Why is it so important in society to be called Christian?

[David Deas]

When it was first used nearly 2000 years ago, the word "Christian" was a word that was used to described the followers of Christ. Today, the dictionary definition of the word "Christian" is virtually the same as the colloquial term of nearly 2000 years ago. However, the modern colloquial meaning of the word "Christian" is not necessarily used to describe the followers of Jesus Christ. How, why, and at what point did that happen?

Not too long ago I was talking to a typical churchgoing layman and he happened to blurt out something that I thought was pretty familiar, not just throughout the forums, but throughout our society; he said that the only requirement an individual needs to meet in order to be called a Christian is the belief in Jesus Christ. However, this 'belief in Jesus Christ' only includes the belief in the idea that he died on the cross for the sins of humanity. You don't necessarily have to follow Jesus Christ in the way that the etymology of the word "Christian" necessitates; you don't have to believe in the things he believed in, you don't have to believe in the things he said, you don't have to believe in the things that he taught, and you don't have to act according to any of his foundations and principals.

There is a widespread belief among the Christian community that only they will be permitted into Heaven while everyone else on Earth will inevitably fry in Hell. Why? Not because they are the only good people on Earth, but simply because they are the only ones who believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for all the sins of humanity. What was interesting to me is that said individual highlighted the importance of being considered a Christian by claiming that beliefs inconsistent with the Bible were perfectly acceptable as long as you had 'belief in Jesus Christ'.

The belief that merely being able to refer to yourself as a Christian automatically carries the ultimate reward of eternal life in Heaven could come only from one primary source; the unwillingness to sacrifice. But what struck me about this particular case was that the individual in question had some very unusual ideas regarding who God is and the origin of the Universe. The fact that this was a person who insisted on being called a Christian (pointing to his 'belief in Jesus Christ') while simultaneously holding anti-Biblical, anti-Christ[ian] beliefs leads me to believe there are social factors at play that motivate people to want to wear the Christian tag even though they're almost as far from believing and acting as Jesus Christ believed and acted as an atheist is.

Everybody wants acceptance. I understand its a tough thing to risk sacrificing. But if you're not a follower of Jesus Christ, why don't you just be honest with yourself and quit calling yourself Christian? When Jesus Christ stated, in no uncertain terms, that all who call him "Lord" will not be allowed into Heaven, you are *exactly* who he was talking about anyhow.

[Zuwxiv]

It wasn't too long ago that people were persecuted for religious beliefs. Even in "free" countries, how long ago were people regularly discriminated against based on religion? Religiously based hate crimes are occurring right now. State sponsored hate crimes are still being carried out around the world, and happened in European/New World nations as late or later than 1900. Hitler persecuted jews in the 1940's. And many more have occurred since then.

Can anyone think that people can change so quickly? That something that has been part of our nature, for not a few generations, but thousands upon thousands of years, can simply be ignored now?

It will be a long time into the future, if ever, that people can state their religion without subconsciously thinking, "And I'm better than you." The problem with modern religions is that they are almost exclusively mutually exclusive.

And thus, it is impossible to be "Christian" without considering almost everyone else to be wrong.

So there is some status in being a member of the dominant religion. Do you think an Atheist could ever be elected the next President or Prime Minister of many countries? If FDR had said in 1940 that he was an Atheist, would he have won the election again, even though he was clearly an extremely capable and intelligent person?

We are religiously biased as a society, and as such we praise those like us and condemn those unlike us.

And we are hypocrites, because discrimination based on anything is completely contrary to everything Jesus said.

Many of us are wrong to call ourselves Christians.

[mightyfenrir]

Everybody wants acceptance. I understand its a tough thing to risk sacrificing. But if you're not a follower of Jesus Christ, why don't you just be honest with yourself and quit calling yourself Christian? When Jesus Christ stated, in no uncertain terms, that all who call him "Lord" will not be allowed into Heaven, you are *exactly* who he was talking about.

You should call yourselves "of Nazarenes"... christ isn't even his last name. It's from the old Greek christos which I believe means prophet. He can talk about me all he wants. I like to think of myself as christian, muslim, jewish, pagan, hindu, buddhist, shinto, whatever you got. Every religion is the truth, so says Gandhi

We are religiously biased as a society, and as such we praise those like us and condemn those unlike us.

And we are hypocrites, because discrimination based on anything is completely contrary to everything Jesus said.

Many of us are wrong to call ourselves Christians.

