u cant be ann atheist and stil claim to be a christian, nothing annoys me more than pure human stupidity,

KAG:

To be called a christian any kind at all depends on what God has made you to be in your spirit.

I disagree in part. While, I agree Christianity isn't just about actions - even though I've heard it's "by their fruits you shall know them" - I disagree that it has anything to do with God making anything in the spirit - it's, in my opinion, linked with what beliefs you hold.

First, 'fruit' in a biblical sense isn't necessarily about actions but about the person ie the nature. That is a common misconception; the reference is in Matt. 7;15-20. verse 15 buttresses this;
"they come to you in sheep's clothing (actions, outward appearance) but inwardly (nature, heart) they are ferocious wolves"
that implies that they would definitely act right and appear outwardly right; but the only way to know them is by discernment (which is a spiritual attribute) as that is the only way of knowing the nature of a person. That was what Jesus was trying to address in that verse. I can go into more detail as regards the use of the word fruit in the biblical context. However, you've already stated that christianity is not necessarily about actions.

As regards the second part of your statement, i totally disagree. that is your own opinion on the subject and not what the bible teaches.
that is the whole essence of the gospel. a very detailed account of the work of God in a believer had been described (prophesised) much earlier in the book of Ezeikel 36;25-27.
“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances."
three major issues are addressed in that scripture, the sprinkling with clean water (the word of God - Eph. 5;26), the rebirth and renewal of the believer's spirit (Titus. 3;5), and the deposit of the Spirit of God into the believer's spirit (2Cor.5;5).
we are recreated in our spirits by God at the point of becoming a christian and if that change of nature (ie removal of a heart of stone to be replaced by a heart of flesh) hasn't been or isn't done, one cannot be a christian (in the biblical sense of the word). That is why 2Cor.5;17 (Darby) says;
"So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new"
Furthermore, this is what Jesus tried to address when speaking to Nicodemus in John 3;5-6;
"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
the work of God in our spirits is what constitutes the new birth or the new creation. that is the whole basis of the gospel and it is consistent with and built upon throughout the scriptures. i could mention many other verses to illustrate it.

Thirdly, as regards the christian life being the result of the beliefs one holds, again the point has to be addressed as to what faith is. I've already done that elsewhere. The vehicle of faith is the means by which the work of God is carried out - they are not mutually exclusive. The beliefs a christian holds about petty issues is inconsequential (Romans 14) as long as the principle of faith is not violated (verse 23).

Would you also say an agnostic Christian is confused? Unsure? Maybe, but I don't know if confused would be a right descriptor.

I don't agree with this term 'agnostic christian'. Methinks it is self-contradictory. the reason one is a christian is because he is sure of God and what he has done (and is doing) in his life. (Heb. 11;6). That is not to say that true christians do not doubt God sometimes; however what is to be clarified is that sometimes they do not feel his presence, but they never doubt his person. The case of Job is a clearcut case. And that again brings up the issue - if you are not sure of God, you aren't a christian (in the biblical sense) John 10;14;
"“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,"
If one doesn't know him, then one is not of his. And you can't know someone in the biblical sense without being sure of the person.
I'd say you are confused as to what being a christian is and how to become one.
Cheers.

Thanks Ricadelide. You have competently handled the point i was trying to make. but i doubt if nferyn and KAG would understand. Things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned.

MP007:

u can't be ann atheist and stil claim to be a christian, nothing annoys me more than pure human stupidity,

You definitely see a lot of that around here

ricadelide:

you're using essentialist philosophical constructs to separate true from false christianity based on so called innate differences that separate the two. That's the kind of intellectual folly that regularly leads to authoritarianism and a dictatorial mindset. There is a very large grey zone in almost everything.

Didnt expect this stuff (ie the digression) to go this far but let me indulge. Let me disregard your statement stemming from a misunderstanding of or disagreement with my viewpoints as implying intellectual folly on my part. i've said before now that i didnt put my first response in the right order; ie by placing my third statement in between the second and the fourth. But let's revisit this whole thing.

