At face value, yes. In liberal thought, yes. But as I noted there are Christians who disagree with this. They indicate there is something exclusive, and I wonder what that is, and how they assess it. So it's not enough to be a Christian, but there needs to be be beliefs, attitudes, acts, rituals that make a believer an authentic Christian.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is an authentic Christian?
- Thread starter F1fan
- Start date
Ashoka
श्री कृष्णा शरणं मम
Yes. They are. They follow Jesus. They follow the Bible. It's not difficult.
Groundless beliefs? I lived it. My dad is a former Protestant minister turned Catholic turned Agnostic. I grew up in a fundamentalist home. I listened to screaming preachers on the way to pick up mom from work with dad. I was threatened with hell. I was told my depression and possible autism (I am actually getting tested by my psychiatrist soon) was demon possession. Every Sunday I see Christians spew hate from the pulpit. I hear stories of parents estranging themselves from their LGBT children, instead of loving them. I see Christian nationalists push their legislation into law. I see street preachers disrupting pride, disrupting anything they can possibly get to, because it's literally in their nature to hate, because they serve a God of hate. I literally have PTSD from church and can't even go into one without freaking out on some level. Everyday I hear the same stories from other exvangelicals and former Christians who share their trauma. Oh, but they aren't "real" Christians.
Groundless? Really?
I have no problem saying that Christianity is a hate filled religion ruled over by hateful misogynistic men. I have no problem saying that the Christian God is a monster who tortures his own creation. Yes, there are good Christians; they are the exception, not the rule.
I read it just slightly different (I've seen exactly what you're describing plenty of times)
If you believe in the divinity of Christ, you're Christian, basically. But it's tough for some Christians (broad umbrella) to have ideas they disagree with presented as Christianity. Hence the pushback.
If we thought of Christian more like we think of theist (a less meaningful umbrella term with a lot of distinct beliefs housed beneath) they'd be less likely to pushback.
To be honest, calling oneself Christian is only a little more informative than calling oneself an atheist.
Christians are dogmatic, but without knowing which of the many dogmas they subscribe...meh...
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
OK, but for what reason would you put Jesus into same basket as KKK? and reject it due to some hate group?
You know that all those denominations are product of M. Luther. King? Who wasn't even a bishop, so how could one who is not bishop ordain new bishops?
But the bible says that only apostle may ordain new apostle (or bishop).
Ashoka
श्री कृष्णा शरणं मम
Do you mean Martin Luther? Martin Luther King was a civil rights activist.
Because Jesus also spoke hate.
Luke 19:27: But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.
Luke 14:26: If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
Matthew 10:37: Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
People like to think Jesus was all about being loving and kind. But he said **** like this too. And people, they live by that.
Umm...do you perhaps mean Martin Luther?
I do find myself wondering how much Christian history you've studied if you see him as the origin of 'all those denominations', but sure...he was impactful.
And the whole Bishop thing has gone through a few changes since the origins of the church.
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
yes, my mistake.
There is no such change which would allow monks to ordain new bishops, so the whole Luther's line of denominations is illegal.
Is a parable speaking of judgement in afterlife.
Does not mean to literary hate your parents.
What's wrong in loving God more than your family? God gives afterlife not family.
Beside that you said how your father did bad things to you, so why would you love your father more than Jesus who did nothing wrong to you?
What other choice would an impartial and skeptical enquirer have?
We know via Paul that Jesus had followers, but we know very little of what they believed. There are really only two versions of Jesus in the NT, Paul's and John's gnostic demiurge and Mark's ordinary Jew, who only becomes the Son of God by adoption. The insemination of virgins in Matthew and Luke is clearly nonsense unless you believe God has a Y-chromosome.
But one thing that stands out loud and clear about the NT is that none of its authors ever met an historical Jesus. By the time Paul wrote, two decades had passed since the traditional date of the crucifixion, and by the time Mark was written, some 45 years.
And there are five significant versions of Jesus in the NT. None of them is necessarily correct.
Ashoka
श्री कृष्णा शरणं मम
My father never did bad things to me. At least, not intentionally. But that's not something I want to talk about right now, other than what I have already shared.
And I absolutely would choose my father and my mother, my family, over a deity. Including the ones I worship. Because any deity that wants more love than another is really, really insecure.
Does that make it better?
It says what it says.
For many believers they want more. You believe in the divinity of Christ, then what?
It seems being a Christian is just a classification, like being an atheist. But a believer wants more from that label, and that could be social identity, or status, or community, or an advantage, etc. It being Christian was earned, like what a person did for others today in service, it would be more meaningful. But I don't see Christianity asking much of believers.
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
The bible says to follow those elected by Jesus, that is his descendants, there is no mention to follow anyone else or let alone your own opinion.
Are you sure a virgin can't have conception?