Isn't taht the truth, you have no idea how many times people have looked at me and my sister wierd for going into asian themed shops and looking at the buddhas and other religious things. And these looks come from people walking in there to buy star trek based daggers... ultra nerds.

[Zuwxiv]

You should call yourselves "of Nazarenes"... christ isn't even his last name. It's from the old Greek christos which I believe means prophet. He can talk about me all he wants. I like to think of myself as christian, muslim, jewish, pagan, hindu, buddhist, shinto, whatever you got. Every religion is the truth, so says Gandhi.

I hold similar beliefs. I don't care what your religious beliefs are - if they are genuine and you stick to them, I respect that. To a certain (very limited) level, I can even respect people like the 9/11 hijackers - they did horrible things, but they died doing what they believed in. They weren't the evil ones; it was the people who taught them that Islam has anything to do with killing people that were evil. It is those people who abuse ignorance for their own selfish goals. The suicide bombers, the insurgents - most of them are just ignorant, abused pawns in a game they aren't even aware of.

More than anything else, I pity them.

Anyway, sorry to go off on a tangent. Back to religion: I think that there is a God, and that the universe was created by that deity. I think that religious books like the Bible teach good values and lessons, but most people miss them and the books have been changed and translated over the years - too much difference to still take it literally.

I believe in the concept of a heaven and hell, but I don't dismiss the idea that the Earth is hell. I think that it would be cruel of God to condemn good people to hell for one bad choice, or for worshipping him under a different name with different rites. And I not only can not fathom a cruel God, but I will not worship one.

I think there is a point to life, but I think that if we knew what the point was that would ruin things.

I believe in kindness and hope. But I don't blindly believe in anything - to be blind is to see neither what you believe in, nor why you believe in it. I don't demand miracles, but I think one might be necessary within the next couple hundred years to justify my belief in hope.

Isn't taht the truth, you have no idea how many times people have looked at me and my sister wierd for going into asian themed shops and looking at the buddhas and other religious things. And these looks come from people walking in there to buy star trek based daggers... ultra nerds.

Unfortunately, that happens way too often. People go to soldiers' funerals with signs stating "GOD HATES FAGS." Which is odd, I don't remember God or Jesus ever stating that they 'hate' anything. I do remember "love thy enemy," though.

To me, being a follower of Jesus (Ichthys has a much more interesting meaning - Greek acronym) is synonymous with a good character - kind, caring, generous, and loving. That is what matters. That is what makes differences in everything from daily life to global influences. It is a type of character rarely encountered, unfortunately.

[jankren]

Well, in this world there is such a thing as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Bahai in names only you know. Just because some people label themselves as something they are not does not mean they indeed are.

[David Deas]

Then why label yourself as one at all? Why not just be honest with yourself?

Is it because people aren't intelligent enough to recognize that labels come with prices? Or is it because, as one poster on site has said, they're interested in the insurance just in case they really *do *find themselves in line awaiting judgment?

[The Good]

I think it is much more important to "be" a Christian than be called one. Being called a Christian is merely a label. Anyone can call themselves Christians, but being one is a whole other matter. God says that he preffers sinners to "lukewarm" Christians, because they are not "on fire" for God.

[Vhailor]

People who want to be called Christians are those who arent Christians at all.

[Lord Bohemond]

When it was first used nearly 2000 years ago, the word "Christian" was a word that was used to described the followers of Christ. Today, the dictionary definition of the word "Christian" is virtually the same as the colloquial term of nearly 2000 years ago. However, the modern colloquial meaning of the word "Christian" is not necessarily used to describe the followers of Jesus Christ. How, why, and at what point did that happen?

Not too long ago I was talking to a typical churchgoing layman and he happened to blurt out something that I thought was pretty familiar, not just throughout the forums, but throughout our society; he said that the only requirement an individual needs to meet in order to be called a Christian is the belief in Jesus Christ. However, this 'belief in Jesus Christ' only includes the belief in the idea that he died on the cross for the sins of humanity. You don't necessarily have to follow Jesus Christ in the way that the etymology of the word "Christian" necessitates; you don't have to believe in the things he believed in, you don't have to believe in the things he said, you don't have to believe in the things that he taught, and you don't have to act according to any of his foundations and principals.

There is a widespread belief among the Christian community that only they will be permitted into Heaven while everyone else on Earth will inevitably fry in Hell. Why? Not because they are the only good people on Earth, but simply because they are the only ones who believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for all the sins of humanity. What was interesting to me is that said individual highlighted the importance of being considered a Christian by claiming that beliefs inconsistent with the Bible were perfectly acceptable as long as you had 'belief in Jesus Christ'.

