The Term "True Christian"

[ragarth]

Why is dividing yourself from other christians by calling yourself a 'True Christian', thereby inversely calling other christians 'False Christians' not the sin of hubris?

 

[Zebra1552]

Nice generalization you have going there. Good thing I'm not in the majority.

 

[ragarth]

Nice generalization you have going there. Good thing I'm not in the majority.

How is it is a generalization? The only time I've seen the term 'True Christian' used has been when dividing one's self or one's beliefs from those of other christians. The implication being that others are not true christians themselves. Indeed, I can't think of any other reason to use this term because if there weren't false christians, then there would be no purpose for the distinction 'true christian' rather, there would only be christians.

Since calling yourself true and others false is making yourself superior to those you deem false, it's hubris.

So how is this a generalization? I'm not attacking christians in general, I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just asking why using the term 'True Christian' isn't a sign of hubris.

 

[Zebra1552]

How is it is a generalization?

Um... maybe because not all Christians use such terminology? And maybe because those who do don't always have what you claim in mind when they use the term and perhaps use the term for different reasons entirely?

The only time I've seen the term 'True Christian' used has been when dividing one's self or one's beliefs from those of other christians. The implication being that others are not true christians themselves. Indeed, I can't think of any other reason to use this term because if there weren't false christians, then there would be no purpose for the distinction 'true christian' rather, there would only be christians.

Problem: Not all those who claim to be Christians actually practice it or even know what the Bible teaches. In fact, if you follow the polls and surveys, most Americans claim to be Christian- yet we see compromises made all the time in business, politics, and education. By these very same people. We also have plenty who call themselves Christians and teach things that directly contradict what is in the Bible, JW's and Mormons being a shining example. In rationalizing one error in such labeling, you miss the reason for the labeling.

Since calling yourself true and others false is making yourself superior to those you deem false, it's hubris.

Then this is a call out thread. Doesn't that break forum rules? Why, then, is it ethical for you to post this?

So how is this a generalization? I'm not attacking christians in general, I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just asking why using the term 'True Christian' isn't a sign of hubris.

Then you're not discussing a moral or ethical issue and this thread should be moved or deleted.

 

[The Nihilist]

Looks like someone needs to develop his or her reading comprehension. Among other things.

Concerning the OP, it's not the sin of hubris because christians worship yhwh and not zeus

 

[Fin12]

He didn't say christians were especially prone to making the true and false divide. He simply stated that it did happen and asked what we thought of it ethically.

Personally I don't think it's a concious thing on their part, it's just simply an under-hand way to make yourself look like you hold authority.

Someone may like the idea of calling themselves a punk musician, but find the others in the genre don't really agree with said person. So rather than just admitt that they don't really agree or fit into the punk scene, they simply pro-claim that they are the "true" form of punk.

Not an unethical act per se but certainly a distasteful one.

 

[Zebra1552]

Looks like someone needs to develop his or her reading comprehension. Among other things.

Concerning the OP, it's not the sin of hubris because christians worship yhwh and not zeus

I can read just fine. In essence, the OP asks: "Why is my assumption about this labeling among Christians wrong?" It has nothing to do with a moral or ethical issue and not only generalizes in how people use such labeling but assumes whoever reads the OP uses such labeling if they are a Christian.

 

[Zebra1552]

He didn't say christians were especially prone to making the true and false divide. He simply stated that it did happen and asked what we thought of it ethically.

No, he asked how it wasn't hubris.

 

[Fin12]

I consider hubris to be an ethical issue, along with stretching out word-play arguments to avoid discussing the topic at hand.

 

[Mercy Medical]

I really don't see how this thread is generalizing anyone at all...not all Christians use that term to define themselves. This thread really only applies to people that do...

 

[ragarth]

Um... maybe because not all Christians use such terminology? And maybe because those who do don't always have what you claim in mind when they use the term and perhaps use the term for different reasons entirely?