I've been a little harsh in my characterisation and it wasn't entirely warranted, my apologies. Anyway, essentialism really is what created us versus them divisions and I hate it with a passion. Most of human misconduct (including the 'secular' massacres of the 20th century) stems from an essentialist mindset that reduces people to whatever characteristic they want to use to classify them (e.g. race, religion) and dehumanises those that fall outside of the preferred category.
So, once again, my apologies if I mistakenly labelled you as such.

ricadelide:

the initial poster said this

Do you call an animal a Dog because it barks or does the animal bark because its a Dog?

i wouldnt have phrased it that way but this way;
'does the dog bark because it is a dog or is it a dog because it barks?'
in which case your response about seals also barking would be inconsequential; the greater point still being - does the seal's barking make it a seal or does it bark as a result of being a seal. And if you want to be fair to it, within the realm of normalcy, the type of sound produced by a seal is different from that produced by the dog; their vocal cords have different properties so by 'nature' they can't make the same type of sound. But again, that's beside the point i'm trying to make.

I bet you can find dogs that can make sounds that fall within the range of seals and vice versa. Characteristics do not translate into essences and essences are only a translation of our mental predispositions, you can only look at these questions inductively and from sufficiently large datasets. Anyway, the argument from analogy using barking isn't sound.

ricadelide:

the real point i'm trying to address is 'what defines an object?'
I said

the observed characteristic is a product of the nature of the object.

; when i said 'imitation does not bring about a change of nature' what i was trying to address is that; the characteristic does not define the object. Is that essentialism?

It's actually the opposite (although using essentialistic labels), I misread your opinion

ricadelide:

i sit on the fence as regards essentialism. First i don't agree with the definition of 'essence'. when i said 'nature' of the object, i meant it in terms of a capacity to produce a certain outcome, which, in the case of animals will be their anatomical/physiologic nature. I don't necessarily mean that all objects of a particular nature will or must act in a certain way, and by my very point i don't agree that the characteristic is the means of definition. So i don't think it is essentialist.

No it isn't. I was jumping the gun.

ricadelide:

My point is, the characteristic does not define the object, the object is defined in itself, irrespective of whatever characteristic stems from it. By the way the object is constructed, it has the capacity to act in certain ways, and is precluded from producing certain other traits.

Yes, but all of those capacities are not sharply delimited. As I mentioned before, there's an overlap between the distribution of possible seal and dog barks. Just as a sidenote, in Dutch, we call seals 'zeehonden' (sea dogs) because of their similar barking sounds.

ricadelide:

So coming back to original post before the digression; the fact that KAG does all those things she did does (or did) not make her a christian. Although you think it is wrong; there is an intrinsic difference between a true christian and a 'false' christian. the term 'christian' is a broad appelation that doesn't take into cognizance the need for a change in nature that is essential to being a true christian, but rather relies on certain characteristics; going to church, saying your prayers etc as the means of definition. maybe i should use a different term; those traits didnt make her a disciple. However, I'd address KAG's issues in my next post.

OK, I get your point of view, but is there a sharp distinction that allows you to classify all nominally Christian people as either tru or false Christians?

lafile:

Thanks Ricadelide. You have competently handled the point i was trying to make. but i doubt if nferyn and KAG would understand. Things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned.

You're absolutely right, I don't understand. I am yet to see the first cogent explanation of what spirit or spirituality is (apart from self-referential (things of the spirit are spiritualy discerned) and/or circular arguments).

@lafile,
thanks for jumpstarting the discussion - sorry i barged in and continued without permission, lol.
Just like you said, i guess i couldn't pull it off with the 'understanding' part.

I bet you can find dogs that can make sounds that fall within the range of seals and vice versa. Characteristics do not translate into essences and essences are only a translation of our mental predispositions, you can only look at these questions inductively and from sufficiently large datasets. Anyway, the argument from analogy using barking isn't sound.

