Chritians

[ChristianCenturion]

Good response. Better than mine actually.

I was thinking the same thing about yours.

 

[Matix]

It's a silly question, IMO. Some are, some aren't. It depends on the person.

 

[Sokratikos]

LOL.
Try Googling charity and Christian, then try Googling charity and any other group you wish.

BTW - you may wish to refrain from requesting posters to "detract" for the sake of honesty, when in fact the "honest" position would be not to consider something false (or true) by default.


I've followed your argument for a little bit and it is... weak.

Fabricating an issue to an unrelated state or standard i.e. "always".
Not only are other groups not generally claiming to hold such a platform, but Christians do not typically claim "perfection" either, thus your effigy of "always" in an attempted lowering of Christian behavior down so all considerations are indistinguishable is just that, a fallacy. That is also beyond the fact that people generally allow anyone and everyone's "Christian status" to be defined as anyone that wishes to claim to be Christian.

Similarly, the argument also purports "loving" almost to a standard of exclusive selection for personal reaction.
IOW - Not EVERYTHING demands or deserves respect, much less love. Christians are to be SINCERE in "the loving" and what qualifies AS love is also not defined by popular vote, but defined by God.
Example being that a parent appropriately correcting a child via spanking may seem like being abusive to the child, but is actually a display of love by educated standards.

Romans 12:9
[ Love ] Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

1) Protestants have burned Catholics on the stake because they thought Catholics were evil.
2) Catholics burned Protestants on the stake because they thought Protestants were evil.
3) Christians hate what is evil.
Ergo,
Catholics and Protestants are evil.

This is the conclusion that can be drawn by your using Romans 12:9 in the defense that Christians haven't hated anything that hasn't deserved to.

I don't know you, but I don't think that Protestants and Catholics (burnt by each other), unitarians, Jews, atheists, homosexuals and members of non-Abrahamic religions, which have all been "hated" as "evil" from time to time by Christains of various denominations are all evil.

Truly, in history, many have been wronged who never deserved it, together with the ones who have.

 

[Sokratikos]

Good response. Better than mine actually.

Your response? Where is it that I may refute it too?

 

[Sokratikos]

When Christians are not loving they are not acting as Christians should act. I agree that all that matters is do we obey the command to love, not that we agree the command is a good thing. Why would you try to prove Christians are not perfect in their loving when I have already said they are not?

You were wrong. Your answer actually is better than Centurion's!

I was emphasizing on the point of agreement, that's all. I just thought that my rephrasing would be more elegant in form than the ones I gave before.

I regret the misunderstanding.

P.S. And I was wrong too. There's nothing I can do to refute this. At all.

 

[elman]

1) Protestants have burned Catholics on the stake because they thought Catholics were evil.
2) Catholics burned Protestants on the stake because they thought Protestants were evil.
3) Christians hate what is evil.
Ergo,
Catholics and Protestants are evil.

This is the conclusion that can be drawn by your using Romans 12:9 in the defense that Christians haven't hated anything that hasn't deserved to.

I don't know you, but I don't think that Protestants and Catholics (burnt by each other), unitarians, Jews, atheists, homosexuals and members of non-Abrahamic religions, which have all been "hated" as "evil" from time to time by Christains of various denominations are all evil.

Truly, in history, many have been wronged who never deserved it, together with the ones who have.

People who burn people at the stake are evil and they are not Christians no matter what they call themselves.

 

[elman]

You were wrong. Your answer actually is better than Centurion's!

I was emphasizing on the point of agreement, that's all. I just thought that my rephrasing would be more elegant in form than the ones I gave before.

I regret the misunderstanding.

P.S. And I was wrong too. There's nothing I can do to refute this. At all.

Thank you. I appreciate that comment.

 

[Sokratikos]

People who burn people at the stake are evil and they are not Christians no matter what they call themselves.

I understand your sentiment. Nevertheless I see a new dilemma. Burning people at the stake (which is just a rhetorical exemplification of so many ways to terminate or otherwise hurt people) is a sin. Does sinning "unsusbcribe" you as a Christian?

