Is it moral to discuss who has the right to call themselves Christian?

[brightmorningstar]

Why would a humanist advise one Christian against a discussion with another Christian who is referring them to the Biblical testimony?

 

[lisah]

Why would a humanist advise one Christian against a discussion with another Christian who is referring them to the Biblical testimony?

Why would a humanist not advise another, if they felt it might be in their best interest? If Beanie does not think it good advice, then he's free to discount it, just as are you. Don't you agree?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To lisah,

Why would a humanist not advise another, if they felt it might be in their best interest? If Beanie does not think it good advice, then he's free to discount it, just as are you. Don't you agree?

yes I do agree. as you imply one Christian's view is in line with humanist interests whereas the other Bibilcal based one isnt. I thank you for your response.

 

[Supreme]

Yes, it is morally wrong for people to judge others on whether or not they're a Christian.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Supreme,

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved Matthew 10:22

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned - 1 Corninthians 2:14

Amen,
And, again no its isnt morally wrong to judge others on whether they are Christian or those who depart from the truth and the false teachers aren’t enduring to the end.

The NT is full of instruction to believers such as Jesus saying that His disciples are those who obey His teaching (ie John 14-15, Matthew 28) and that believers should not deviate from the gospel given from Jesus Christ by the NT writers. (Galatians 1) Passages such as 2 Peter 2 and 1 Tim 6 actually address those who have wandered from the faith through false teaching.

With the particular issue about those who promote same sex relations the two relevant passages are Galatians 6 and 1 Cor 5. These show that the response to brothers caught in sin is to restore them gently and the response to those who wilfully promote sin and call themselves brothers is to expel them and disassociate from them. (the crucial bit here being those who call themselves brothers indicating they aren’t)

 

[bigbadwilf]

I thought it was considered impolite if not immoral to cast judgement on whether or not other people are believers in your religion.

On an aside, if anyone assumes that only their particular flavour of Christianity is the only one that should be counted, rather than Christianity as a whole, then even if you pick the largest denomination (depending on which results you use, this is either Roman Catholicism or Evangelicalism) is a minority of the population as a whole, and so the repeated "this is a Christian country" line goes right out of the window.

 

[smloeffelholz]

Whenever someone says X is not a true Christian, it boils down to a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Willie, "No true Scotsman would turn down free haggis."
Scottie, "My uncle was born in Scotland and he hates haggis."
Willie, "Aye, but no TRUE Scotsman would turn down free haggis."

This is just a way to convince yourself that your specific definition of Christianity is the only valid definition of Christianity.

I think bigbadwilf brings up a very valid point. If pressed, I am sure that people like brightmorningstar would classify hoards of people as not really Christian, (those who believe but rarely attend services, those of other Christian sects, those with beliefs contrary to his own). Still, when the census comes around to determine the religious breakdown of the country, these people are all counted as Christians and are the only reason there is a Christian majority in this country.

 

[JGG]

It must be moral to do so. Christians say basically that to each other on here on about an hourly basis. Perhaps the more interesting question would be: Is it sinful?

Or for that matter, let's see if someone's head explodes if I ask: Can you be a Christian and question who has a right to call themselves a Christian?

 

[quatona]

Or for that matter, let's see if someone's head explodes if I ask: Can you be a Christian and question who has a right to call themselves a Christian?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7406326-2/#post53085099
...and the immediate response demonstrates that it doesn´t necessarily make their head explode...

 

[brightmorningstar]

To bigbadwilf,

I thought it was considered impolite if not immoral to cast judgement on whether or not other people are believers in your religion.

It is considered impolite by those who don’t like being corrected by Jesus teaching and want to claim they follow it when they obliviously don’t.

On an aside, if anyone assumes that only their particular flavour of Christianity is the only one that should be counted, rather than Christianity as a whole, then even if you pick the largest denomination (depending on which results you use, this is either Roman Catholicism or Evangelicalism) is a minority of the population as a whole, and so the repeated "this is a Christian country" line goes right out of the window.

No one is talking about flavours of Christianity, the issue is a departure from the Biblical testimony.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To smloeffelholz,

Whenever someone says X is not a true Christian, it boils down to a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Or not if one is a Christian. But I am talking about beliefs which are or aren’t Christian, not who is and who isn’t.

This is just a way to convince yourself that your specific definition of Christianity is the only valid definition of Christianity.

If its Christian it is Christian, if it isn’t, it isn’t. If someone believes in Allah and the prophet Mohammed and calls such a belief Christian, would you accept it? Not by definition, do you not accept there are any boundaries and no definitions?

I think bigbadwilf brings up a very valid point. If pressed, I am sure that people like brightmorningstar would classify hoards of people as not really Christian, (those who believe but rarely attend services, those of other Christian sects, those with beliefs contrary to his own). Still, when the census comes around to determine the religious breakdown of the country, these people are all counted as Christians and are the only reason there is a Christian majority in this country.