Yes, but all of those capacities are not sharply delimited. As I mentioned before, there's an overlap between the distribution of possible seal and dog barks. Just as a sidenote, in Dutch, we call seals 'zeehonden' (sea dogs) because of their similar barking sounds.

i agree and i did expect you to say that; i guess i should have made a clearcut pre-emptory statement in that regard though, lol. However, that was why i said in my statement that 'within the realm of normalcy'. In any given situation, much more so in biology, there'd always be outliers. However, since it was beside the point i was trying to make,
perhaps its not a very apt analogy; but the point still stands.

OK, I get your point of view, but is there a sharp distinction that allows you to classify all nominally Christian people as either tru or false Christians?

Yes, there's a sharp distinction experientially (on the part of the object), I as an observer however may not always be able to make an accurate judgement as regards classification, but 90% of the time one can. At least, for example, to a high degree on this forum i can make a judgement based on what and how a person makes posts (it could be that simple ).

nferyn:

I am yet to see the first cogent explanation of what spirit or spirituality is (apart from self-referential (things of the spirit are spiritualy discerned) and/or circular arguments).

That's an enormous task to ask one to do; i have an analogy in my head but i wont use it because it might not be very apt. But just to illustrate how hard it is i'd just make a reference to Lafile's post and yours.

Things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned.

(apart from self-referential (things of the spirit are spiritualy discerned)

First, his statement is not self-referential; you'd notice that the first reference is S[/b]pirit (with a capital S) and the second reference begins with a small s ([b]s[/b]piritually). Spirit and spirit aren't referring to the same concepts. Spirit refers to a [b]being, spirit refers to a realm. He made two references, but because you're not aware of either, you assume its self-referential. (Of course, i'm not blaming you for that mistake)

So, you see, from the very inception its tough to get along an argument or discussion about the spirit or the Spirit; there needs be common grounds to begin with - and the shared grounds for such discussions (between an atheist and a christian) are at best minimal. I have many books that address the subject, but i doubt they'd be helpful to you at this point - except of course some grounds from which to discuss and reason are created;  then we can make incursions into such debates (but then i wonder who would make the concessions, lol)
Furthermore, there's a huge experiential side to the whole debate and the best way to usually 'teach' one about something like that is to lead them into a personal experience themself. Like you would agree with me, there are many things that are easier 'taught' by being experienced. Once experienced, its like the difference between night and day.
Let me know what your thoughts are on what i said. Cheers.

ricadelide:

Things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned.

(apart from self-referential (things of the spirit are spiritualy discerned)

First, his statement is not self-referential; you'd notice that the first reference is S[/b]pirit (with a capital S) and the second reference begins with a small s ([b]s[/b]piritually). Spirit and spirit aren't referring to the same concepts. Spirit refers to a [b]being, spirit refers to a realm. He made two references, but because you're not aware of either, you assume its self-referential. (Of course, i'm not blaming you for that mistake)

Ok, but you're explanation doesn't add very much clarity yet. What realm and what being? How do you identify said realm and being?

ricadelide:

So, you see, from the very inception its tough to get along an argument or discussion about the spirit or the Spirit; there needs be common grounds to begin with - and the shared grounds for such discussions (between an atheist and a christian) are at best minimal. I have many books that address the subject, but i doubt they'd be helpful to you at this point - except of course some grounds from which to discuss and reason are created; then we can make incursions into such debates (but then i wonder who would make the concessions, lol)

I'm open to [b]your [/b]arguments. I'm not planning on reading any books unless I know it's worth it

ricadelide:

Furthermore, there's a huge experiential side to the whole debate and the best way to usually 'teach' one about something like that is to lead them into a personal experience themself. Like you would agree with me, there are many things that are easier 'taught' by being experienced. Once experienced, its like the difference between night and day.
Let me know what your thoughts are on what i said. Cheers.

You mean that it is extremely subjective, or at best intersubjective?