If so, then I hardly ever met a Christian.
If not, then how would burning-at-the-stake/ mudering/torturing/mutilate/hang/hamstring/pillage/enslave etc terminates your membership as a Christian?

 

[elman]

I understand your sentiment. Nevertheless I see a new dilemma. Burning people at the stake (which is just a rhetorical exemplification of so many ways to terminate or otherwise hurt people) is a sin. Does sinning "unsusbcribe" you as a Christian?

If so, then I hardly ever met a Christian.
If not, then how would burning-at-the-stake/ mudering/torturing/mutilate/hang/hamstring/pillage/enslave etc terminates your membership as a Christian?

Just as a person cannot reach adulthood with out lying, that does not make that person a liar as is true of another person who consistently lies. A Christian will continue to sin, i.e. be unloving, but it will not be the norm or expected thing for them. It will be the occasional failure. First John talks about a sin that is not unto death and one that is unto death and I think he is saying that being unloving and hurting people will, if it becomes a normal part of ones life destroy their relationship with and connection to God. I think Ezekiel 18 also teaches this when it says the person that sins kills their own soul but if they turn again to righteousness they shall live again. The grace of God is what keeps the Christian from being separated from God and spiritual life by being unloving but to be constantly or normally unloving is a life of wickedness and sin and will result in one's separation from spiritual life. That I think is what Paul is saying when he said the wages of sin is death. I also think that First John shows that all sin is not equal. Being unkind in your remarks to a person, might be forgiven, where burning that person at the stake would not be automatically forgiven. It could be forgiven but I think it would require serious recognition of one's guilt and resolve to not be burning anyone else and of course that, as well as everything else in this area, is not up to us, but up to determintion by God.

 

[Sokratikos]

Just as a person cannot reach adulthood with out lying, that does not make that person a liar as is true of another person who consistently lies. A Christian will continue to sin, i.e. be unloving, but it will not be the norm or expected thing for them. It will be the occasional failure. First John talks about a sin that is not unto death and one that is unto death and I think he is saying that being unloving and hurting people will, if it becomes a normal part of ones life destroy their relationship with and connection to God. I think Ezekiel 18 also teaches this when it says the person that sins kills their own soul but if they turn again to righteousness they shall live again. The grace of God is what keeps the Christian from being separated from God and spiritual life by being unloving but to be constantly or normally unloving is a life of wickedness and sin and will result in one's separation from spiritual life. That I think is what Paul is saying when he said the wages of sin is death. I also think that First John shows that all sin is not equal. Being unkind in your remarks to a person, might be forgiven, where burning that person at the stake would not be automatically forgiven. It could be forgiven but I think it would require serious recognition of one's guilt and resolve to not be burning anyone else and of course that, as well as everything else in this area, is not up to us, but up to determintion by God.

(boldface emphasis mine)


So, only God knows if you're a Christian. Am I right?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

1)
This is the conclusion that can be drawn by your using Romans 12:9 in the defense that Christians haven't hated anything that hasn't deserved to...

Strawman, I didn't state that.
You are free to cite people doing things all day long, it doesn't refute what I have already addressed.

 

[elman]

(boldface emphasis mine)


So, only God knows if you're a Christian. Am I right?

The bottom line? I think that is correct. I think that is what is behind the teaching of do not judge others and take the log out of your own eye before removing the splinter in someone else's eye. I think we can make some educated guesses particularly about ourselves. We know if we usually lie or not and we know if we are normally considerate of others and their needs or not. I think I am safe in the decision of a God who is loving, but I have to admit there is a question since I also know I don't love as much as I could. Ultimately I have to rely on His goodness and not my own.

 

[Sokratikos]

If that is the bottom line, the discussion is settled for all those who agree on your premises, which I understand as follows:

The term "Christian" means:
1) Being in grace;
2) Being not separate from God;
3) Performing according to the commands of Jesus, esp. to love.
Where the three conditions stated above are compatible but not logically equivalent (item three requires the humanly unknowable condition of God's favor, and, thus also items two and one).

