe not, but as I've discussed on countless threads, the commandment is not necessarily to only worship god, but to worship god AND SERVE HIM ONLY. (Worship simply means to bow down to in the original language). That explains why David was worshiped. Meanwhile, worshiping the Evil one would not be serving the Father since he's not in the Divine chain of command. I will be happy to explain this issue.

I do think that non-Messianic Jews who go by Paul's version of events (i.e. 99.999% of Christiandom) should in fact change their names to something more honest like "Paulinians" or at the very least "Pauline Christians" but the word "Christian" itself is such a contested term that they should be content to be a hyphenated category rather than take the audacious rate and claim to be the same group as mentioned under the authority of Peter at Antioch.

 

[waitasec]

Would the atheists and agnostics have a problem if I tried to redefine what those words mean? Certainly not as much as people who worship Jesus would have a problem with the redefinition of "Christian" considering we've had our name for almost 2000 years. Nevertheless, lets say I decide to call myself an atheist on some ridiculous grounds that defies logic and yet in practice I still worship Jesus. Let's say this practice actually caught on and was seen in large numbers. So much that the word "atheist" actually came to represent people that worship Jesus. Would you feel that it was an honest way for worshippers of Jesus to conduct themselves? Would you guys just sit indifferent to what was happening or would you be thinking that it's time to either reclaim your name or come up with a new one?

you are an atheists when it comes to other gods are you not?

 

[Scuba Pete]

you are an atheists when it comes to other gods are you not?

Nope. You don't have to identify a particular God to be a theist.

When a murder is committed, the investigators try to narrow down the list of suspects. If they run out of suspects, does that mean that they cease to believe that a murder occurred? No, it just means that they are still looking!

The atheist claim that monotheists are only one God away from atheism is as lame as it is juvenile. The argument could be reversed and shown that they are just one God away from being a theist.

Belief or disbelief in a God is based more on emotion than anything else. Not science, not reason and certainly not evidence. Those who deny emotion as the largest mitigating factor only show that they have a double standard when it comes to their critical analysis of the issue.

 

[waitasec]

Nope. You don't have to identify a particular God to be a theist.

When a murder is committed, the investigators try to narrow down the list of suspects. If they run out of suspects, does that mean that they cease to believe that a murder occurred? No, it just means that they are still looking!

The atheist claim that monotheists are only one God away from atheism is as lame as it is juvenile. The argument could be reversed and shown that they are just one God away from being a theist.

Belief or disbelief in a God is based more on emotion than anything else. Not science, not reason and certainly not evidence. Those who deny emotion as the largest mitigating factor only show that they have a double standard when it comes to their critical analysis of the issue.

fine you are a selective theist.

i am still an atheist.

 

[Alceste]

Would the atheists and agnostics have a problem if I tried to redefine what those words mean? Certainly not as much as people who worship Jesus would have a problem with the redefinition of "Christian" considering we've had our name for almost 2000 years. Nevertheless, lets say I decide to call myself an atheist on some ridiculous grounds that defies logic and yet in practice I still worship Jesus. Let's say this practice actually caught on and was seen in large numbers. So much that the word "atheist" actually came to represent people that worship Jesus. Would you feel that it was an honest way for worshippers of Jesus to conduct themselves? Would you guys just sit indifferent to what was happening or would you be thinking that it's time to either reclaim your name or come up with a new one?

As a general rule, I don't get upset about the evolution of language. As another general rule, when it comes to philosophical or spiritual self-chosen labels, I define the label by the common ground of those who define themselves by it.

I don't see how language could be an effective communication tool at all without these two general rules.

 

[Alceste]

Nope. You don't have to identify a particular God to be a theist.

When a murder is committed, the investigators try to narrow down the list of suspects. If they run out of suspects, does that mean that they cease to believe that a murder occurred? No, it just means that they are still looking!

The atheist claim that monotheists are only one God away from atheism is as lame as it is juvenile. The argument could be reversed and shown that they are just one God away from being a theist.

Belief or disbelief in a God is based more on emotion than anything else. Not science, not reason and certainly not evidence. Those who deny emotion as the largest mitigating factor only show that they have a double standard when it comes to their critical analysis of the issue.

Those are pretty good points. Frubals!

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As a general rule, I don't get upset about the evolution of language. As another general rule, when it comes to philosophical or spiritual self-chosen labels, I define the label by the common ground of those who define themselves by it.

I don't see how language could be an effective communication tool at all without these two general rules.

What if I try to change the definition of "Taoism" by claiming that name despite preaching something that contradicts its central tenets (assuming it even has any tenets or doctrines)?