You are not alone in this. I've known people who go to church and belong to a religion even though they have no belief in God. They do it as they like belonging to that community and want their children to go to the church school etc. I don't think there is a word for it. You are following the lifestyle not the religion.

Hypocrite perhaps?
Social Christian?
Lifestyle Christian?

- have you looked at the unitarian church? That sounds like it would suit you as it is a church, yet it accepts people of all sorts of faiths, and even those without faiths, who are interested in the issues of how to live a good life etc.

ricadelide:

Actually, imitation can bring about a change in nature.

i disagree; at least in the case in reference.

Why? Imitation bringing about a change in nature is a well known occurence.

good for you, although i doubt it was the kind of change in nature i'm referring to.

While, I most likely wouldn't want the kind of change in nature you were referencing, what kind of change in nature did you mean?

again, i made a statement in reference to what nferyn said; the two statements aren't linked. ie i'm not saying a seal is imitating a dog. Sorry for the confusion.

Oh, okay.

i still maintain however that a seal's bark is distinct and different from a dog's bark. like you said, one can assume we call the sounds they make barks just because we see it being similar to that of a dog, but i don't believe one would misplace one for the other.

That's not quite right: the bark of seals are similar and can be mistaken for the bark of some dog breeds. Remember, not all dogs bark alike and certainly not all breeds sound alke either.

the bark varies depending on the size, age, etc of the dog. But that doesn't negate what i said; that's why i qualified my statement by saying 'a dog's bark'. i'm trying to drive home a more important point.

A dog's bark?

Anyways, these are trivialities.

I think they tie in well - abstractly, though - to the discussion.

ricadelide:

I disagree in part. While, I agree Christianity isn't just about actions - even though I've heard it's "by their fruits you shall know them" - I disagree that it has anything to do with God making anything in the spirit - it's, in my opinion, linked with what beliefs you hold.

First, 'fruit' in a biblical sense isn't necessarily about actions but about the person ie the nature. That is a common misconception; the reference is in Matt. 7;15-20. verse 15 buttresses this;
"they come to you in sheep's clothing (actions, outward appearance) but inwardly (nature, heart) they are ferocious wolves"
that implies that they would definitely act right and appear outwardly right; but the only way to know them is by discernment (which is a spiritual attribute) as that is the only way of knowing the nature of a person. That was what Jesus was trying to address in that verse. I can go into more detail as regards the use of the word fruit in the biblical context. However, you've already stated that christianity is not necessarily about actions.

From what I've observed, the much mentioned fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, long-suffering, etc) are almost impossible to fake and have to be, at the very least, a small part of the person's nature and can't help but be shown in the actions of the person possessing those characteristics. Yes, Christianity isn't necessarily about actions, but the actions - which are often difficult fake - can still be an indicator.

As regards the second part of your statement, i totally disagree. that is your own opinion on the subject and not what the bible teaches.

It matters noot what the Bible teaches; what matters is what the study of phenomenons of that kind reveal.

that is the whole essence of the gospel. a very detailed account of the work of God in a believer had been described (prophesised) much earlier in the book of Ezeikel 36;25-27.
“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances."
three major issues are addressed in that scripture, the sprinkling with clean water (the word of God - Eph. 5;26), the rebirth and renewal of the believer's spirit (Titus. 3;5), and the deposit of the Spirit of God into the believer's spirit (2Cor.5;5).
we are recreated in our spirits by God at the point of becoming a christian and if that change of nature (ie removal of a heart of stone to be replaced by a heart of flesh) hasn't been or isn't done, one cannot be a christian (in the biblical sense of the word). That is why 2Cor.5;17 (Darby) says;
"So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new"
Furthermore, this is what Jesus tried to address when speaking to Nicodemus in John 3;5-6;
"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
the work of God in our spirits is what constitutes the new birth or the new creation. that is the whole basis of the gospel and it is consistent with and built upon throughout the scriptures. i could mention many other verses to illustrate it.

Those are all beliefs that have little foundation in reality. People - Christians - aren't changed because of the actions of any Gods or Spirits, they are most likely changed by the beliefs they adopt and hold strongly.

