What is an authentic Christian?

[Exaltist Ethan]

You can object all you want it makes no difference to the reality which doesn't need your approval

Well, until you give me some proof I'll continue to live in delusion.

 

[F1fan]

I expect to make the religion look better than it is to everyone including outsiders by denying that bad Christianity is Christianity, too. They want to present the idea that if one becomes a Christian, he is transformed into something better.

In the responses thus far the emphasis has been the self being saved, and nothing about how they are inspired to be a better human, at least not without asking. I'm struck by the sense of entitlement and selfishness in these responses.

Whatever contradicts that is scrubbed with apologetics. Plenty of failed Christians? They were never Christians. You say that you were a Christian and that that didn't transform you? You weren't doing it right. The religion is wholesome and delivers in its promises. Anything else isn't the religion.

And transformed into what? A more fervent apologist and advocate for social/political views, it seems.

It's the same thing done with the claim that God is good. If God was definitely responsible, then what appears bad to man is actually good to a deity. If what is reported in scripture undeniably bad, like making sinful people and condemning them to perdition, then God didn't do it. That was man or Satan, and God doesn't send people to hell. They send themselves, or it isn't literal torture.

And God created Satan, so the buck stops at Satan and not God?

 

[F1fan]

The message of the Bible is clear.

In Leviticus 11:45 God says, 'For l am the LORD that bringeth you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for l am holy'.

Holiness matters. So how does God go about making a sinful people holy? He does so by taking away their sin, and by giving them his own Holy Spirit.

And this same God wiped out all like except on a boat, right? So holy equates to mass murderer? What is clear, exactly? If God can murder, why does sin apply to humans?

The new covenant began on the day of Pentecost. The promise of the Holy Spirit descended, and the Church, the body of Christ, was born.

A Christian cannot be recognised if he does not walk by the Holy Spirit in truth. When he does, the power of God goes with him.

All this seems superficial and not very relevant to the person on the street. It's like a certificate of appreciation. You seem more interested in Christian image, the abstract meaning of all this and indifferent to any personal betterment. These labels don't make the person. We can see through it.

 

[F1fan]

Bible tells a Christian is a disciple of Jesus. And a disciple of Jesus is a person who remains in the word of Jesus.

in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

That is how you can know who is truly a Christian.

OK. So what is this "truth" that makes you free?

And you are free from what, exactly?

 

[Colt]

So Christians can be saved, but also morally depraved? Morals are optional?

No, you are just picking fights on this forum. You are deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, until you give me some proof I'll continue to live in delusion.

I have given links, you won't accept them, that's not my problem

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I have given links, you won't accept them, that's not my problem

According to your website:

"
HOW DO YOU DEFINE A "DENOMINATION"?
The most detailed level of our taxonomy of global Christianity is Christian denominations, defined as an organized Christian church, tradition, religious group, community of people, aggregate of worship centre, usually within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same name in different areas, regarding themselves as an autonomous Christian church distinct from other churches and traditions. Denominations are defined and measured at the country level, creating a large number of separate denominations within Christian families and Christian traditions. For example, the presence of the Catholic Church in the world’s 234 countries results in 234 Catholic “denominations”, though these can be further subdivided by rite (e.g., Byzantine or Latin). The typical way for Christians to count themselves is at the local congregational level and then aggregate these totals at the city, province, state, regional and finally, national levels.

Individual congregations are not counted as “denominations.” We do make note of the fact that many independent congregations are not a part of any denomination. If those churches were to form an independent network with a name, we would consider them a denomination. Using this method, we report 45,000 Christian denominations in the world in 2019."

Usually within a specific country. The Ready to Harvest video I shared already explained why that is faulty logic. Again, there are not 234 Roman Catholic Churches. There is one Roman Catholic Church.

But I agree, using your model there are 50,000 Christian denominations ... but that's not how I perceive denominations.

 

[ChristineM]

According to your website:

"
HOW DO YOU DEFINE A "DENOMINATION"?
The most detailed level of our taxonomy of global Christianity is Christian denominations, defined as an organized Christian church, tradition, religious group, community of people, aggregate of worship centre, usually within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same name in different areas, regarding themselves as an autonomous Christian church distinct from other churches and traditions. Denominations are defined and measured at the country level, creating a large number of separate denominations within Christian families and Christian traditions. For example, the presence of the Catholic Church in the world’s 234 countries results in 234 Catholic “denominations”, though these can be further subdivided by rite (e.g., Byzantine or Latin). The typical way for Christians to count themselves is at the local congregational level and then aggregate these totals at the city, province, state, regional and finally, national levels.

Individual congregations are not counted as “denominations.” We do make note of the fact that many independent congregations are not a part of any denomination. If those churches were to form an independent network with a name, we would consider them a denomination. Using this method, we report 45,000 Christian denominations in the world in 2019."