Problem: Not all those who claim to be Christians actually practice it or even know what the Bible teaches. In fact, if you follow the polls and surveys, most Americans claim to be Christian- yet we see compromises made all the time in business, politics, and education. By these very same people. We also have plenty who call themselves Christians and teach things that directly contradict what is in the Bible, JW's and Mormons being a shining example. In rationalizing one error in such labeling, you miss the reason for the labeling.

Then this is a call out thread. Doesn't that break forum rules? Why, then, is it ethical for you to post this?

Then you're not discussing a moral or ethical issue and this thread should be moved or deleted.

I never said all christians use such terminology. Also, since hubris is a sin, and sin is usually considered the domain of morality, this thread is valid in this forum. I also didn't start this as a callout thread, I thought of something and posted a request for refutation because I understand the value of getting other people's opinions on things. Further, getting the opinion of other people helps me understand things in a context that I otherwise would not.

So what other uses would there be for the term 'True Christian' if not to set one's self as superior to those who you deem to not be true christians?

The part of you post that's labeled 'Problem' is an issue for me, not because it's a good argument but because you're saying 'people who vote a certain way don't practice christianity right' and this puts me in a conundrum where I can't rightly respond without insulting either you or them.

 

[quatona]

Um... maybe because not all Christians use such terminology? And maybe because those who do don't always have what you claim in mind when they use the term and perhaps use the term for different reasons entirely?

As far as I can see the OP didn´t speak of "all Christians" or even only a certain amount or percentage of Christians. It just asked about a certain behaviour, without further implications.

Problem: Not all those who claim to be Christians actually practice it or even know what the Bible teaches.

 

[ragarth]

Concerning the OP, it's not the sin of hubris because christians worship yhwh and not zeus

Hubris is synonymous with excessive pride. I don't see how worshiping zeus, and having excessive pride in how you worship zeus better than other polytheists is different from worshipping god and having excessive pride in how you worship god 'the right way'.

Personally I don't think it's a concious thing on their part, it's just simply an under-hand way to make yourself look like you hold authority.

Someone may like the idea of calling themselves a punk musician, but find the others in the genre don't really agree with said person. So rather than just admitt that they don't really agree or fit into the punk scene, they simply pro-claim that they are the "true" form of punk.

Not an unethical act per se but certainly a distasteful one.

This is a good argument, but isn't the act of saying 'I play real punk and all those others are just hacks' a statement of hubris in and of itself? Whether or not one does indeed play punk or not doesn't matter if one sees themselves as doing it 'better' or others as 'not doing it right'.

 

[Zebra1552]

I never said all christians use such terminology. Also, since hubris is a sin, and sin is usually considered the domain of morality, this thread is valid in this forum. I also didn't start this as a callout thread, I thought of something and posted a request for refutation because I understand the value of getting other people's opinions on things. Further, getting the opinion of other people helps me understand things in a context that I otherwise would not.

Thanks for the clarification. You're not, then, just asking whether or not people agree with you.

So what other uses would there be for the term 'True Christian' if not to set one's self as superior to those who you deem to not be true christians?

I just stated it in my last post to you.

The part of you post that's labeled 'Problem' is an issue for me, not because it's a good argument but because you're saying 'people who vote a certain way don't practice christianity right' and this puts me in a conundrum where I can't rightly respond without insulting either you or them.

I never said or implied that I'm talking about voters. I stated that compromises are made by those in the realms (plural) of business, education, and politics. And I'm not talking about your average Joe, I'm talking about those who have authority. Corruption, dishonesty, unethical business practices, bribery, blackmail, the list continues.

 

[Fin12]

Hubris is synonymous with excessive pride. I don't see how worshiping zeus, and having excessive pride in how you worship zeus better than other polytheists is different from worshipping god and having excessive pride in how you worship god 'the right way'.