The belief that merely being able to refer to yourself as a Christian automatically carries the ultimate reward of eternal life in Heaven could come only from one primary source; the unwillingness to sacrifice. But what struck me about this particular case was that the individual in question had some very unusual ideas regarding who God is and the origin of the Universe. The fact that this was a person who insisted on being called a Christian (pointing to his 'belief in Jesus Christ') while simultaneously holding anti-Biblical, anti-Christ[ian] beliefs leads me to believe there are social factors at play that motivate people to want to wear the Christian tag even though they're almost as far from believing and acting as Jesus Christ believed and acted as an atheist is.

Everybody wants acceptance. I understand its a tough thing to risk sacrificing. But if you're not a follower of Jesus Christ, why don't you just be honest with yourself and quit calling yourself Christian? When Jesus Christ stated, in no uncertain terms, that all who call him "Lord" will not be allowed into Heaven, you are *exactly* who he was talking about.

This is called an acknowledgement of human weakness. It's impossible to live your life perfectly. You cannot achieve your own salvation. That's the whole point of Christ's sacrifice. His sacrifice represents him taking our burden for us, so even though we're bad people, we still get to heaven.

But you know the old saying - you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. He's bought our salvation, but unless we acknowledge it and trust in him, we don't get it.

As for sacrifice, have you looked at Christian history? Christ himself warned that Christians would be mocked abused, or even killed by the unsaved world for their beliefs. Christians are expected to show faith and dedication. That was the point of the parable about the farmer sowing the seeds. Only a few actually showed they had what it took to be fruitful.

[AnCeallach]

i think it was Martin Luther (A prod reformer) dat started "Justification by faith alone" wich kinda meens u can only get in2 hevan by believing in Jesus nd acceptin him as d messiah nd son of god. But in d Roman catholic church its "good deeds" dat get u out of hell nd pergatory nd in2 hevan. I Bleve dat der r muslims nd pagans in heven its not Bleiving in Jesus dat makes any1 a true christian. D real Christians r ppl who try 2 live like jesus nd not sinn. I tink der was sum great philosopher dat talked about anonymus christians. Basically ppl who live gud lives nd get in2 hevan but dont beleive in Christ.

[Lord Bohemond]

Original Christianity founded by Jesus and the apostles was of course based on salvation by faith, not works. But as time went on the original church lost this idea, and became more focused on works. As they grew decadent, they became focused on money.

Protestants (started by Martin Luther) went back to faith based Christianity, like you said.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Original Christianity founded by Jesus and the apostles was of course based on salvation by faith, not works.

Really? You mean this Jesus?:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
(Matthew 25: 31-46)

Hmmm, sounds like something of a "works" man to me.

As David Deas correctly points out, the Biblical texts on the subject are abivalent to the point of being ambiguous. That's why there was (and continues to be) a debate within Christianity about it.

Your explanation that it was all crystal clear and the wicked Catholics strayed from the true teaching out of greed is a ridiculous caricature of the situation and ignores the scriptural basis for salvation by faith and works which forms the basis of most non-Protestant demoninations (ie the vast majority of the world's Christians).

As a non-Christian myself, I don't care too much either way. But your black-and-white cartoon version of the situation is plain silly, not to mention erroneous.

[Lord Bohemond]

Hmmm, sounds like something of a "works" man to me.

Your skill with the google search engine is admirable. Unfortunately, you fail to see the context of the passage.

This particular passage refers to treatment of the Jews. This is a SIGN of whether or not you have really repented in your heart. After all, if you really repented, why would you abuse Jesus's peoples? I will explain this further after the next quote:

As David Deas correctly points out, the Biblical texts on the subject are abivalent to the point of being ambiguous.

I disagree. Repentance is about the heart. Actions are a demonstration of the heart - they aren't a requirement in themselves. So a person who has truly repented will try to behave righteously. Someone who is only pretending will not.

What if a person is a beggar hopelessly addicted to heroin? Your battle against your worldly vices, such as an addiction, may be too fierce for you to be able to do anything else. This beggar may be a true believer at heart, but can't control his worldly problems.

Think of it as a car. The indicator on your dashboard tells you how much fuel you have. But that doesn't really matter - what matters is how much fuel you ACTUALLY have, not what the indicator says.

That's why there was (and continues to be) a debate within Christianity about it. [/QUOTE]

Of course. That's why there's different branches.