Thirdly, as regards the christian life being the result of the beliefs one holds, again the point has to be addressed as to what faith is. I've already done that elsewhere. The vehicle of faith is the means by which the work of God is carried out - they are not mutually exclusive. The beliefs a christian holds about petty issues is inconsequential (Romans 14) as long as the principle of faith is not violated (verse 23).

I was reffering to the belief in Jesus as the messiah - that is the belief that makes one a Christian.

I don't agree with this term 'agnostic christian'. Methinks it is self-contradictory. the reason one is a christian is because he is sure of God and what he has done (and is doing) in his life. (Heb. 11;6). That is not to say that true christians do not doubt God sometimes; however what is to be clarified is that sometimes they do not feel his presence, but they never doubt his person. The case of Job is a clearcut case. And that again brings up the issue - if you are not sure of God, you aren't a christian (in the biblical sense) John 10;14;
"“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,"
If one doesn't know him, then one is not of his. And you can't know someone in the biblical sense without being sure of the person.

Fair enough.

I'd say you are confused as to what being a christian is and how to become one.
Cheers.

Not really.

MP007:

u can't be ann atheist and stil claim to be a christian, nothing annoys me more than pure human stupidity,

That's wonderful; it must be hard living with yourself, then. Try reading the thread first (maybe?)

English1:

You are not alone in this. I've known people who go to church and belong to a religion even though they have no belief in God. They do it as they like belonging to that community and want their children to go to the church school etc. I don't think there is a word for it. You are following the lifestyle not the religion.

Hypocrite perhaps?
Social Christian?
Lifestyle Christian?

That's a good point. I think at the time I was trying to identify with those Christians who live(d) or tried to live the Christian lifestyle, and not the fundamentalists.

- have you looked at the unitarian church? That sounds like it would suit you as it is a church, yet it accepts people of all sorts of faiths, and even those without faiths, who are interested in the issues of how to live a good life etc.

Yep, I've heard good things about it. I might visit one out of curiousity someday.

English1:

You are not alone in this. I've known people who go to church and belong to a religion even though they have no belief in God. They do it as they like belonging to that community and want their children to go to the church school etc. I don't think there is a word for it. You are following the lifestyle not the religion.

Hypocrite perhaps?
Social Christian?
Lifestyle Christian?

- have you looked at the unitarian church? That sounds like it would suit you as it is a church, yet it accepts people of all sorts of faiths, and even those without faiths, who are interested in the issues of how to live a good life etc.

what is the purpose of a church? I mean a so-called christian church, because i know there are all sorts of churches. If it is to lead people to a relationship with God and to serve as an avenue for people with a relationship with Him to share their faith and values, then what purpose does a unitarian church with no principles nor convictions serve? what is the purpose of a church that does not stand for anything? what is that church acheiving in terms of leading people to lives pleasing to God.
and what is the goal of one who decides to go to such a church? Is it to cultivate a relationship with Him? to fellowship? or just to socialize and have fun? Do this people you refer to even want to know this God? or they have concluded ab initio and would rather go to a place where light is not shown to them?

there is nothing unexpected here though (2Tim. 4:3-4);
For a time is coming when people will not tolerate wholesome instruction. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

that time of course is evidently in our face. "Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness." (2Tim 2:19)

@nferyn,

Ok, but you're explanation doesn't add very much clarity yet. What realm and what being? How do you identify said realm and being?

sorry, i wasn't trying to explain; i was using an example to illustrate my next point - which i'd repeat; lack of common grounds (premises) to begin with, make such arguements very hard to engage. i'll think of something though.

I'm open to your arguments. I'm not planning on reading any books unless I know it's worth it

considering what i have to work with i'd come up with something soon. i argue with others on this subject easily but with them i don't have to start from the very scratch. hope you get my dilemma.

You mean that it is extremely subjective, or at best intersubjective?