Well I think you ought to answer the question as to whether there are any boundaries as to what are Christian beliefs, and of course the creeds such as the Nicene Creed define some basics that most Christians worldwide acknowledge, its not my personal view it the view of Christians.

 

[lisah]

Do you think that Jesus was an exclusivist? Is exclusivism a necessary practice for training and education once something becomes organized? It seems to me that it always has been traditional to the organization of a group of people.

What makes the practice of exclusivism a good practice and what makes it a bad practice?

To Supreme,

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved Matthew 10:22

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned - 1 Corninthians 2:14

Amen,
And, again no its isnt morally wrong to judge others on whether they are Christian or those who depart from the truth and the false teachers aren’t enduring to the end.

The NT is full of instruction to believers such as Jesus saying that His disciples are those who obey His teaching (ie John 14-15, Matthew 28) and that believers should not deviate from the gospel given from Jesus Christ by the NT writers. (Galatians 1) Passages such as 2 Peter 2 and 1 Tim 6 actually address those who have wandered from the faith through false teaching.

With the particular issue about those who promote same sex relations the two relevant passages are Galatians 6 and 1 Cor 5. These show that the response to brothers caught in sin is to restore them gently and the response to those who wilfully promote sin and call themselves brothers is to expel them and disassociate from them. (the crucial bit here being those who call themselves brothers indicating they aren’t)

 

[brightmorningstar]

To lisah,

Do you think that Jesus was an exclusivist? Is exclusivism a necessary practice for training and education once something becomes organized? It seems to me that it always has been traditional to the organization of a group of people.

What makes the practice of exclusivism a good practice and what makes it a bad practice?

To continue from the first sentence you really need to find out what the answer is. I would say He was inclusive because whoever believes will receive. Jesus is inclusive and people are exclusive, they either believe in Him or they don’t.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To lisah,

Do you think that Jesus was an exclusivist? Is exclusivism a necessary practice for training and education once something becomes organized? It seems to me that it always has been traditional to the organization of a group of people.

What makes the practice of exclusivism a good practice and what makes it a bad practice?

To continue from the first sentence you really need to find out what the answer is. I would say He was inclusive because whoever believes will receive. Jesus is inclusive and people are exclusive, they either believe in Him or they don’t.

 

[Rebekka]

Whenever someone says X is not a true Christian, it boils down to a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Willie, "No true Scotsman would turn down free haggis."
Scottie, "My uncle was born in Scotland and he hates haggis."
Willie, "Aye, but no TRUE Scotsman would turn down free haggis."

I thought Scots were really frugal, so even if they didn't like haggis they wouldn't turn it down just because it was free? (where's the fallacy now? )

 

[Zebra1552]

"Is it moral to discuss who has the right to call themselves Christian?"

On this site, No, as it's a violation of the rules.

Indeed... but there's nothing in the rules about those who have a Christian icon but ulterior motives that get revealed. Hm...

 

[brightmorningstar]

On this site, No, as it's a violation of the rules.

Then the site is possibly not allowing the representation of Christian views, for example 1 Cor 5 says Christians are not to judge those in the world but those who are sexually immoral and call themselves brothers, are to be expelled. So on this issue it could be argued that the site not only allows the undermining of the scripture teaching on same sex relations but also allows the undermining of what scripture teaches about what to do about it.... in short the majority Christian views are inhibited.

 

[MoonLancer]

this is what we call a contradiction.

 

[Beanieboy]

To smloeffelholz,
Or not if one is a Christian. But I am talking about beliefs which are or aren’t Christian, not who is and who isn’t.

If its Christian it is Christian, if it isn’t, it isn’t. If someone believes in Allah and the prophet Mohammed and calls such a belief Christian, would you accept it? Not by definition, do you not accept there are any boundaries and no definitions?

Well I think you ought to answer the question as to

What about what Steve told me when I was 5 - that I wasn't Christian because I wasn't Catholic? In the 60s, a lot of Catholics believed that, and were told that by their priests. So, it was common for Catholics and Protestants to have tense relationships, Prots accusing Cath of idol worship (of the saints and statues), and Cath accusing Prots of not being Christians because the "protest" the true teachings of the Church.

Even today, Catholic churches make it very clear that only those who are Catholic are welcome to come up to the Eucharist table. Other denom. Christians are asked to remain seated.

There may be Catholics today that still believe that Prots are not Christians.

Should Christians, Cath or Prot, be spending their time deciding if other denoms. are Christian according to their criteria of their church's creed? Or should they be focusing on how they themselves can be a better servant of Christ, a stronger Christian, a better witness for God?

 

[Rebekka]

There may be Catholics today that still believe that Prots are not Christians.

And there are many protestants who believe catholics are not christians.