Your explanation that it was all crystal clear and the wicked Catholics strayed from the true teaching out of greed is a ridiculous caricature of the situation and ignores the scriptural basis for salvation by faith and works which forms the basis of most non-Protestant demoninations (ie the vast majority of the world's Christians).

Your ignorance of Christian history is interesting. Medieval Catholicism was not based on study of the scripture. Only the members of the clergy were permitted to read and study it. This system was far too fallible to abuse. If only a select few can see the scripture, they can interpret it any way they like and force their ideas on the general population. This is why they were so desperate to suppress early Protestant distributors of the the scriptures.

Fortunately, Catholicism has changed since then, and is no longer the oppressive regime it was in the late Medieval Era.

As a non-Christian myself, I don't care too much either way. But your black-and-white cartoon version of the situation is plain silly, not to mention erroneous.

Interesting how atheists show so much emotion over something they supposedly don't believe in.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

****

Since this has drifted well off-topic, I've begun another thread on the issue of faith and works in Christian theological history.

[Turbo]

Original Christianity founded by Jesus and the apostles was of course based on salvation by faith, not works. But as time went on the original church lost this idea, and became more focused on works. As they grew decadent, they became focused on money.

Protestants (started by Martin Luther) went back to faith based Christianity, like you said.

Separation of faith and works is strictly semantics in theology. They are are copartners. Good works are not good deeds. Good works are the outward signs of those who faith in Christ and have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit. These good works are meant to serve the Church as the body of Christ. Without good works you do not have the Holy Spirit.

With regards to decendence, recall please that the outward appearance of all religion mirrors the society. Taint comes with men but does not tarnish the spirit of the Church which is Christ. The only thing that Martin Luther achieved was centuries of war and a more divided Christianity. Not much of a legacy if you ask me..

[David Deas]

This is called an acknowledgement of human weakness. It's impossible to live your life perfectly. You cannot achieve your own salvation. That's the whole point of Christ's sacrifice. His sacrifice represents him taking our burden for us, so even though we're bad people, we still get to heaven.

But you know the old saying - you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. He's bought our salvation, but unless we acknowledge it and trust in him, we don't get it.

Except thats bunk.

I don't know where the idea sparked from, but for whatever reasons many evangelical Christians who subscribe to the 'no behavioral requirements or standards' theories love playing make believe that the Bible somehow demanded utter perfection before Jesus Christ came along.

Thats just not true and I wish we would stop pretending it was.

As for sacrifice, have you looked at Christian history? Christ himself warned that Christians would be mocked abused, or even killed by the unsaved world for their beliefs. Christians are expected to show faith and dedication. That was the point of the parable about the farmer sowing the seeds. Only a few actually showed they had what it took to be fruitful.

And if dedication includes actually believing as Christ did, wouldn't you agree that anybody who doesn't share the ideas and thoughts of Jesus Christ could not call themselves Christian?

Original Christianity founded by Jesus and the apostles was of course based on salvation by faith, not works. But as time went on the original church lost this idea, and became more focused on works. As they grew decadent, they became focused on money.

Thats just not true.

The most you could say is that the Bible is ambiguous with regards to what it takes to be saved. The best thing you could say is that it takes a combination of faith and good works in order to be saved.

[Earl of Rochester]

Well the fact of the matter is most people only believe in religion with the tops of their heads. If all you have to do is "believe" in a single man then this rests easy on those who don't really have any religious aspirations, but do hope to reside in heaven one day.

[Lord Bohemond]

Except thats bunk.

I don't know where the idea sparked from, but for whatever reasons many evangelical Christians who subscribe to the 'no behavioral requirements or standards' theories love playing make believe that the Bible somehow demanded utter perfection before Jesus Christ came along.

Thats not true and I wish we would stop pretending it was.

Uh, no. Mosaic law did not demand perfection. I don't know who told you that.

You would atone for your crimes with burnt sacrifices. Job for example offered daily sacrifices not only for himself, but his whole family as well, in case any of them sinned. That's why Jesus is often compared to a lamb - he's the ultimate sacrifice - that's why burnt offerings are unecessary.

And if dedication includes actually believing as Christ did, wouldn't you agree that anybody who doesn't share the ideas and thoughts of Jesus Christ cannot call themselves Christian?

It is impossible for a mere man to share the thoughts and ideas of a perfect being, the son of God. We're talking about a person who never sinned or had a sinful thought in his entire physical existence! Therefore, we must conclude your hypothesis to be incorrect.

Thats just not true. Thats just plain falsehood.

Considering the - limited - knowledge of Biblical thought you have demonstrated so far, you are in a weak position to accuse me of lying.