Also, it is necessary that the term "Christian" in no way must refer to the statistical or normative term "Christian", which would refer to "Christain is all who identifies him/herself as 'Christian'," and the understanding that Christians are "all those who have been baptised", since we know they are baptized, but don't know if they enjoy the favor of God.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[elman]

If that is the bottom line, the discussion is settled for all those who agree on your premises, which I understand as follows:

The term "Christian" means:
1) Being in grace;
2) Being not separate from God;
3) Performing according to the commands of Jesus, esp. to love.
Where the three conditions stated above are compatible but not logically equivalent (item three requires the humanly unknowable condition of God's favor, and, thus also items two and one).

Also, it is necessary that the term "Christian" in no way must refer to the statistical or normative term "Christian", which would refer to "Christain is all who identifies him/herself as 'Christian'," and the understanding that Christians are "all those who have been baptised", since we know they are baptized, but don't know if they enjoy the favor of God.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you are right. As First John teaches we shall know the children of God by their love for each other. That is how to identify a Christian. It is not an exact science and we can be fooled, but Jesus said keep looking at what they do-by their fruits we shall know them. I repeat I don't think a Christian is necessarily one who has been baptised, nor one who claims to be a Christian, but might be one who shows their Christianity through their love for mankind. I believe to the extent we are doing number three, we can be confident of having number one and two.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

If that is the bottom line, the discussion is settled for all those who agree on your premises, which I understand as follows:

The term "Christian" means:
1) Being in grace;
2) Being not separate from God;
3) Performing according to the commands of Jesus, esp. to love.
Where the three conditions stated above are compatible but not logically equivalent (item three requires the humanly unknowable condition of God's favor, and, thus also items two and one).

Also, it is necessary that the term "Christian" in no way must refer to the statistical or normative term "Christian", which would refer to "Christain is all who identifies him/herself as 'Christian'," and the understanding that Christians are "all those who have been baptised", since we know they are baptized, but don't know if they enjoy the favor of God.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not so much a correction than clarity:
One, Christ and God are not in opposition.
Two, Christ would be the defining Athority of Christian.
Three, God doesn't hide His instruction/judgment unless making an example for others to learn by.

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

 

[Sokratikos]

Thus it is settled (attempting to make all this fit in with the O.P.):

1)
Nominative Christians who do not do the "will of the father" are:

a) ... not "real" Christians if "Christian" is defined as "brothers of Christ" (Matt. 7:21); and,

b) ... are not "moral" if we define morality as the "will of the Father".


2)
Nominative Christians who do the "will of the Father" are:

a) ... "real" Christians if "Christian" is defined as "brothers of Christ" (Matt. 7:21); and,

b) ... are "moral" if we define morality as the "will of the Father".


I reckon this leaves the door open for a numero tres:


3)
Non nominative Christians who do the "will of the Father" are:

a) ... "real" Christians if "Christian" is defined as "brothers of Christ" (Matt. 7:21); and,

b) ... are "moral" if we define morality as the "will of the Father".


---

These three points are valid (as the last posts of the thread have discussed) only if we limit the definition of Christian as "brother of Christ" as per Matt. 7:21, and leave out all other definitions such as:

- Affirmative response to the question "Are you a Christian?" (as they may or may not comply with the Biblical quote given).

- "Community of the baptized" (as they may or may not comply with the Biblical quote given).

And also, the three points are valid if we define morality as "the will of the father", and not coinciding in any way with the traditional understanding of the word morality.

- IT - ALL - DEPENDS - ON - YOUR - DEFINITIONS -​

---
EDITED TO:

-To change "3) Non normative Christians ..." to "3) Non nominative Christians"

-To explain what I mean by "nominative". Here it means "one who is identified as, or who identifies her/himself as -".
---




Logic is beautiful indeed -Order out of chaos.
Sokr.