Usually within a specific country. The Ready to Harvest video I shared already explained why that is faulty logic. Again, there are not 234 Roman Catholic Churches. There is one Roman Catholic Church.

But I agree, using your model there are 50,000 Christian denominations ... but that's not how I perceive denominations.

Yes and?
You are free to perceive them however you want.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Yes and?
You are free to perceive them however you want.

The way you perceive it, quoting that website and using it is going to throw people off. Most people believe there is one Roman Catholic Church. I just wanted to highlight that the 50,000 denominations number is inflated if you evaluate it the way most people do. It's misleading knowledge, and if you say that there are that many denominations, you should also clarify how you get to that number.

 

[Redemptionsong]

And this same God wiped out all like except on a boat, right? So holy equates to mass murderer? What is clear, exactly? If God can murder, why does sin apply to humans?


All this seems superficial and not very relevant to the person on the street. It's like a certificate of appreciation. You seem more interested in Christian image, the abstract meaning of all this and indifferent to any personal betterment. These labels don't make the person. We can see through it.

Anyone who calls God unjust has no idea, and no knowledge, of the true nature of God!

What does 'personal betterment' mean if you have no knowledge of God's purposes?

 

[F1fan]

Anyone who calls God unjust has no idea, and no knowledge, of the true nature of God!

Well this is a bold and absurd claim. The "true nature" of God in the Old Testament is vastly different than the "true nature" of God in the New Testament, so we are dealing with a God that went through a transformation OR has a multiple personality disorder.

If you are going to interpret the Bible literally, which I think you do, the global flood was mass murder, as there were surely many innocent lives lost during that event. And additionally, the "cleansing" of the flood didn't work, there were still evil people, and bad behavior. So, God is a killer, and inept. True nature.

So if what God did in the Old Testament was just, then we have to excuse this God and it's mistakes, and that means not holding it up as perfect or moral.

What does 'personal betterment' mean if you have no knowledge of God's purposes?

This is a funny question. I'm asking about the real world effects of a Christian's belief on their behavior. A Christian might believe they are doing God's will, like owning slaves since slavery is condoned by God, but in the real world this is crimes against humanity.

So I'm asking if you took anything from the Bible that led you to be a better citizen to other human beings. What you think you are to your God is not what what I am asking.

 

[F1fan]

No, you are just picking fights on this forum. You are deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Neither. I'm asking you questions, and some might challenge what you believe. That is the nature of a diverse group having a religious discussion.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Well this is a bold and absurd claim. The "true nature" of God in the Old Testament is vastly different than the "true nature" of God in the New Testament, so we are dealing with a God that went through a transformation OR has a multiple personality disorder.

If you are going to interpret the Bible literally, which I think you do, the global flood was mass murder, as there were surely many innocent lives lost during that event. And additionally, the "cleansing" of the flood didn't work, there were still evil people, and bad behavior. So, God is a killer, and inept. True nature.

So if what God did in the Old Testament was just, then we have to excuse this God and it's mistakes, and that means not holding it up as perfect or moral.



This is a funny question. I'm asking about the real world effects of a Christian's belief on their behavior. A Christian might believe they are doing God's will, like owning slaves since slavery is condoned by God, but in the real world this is crimes against humanity.

So I'm asking if you took anything from the Bible that led you to be a better citizen to other human beings. What you think you are to your God is not what what I am asking.

The nature of God does not change. According to my understanding, and realisation, God is holy, perfectly just, and good.

People complain about God's justice without appreciating the gulf that exists between the goodness of God and the wickedness of man. Anyone who has not lived a very sheltered life will know what evil deeds men are capable of, and in times past these evils were magnified by the absence of God's presence through his Church.

At the time of Noah the world was, l believe, wallowing in a violent and dark abyss (Genesis 6:5-7), and there were few that feared God. Jesus warns us that these times will return to earth again. In Luke 17:26 Jesus says, 'And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.'

 

[syo]

what makes an authentic Christian?

The one and only first original nicene creed.

 

[metis]

I don't believe in hell. There is either life or death. The wages of sin is death. Death was translated into "hell" after Jesus was long gone which has confused the matter.

Just for the record, I don't believe in hell either.

And as an addendum, I neither believe nor disbelieve in heaven, thus taking a "Whatever happens, happens" point of view.

 

[blü 2]

what's the point of deliberate use of non authentic source? aren't you lying to yourself by doing so?

You STILL haven't told me the objective test that will show whether any source (in this context) is "authentic" ─ by which I take you to mean, "is a set of accurate statements about reality", but please correct me if that's wrong.

critical thinking is not bad, in biblical sense this is called exegesis, but you need authentic scriptures for this to make any useful sense.
Exegesis - Wikipedia

I'm fully conscious of exegesis, just as I'm fully conscious of apologetics. But thanks for the offer.

And that objective test for authenticity ─ there isn't one, is there?

There's no objective basis for saying your revelation is to be preferred to any other religion's, is there?