The most you could say is that the Bible is ambiguous with regards to what it takes to be saved. The best thing you could say is that it takes a combination of faith and good works in order to be saved.

No. The NT is very explicit. Romans 3:23,

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

[David Deas]

Uh, no. Mosaic law did not demand perfection. I don't know who told you that.

You did. Post #9 here says that it's impossible to live our lives perfectly, and so Jesus Christ came along and made it so that bad people can get in Heaven (which is pure falsehood, btw). You honestly don't remember saying that or do you just not completely understand the consequences of your statements?

You would atone for your crimes with burnt sacrifices. Job for example offered daily sacrifices not only for himself, but his whole family as well, in case any of them sinned. That's why Jesus is often compared to a lamb - he's the ultimate sacrifice - that's why burnt offerings are unecessary.

Except that animal sacrifice was not the only, nor was it the preferred, and neither was it repentance in and of itself. Jesus Christ himself taught that lesson. A simple prayer with an honest effort would more than cover your debt.

It is impossible for a mere man to share the thoughts and ideas of a perfect being, the son of God.

I don't think I've ever seen that many fallacies packed into one sentence before.

Care to explain why no one can share Jesus' ideas?

We're talking about a person who never sinned or had a sinful thought in his entire physical existence!

I find that claim to be quite circular considering the fact that Jesus was responsible for much that would doubtless be considered sinful if committed by an ordinary man. Cursing, violence, stealing, and prejudice were only fine as long as your title was Christ. Remember?

Considering the - limited - knowledge of Biblical thought you have demonstrated so far, you are in a weak position to accuse me of lying.

*laughs*

No. The NT is very explicit. Romans 3:23,

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Thats another problem with typical lay Christians; they can't read. It's too common for Christians to make a claim and then quote a totally unrelated passage that doesn't actually specifically say what they want it to at all.

[Lord Bohemond]

You did. Post #9 here says that it's impossible to live our lives perfectly, and so Jesus Christ came along and made it so that bad people can get in Heaven (which is pure falsehood, btw).

Many bad people have repented and gone to heaven. Remember the tax collector?

You honestly don't remember saying that or do you just not completely understand the consequences of your statements?

Only the jews were the chosen people before Christ. After Christ, the doors were open to all people.

And what did the Jews do? That's right - burnt offerings to God! Perhaps you should stop and consider what I am saying before you leap to make all sorts of accusations.

Except that animal sacrifice was not the only, nor was it the preferred, and neither was it repentance in and of itself. Jesus Christ himself taught that lesson. A simple prayer with an honest effort would more than cover your debt.

Burnt offerings are a function of Mosaic law, not Christ's law. Do you understand what you're talking about at all?

After Jesus, a prayer is a sign of repentance. Jesus is the offering.

I don't think I've ever seen that many fallacies packed into one sentence before.

Care to explain why no one can share Jesus' ideas?

Certainly.

IDEAS-Jesus was (is) a God. Since we have no idea what, how, and why a God thinks, we can't possibly hope to comprehend his mental processes.

THOUGHTS- Jesus's thoughts were (are) perfect and pure. Ours are filled with lusts and evil desires. So by definition, we can't have the same thought process as Jesus.

I find that claim to be quite circular considering the fact that Jesus was responsible for much that would doubtless be considered sinful if committed by an ordinary man. Cursing, violence, stealing, and prejudice were only fine as long as your title was Christ. Remember?

To quote you, I don't think I've ever seen that many fallacies packed into one sentence.

-Cursing. Cursing by itself is not necessarily a sin. "Taking the Lord's name in vain" is a sin. In other words, not meaning what you say is a sin. That's why making a vow and then neglecting to keep it is a sin.

For example - Oliver Cromwell said "Damn this king...". This was not a sin - he literally meant "damn this king", for the various atrocities he was committing against the English people.

Same with Jesus. If he condemns a man, he is not taking the Lord's name in vain... he IS the Lord, so he obviously has the power to carry out a divine threat.

-Violence. If you're referring to flipping the tables in the synagogue, may I remind you this is just destroying a desecration to a place of worship. He didn't physically harm anyone.

-Stealing. I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you are misunderstanding a passage, show it to me and I'll explain it to you.

-Prejudice. Since when was this a sin? This is Christianity, not modern liberalism.

Thats another problem with typical lay Christians; they can't read. It's too common for Christians to make a claim and then quote a totally unrelated passage that doesn't actually specifically say what they want it to at all.

How about instead of posting border-line flames, you posted an actual response to the verse?