This is a good argument, but isn't the act of saying 'I play real punk and all those others are just hacks' a statement of hubris in and of itself? Whether or not one does indeed play punk or not doesn't matter if one sees themselves as doing it 'better' or others as 'not doing it right'.

I would say it's not so much an issue of ego or superiority, (though some no doubt may derive a sense of power from it.)

But rather one persons romanticised view of a group or classification, which doesn't hold up to reality, so rather than accept that their view is wrong, they say their view is right and others are mislead.

Does that make sense?

More about wanting a perosnal world view to be correct, rather than exalting one's-self.

 

[ragarth]

I never said or implied that I'm talking about voters. I stated that compromises are made by those in the realms (plural) of business, education, and politics. And I'm not talking about your average Joe, I'm talking about those who have authority. Corruption, dishonesty, unethical business practices, bribery, blackmail, the list continues.

Ah, I misread your post then, I apologize. I was reading it as referring to people who hold leftist opinions in terms of business, education and politics such as increased regulation, separation of church and state, sex education, etc. My mistake.

Yeah, I see what you mean, people who call themselves christians but then break the basic tenets such as not stealing. But still, isn't it a generally accepted edict that we're born into sin and that temptation is always there? If we are born into sin, and constantly tempted to 'take the easy route' and steal, lie, and cheat, then instead of calling the weak of will false christians, wouldn't it be better to help them back on the right christian path? Since using the term 'True Christian' is denigrating, it's more likely to push these people farther off the proper path than it is to help them get back on it, and if the use of the term is hindering instead of helping, then it's use serves only to show pride over those who are weaker of will.

 

[ragarth]

I would say it's not so much an issue of ego or superiority, (though some no doubt may derive a sense of power from it.)

But rather one persons romanticised view of a group or classification, which doesn't hold up to reality, so rather than accept that their view is wrong, they say their view is right and others are mislead.

Does that make sense?

More about wanting a perosnal world view to be correct, rather than exalting one's-self.

I'll have to think on that, that's definitely a powerful argument.

 

[b&wpac4]

I would say it's not so much an issue of ego or superiority, (though some no doubt may derive a sense of power from it.)

But rather one persons romanticised view of a group or classification, which doesn't hold up to reality, so rather than accept that their view is wrong, they say their view is right and others are mislead.

Does that make sense?

More about wanting a perosnal world view to be correct, rather than exalting one's-self.

You are arguing cognitive dissidence then?

 

[Inviolable]

You got the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
God introduces himself to you through the Holy Spirit, which you feel emotionally upon receiving God's forgiveness. Which is something Christians who have felt the Holy Spirit can pick up on.

 

[Zebra1552]

Ah, I misread your post then, I apologize. I was reading it as referring to people who hold leftist opinions in terms of business, education and politics such as increased regulation, separation of church and state, sex education, etc. My mistake.

And I suppose you only generalized in how people use the terms rather than who uses the terms, too... though I don't often admit I'm wrong in the forums. I think this could be a first. I'm not hopeless after all! Warm fuzzies!

Yeah, I see what you mean, people who call themselves christians but then break the basic tenets such as not stealing. But still, isn't it a generally accepted edict that we're born into sin and that temptation is always there? If we are born into sin, and constantly tempted to 'take the easy route' and steal, lie, and cheat, then instead of calling the weak of will false christians, wouldn't it be better to help them back on the right christian path?

Good point. Though there are plenty of Christians who are simply misled, there are also plenty who willfully sin and ignore the Bible and, like Paul mentions in Romans 6, go on sinning so that grace may increase rather than realizing that their 'old self was crucified... so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin'. Each case should be taken individually.

Since using the term 'True Christian' is denigrating, it's more likely to push these people farther off the proper path than it is to help them get back on it, and if the use of the term is hindering instead of helping, then it's use serves only to show pride over those who are weaker of will.

And how do you shock those who are quite certain they are correct in their misunderstanding and decontextualizing of Scripture into reconsidering, or, at least, engaging in logical conversation?