 

[F1fan]

The nature of God does not change.

Yet the God of the Old Testament is vastly different than that in the New Testament. How do you explain that?

According to my understanding, and realisation, God is holy, perfectly just, and good.

Is there any chance you are mistaken in your understanding. You are just a fallible mortal who is making judgments based on reading Bible stories, yes?

I suppose you can think God is just and good if you don't interpret the Bible literally. Still, when I hear about children being born with genes that cause cancer I wonder why God allowed that. Do you consider that just and good?

People complain about God's justice without appreciating the gulf that exists between the goodness of God and the wickedness of man. Anyone who has not lived a very sheltered life will know what evil deeds men are capable of, and in times past these evils were magnified by the absence of God's presence through his Church.

Don't forget that according to your Bible stories God made humans, so if humans are wicked that is how God made us. If God isn't happy with wicked humans he should have made us better.

Of course this is only a problem for certain religious people. Science is able to explain why some humans have disturbed mental states of mind, and the causes are natural defects or bad social influences, or both.

At the time of Noah the world was, l believe, wallowing in a violent and dark abyss (Genesis 6:5-7), and there were few that feared God. Jesus warns us that these times will return to earth again. In Luke 17:26 Jesus says, 'And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.'

This is all God's doing. Don't forget that. God did exactly what it wanted to do.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yet the God of the Old Testament is vastly different than that in the New Testament. How do you explain that?


Is there any chance you are mistaken in your understanding. You are just a fallible mortal who is making judgments based on reading Bible stories, yes?

I suppose you can think God is just and good if you don't interpret the Bible literally. Still, when I hear about children being born with genes that cause cancer I wonder why God allowed that. Do you consider that just and good?


Don't forget that according to your Bible stories God made humans, so if humans are wicked that is how God made us. If God isn't happy with wicked humans he should have made us better.

Of course this is only a problem for certain religious people. Science is able to explain why some humans have disturbed mental states of mind, and the causes are natural defects or bad social influences, or both.


This is all God's doing. Don't forget that. God did exactly what it wanted to do.

To suggest that God is responsible for the way man behaves is twisting the biblical evidence. Man is a creature capable of decision making, and many of his decisions have been made against the will and commandments of God. This rebellious attitude, which says, 'l'm going my way, l don't need God', should be familiar to all who place their trust in the ways of man.

Once sin separates the spirit of man from the Spirit of God there is disharmony and disease. This is why Jesus demonstrated that God's presence brings healing and deliverance. Doctors and counsellors simply don't have all the answers that God's Spirit provides.

God offers mankind the solution to his problems, but there are many that choose not to heed the call to repent and believe in the Saviour. This, again, is a choice. As Paul says, 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling' [Philippians 2:12].

 

[blü 2]

To suggest that God is responsible for the way man behaves is twisting the biblical evidence.

But you wouldn't believe in Das Kapital if you were a libertarian, and you wouldn't seek instruction from Life of Simon Magus if you were a pilot, and not many Christians read the Analects to access the wisdom, no?

Man is a creature capable of decision making, and many of his decisions have been made against the will and commandments of God.

The Salem witch trials were essentially Christian and were obedient to God's will and commandment, You shall not suffer a witch to live (Exodus 22:18), no?

This rebellious attitude, which says, 'l'm going my way, l don't need God', should be familiar to all who place their trust in the ways of man.

I don't know what real entity ─ what being with objective existence ─ is intended to be denoted by the word 'God', and no one seems able to tell me, such that if we find a real suspect, we'll be able to determine whether it's God or not. Isn't it correct to say that the only manner in which God is known to exist is as a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain?

Once sin separates the spirit of man from the Spirit of God there is disharmony and disease.

You don't think the Salem witch trials were sinful, since they followed God's command, but I think they were brainless, superstitious murder.

Which of us is correct?

And when we've got that one sorted, we can discuss slavery.

This is why Jesus demonstrated that God's presence brings healing and deliverance.

Pope John Paul II died despite having many many millions of Catholics around the world praying that he wouldn't. What are we to make of that (other than that God isn't a democrat)?

 

[paradox]

You STILL haven't told me the objective test that will show whether any source (in this context) is "authentic" ─ by which I take you to mean, "is a set of accurate statements about reality"

And that objective test for authenticity ─ there isn't one, is there?

OK, you don't like the easy method of verifying authenticity so here is harder method then:
You have sources of biblical texts, if you go study them (good luck with that) you'll see that scriptures used by descendants of Jesus are authentic, while those of ex. mormons are not.
This is your proof that scriptures used by descendants of Jesus are authentic.
Let me know if there is something wrong with that?

There's no objective basis for saying your revelation is to be preferred to any other religion's, is there?

We're talking about Christianity and differences in scriptures used among authentic and self-proclaimed Christian groups not other religions.

edit:
btw. "authentic" doesn't mean empirical evidence of reality.