You think justice is hate?
Nah, that's not how you read the bible.
Ashoka
श्री कृष्णा शरणं मम
So what is justice to you? Is it sending people to hell who don't believe the same? Is that justice? Is that good?
Jesus stated that he came to turn families against each other. He said he came not to bring peace, but a sword. How else do you read that?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Of course lying is bad fruit.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
You don't go to hell for not believing, but rather for bad deeds.
ex. apostle Thomas didn't believe Jesus resurrected yet Jesus didn't condemn him to hell for this.
knowing Jesus but stop believing however (apostasy) means hell if there is no repentance, it's a choice of an individual, free will.
No this is a prophesied consequence of his presence on earth rather than his will.
Obviously people turn against each other in the name of Jesus, there were all sorts of religious wars started by people in name of Jesus, but it's not Jesus who started those wars, this is a fulfilment of his prophecy.
Making it clearer does not eliminate the problem. Just in case you were wondering I am in no way trying to sell Christianity to you, but you're kind of putting me on the defensive by making me the spokesperson.
The first part is a collection of Jewish works 66 of them, not counting the ones protestant Christians don't print. In the Jewish concept called tzim tzum it is thought that pouring knowledge into an unprepared person is harmful, like breaking a wineskin with too much wine or like when Achelus flies too close to the sun and falls. You could destroy the student by such sloppy teaching! The Jewish (rabbinical) process is intended to be thorough, completely replicating knowledge in the student and not only knowledge. Exact replication is the absolute goal, and to this end things are not plainly explained. You have to work for it, and the Jewish scriptures were only grudgingly put onto paper when there was no other way to keep them; because one Jewish value is to not harm people -- not even with knowledge. The knowledge is important and sacred, for it has the power to free the mind.
In addition the scriptures are not written as a textbook, are not written to a post enlightenment crowd of individualist thinkers, are not written to non Jewish people with no Jewish parents who have never been to Jewish weddings or festivals or anything. The Jewish scriptures may open in the hand, but they are still closed to the eyes. This is for your protection and benefit. Its not intended as a slight or to harm you, just as when the Buddha speaks in riddles its not a slight. It is to draw you, the student, into a more perfect understanding than could be obtained through mere volume intake of knowledge.
Christianity departs from that. Jesus departs from that, however the Jewish scriptures are really supposed to be reserved to serious students. They are not these days, and that does cause a lot of confusion yes.
Now those same scriptures are very clear, but they are not clear to casual readers and purposely so. You should not read them and think they are laid out as a textbook to instruct you about the Jewish people. They were never written to you, for you or even with you in mind.
'Illegal'?
Okay...
Luther was both a heretic and an outlaw. Because he was rejecting current Church practices in his time, and Church practise was closely tied with how the Holy Roman Empire was ruled. Saying 'Luther ordaining bishops was illegal' is no more meaningful than saying 'Luther rejecting the selling of indulgences was illegal'.
Luther was a priest (ordained 1507), prior to his schism from the Church.
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
Sure, meanwhile the church fixed that problem, but how will protestant churches going to fix their illegal succession of bishops? is that even possible?
I don't think they're trying to work by the precepts if the Catholic Church at this point. I mean...they also don't recognise the Pope as the head of the church. Because...there was a schism.
Why would they concern themselves with Catholic rules of ordainment?
And no...it's not 'illegal' at this point.
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
The point is that none of their bishops was ordained by those succeeded from Jesus.
It seems to me that "authenticity" isn't really much of a concern for most who call themselves Christians. I could, obviously, be wrong, but so far, I've not found a single example of any Christian, or any Muslim, or any Jew who has not behaved in ways that are antithetical to their stated beliefs.
In fact, the only philosophy that I've come across (I may be wrong, I'm not well-read enough to call myself exhaustive) that is concerned with authenticity is Existentialism -- a philosophy that has been at least somewhat attractive to me in the past.
To me, being "authentic" seems to imply being faithful to the things you espouse, and claim to expect of others. If I were a Christian who claimed to love Jesus Christ who commanded "love your enemy," and I could not do that, why then I would not be authentic.
As a human, authenticity is hard -- but I think it can be done. It just can't be done (in my view) by pretending to know what you cannot now. That will never be possible.
In fact, the only philosophy that I've come across (I may be wrong, I'm not well-read enough to call myself exhaustive) that is concerned with authenticity is Existentialism -- a philosophy that has been at least somewhat attractive to me in the past.
To me, being "authentic" seems to imply being faithful to the things you espouse, and claim to expect of others. If I were a Christian who claimed to love Jesus Christ who commanded "love your enemy," and I could not do that, why then I would not be authentic.
As a human, authenticity is hard -- but I think it can be done. It just can't be done (in my view) by pretending to know what you cannot now. That will never be possible.