No. I said its best taught by experience. in my opinion, its not really subjective because the notion i have is that every human being has a spirit (which is, for lack of a better term that you can relate to, etherealy corporal); they just aren't aware of it. Some of course are, and exploit it either positively or negatively.
I'd come up with some arguements that can work for you soon. cheers.

That's not quite right: the bark of seals are similar and can be mistaken for the bark of some dog breeds. Remember, not all dogs bark alike and certainly not all breeds sound alke either.

i basically said that in my next statement. It only illustrates what my arguement was; pocessing certain shared characteristics does not confer on one a shared identity. the identity does not lie in the characteristic. That some seals will sound like some dogs doesn't make them dogs or vice versa. That somone goes to church or does good things etc does not confer on them the christian identity.
Of course, like most analogies, that's not a very accurate analogy like we concluded (because the latter talks about activities rather than attributes amongst other flaws) but it helps to illustrate the point. The real issues still remain; what makes one a christian, what is the definition of a christian? what is the identifying mark of a christian? perhaps you could provide answers to those questions.

A dog's bark?

i guess you should read my last post in the previous page. remember it was an analogy to illustrate a point.

I think they tie in well - abstractly, though - to the discussion.

I and nferyn reached a point of mutual understanding. Do read our rejoinders.

KAG:

From what I've observed, the much mentioned fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, long-suffering, etc) are almost impossible to fake and have to be, at the very least, a small part of the person's nature and can't help but be shown in the actions of the person possessing those characteristics. Yes, Christianity isn't necessarily about actions, but the actions - which are often difficult fake - can still be an indicator.

i agree and disagree with you here. I was actually going to go into that but didnt want too lenghty a writeup. However one correction: it's the fruit of the spirit, not the fruit[b]s[/b] (Gal. 5:22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is" it is singular and it also says IS, and believe me, its not a grammatical error. I wont really go into the meaning of that passage though.
That said, if you look at those qualities listed, you'd see they refer to the character (or nature) of a person. True, they can be reflected in actions and the bible actually teaches that they should result in actions. But the issue still is, good actions can stem from bad motives or from people with bad characters. A very ready example is giving; just look around at the many 'donors' we have all around. With many the motive is selfishness ie pride, vanity etc - which is 'normal' with men, but frowned at by God. And that was what Jesus tried to address in Matt. 6. You can try to read it. The emphasis in biblical christianity is on a changed heart and nature, rather than on what one does.
And, a lot of people can and do 'fake' christianity; its all about how you appear before men. However, God is not mocked (Gal.6;7).

It matters noot what the Bible teaches; what matters is what the study of phenomenons of that kind reveal.

Considering we are talking about christianity, and considering that the bible is held by christians as the reference book and final authority on issues regarding their faith, i am not surprised that we have to be arguing. If 'it matters not what the bible teaches' when talking about christianity, then when will it matter?
And what phenomena do you refer to? and from where do the so-called objects of study derive their convictions? what is the yardstick for the lifestyle practiced by those subjects (or objects) which you observed?
If we were talking about some other issue, it might not matter much. that is why i'm not likely to quote a bible verse with nferyn, but considering that we are discussing christianity, i'm surprised.

Those are all beliefs that have little foundation in reality. People - Christians - aren't changed because of the actions of any Gods or Spirits, they are most likely changed by the beliefs they adopt and hold strongly.

considering that you think the bible is inconsequential as regards christianity, i really can't be surprised. If you just said 'people', i wouldn't be so concerned although i wouldn't agree. But when you add 'christians' then i have to wonder.
what is your basis for determining what experiences christians have or go through? Do you have biblical arguements to contradict what i said? Oh, i forgot. The bible isn't important. How does the belief one 'holds strongly' produce a changed nature? If 'christians' aren't changed by 'any Gods or Spirits' then what makes them christian? why do we still call them christians? Are they lying when they say God is working in and with them? Are they lying if they say they have a relationship with God? If they are, why do we still call them 'christians'? Remember that they also believe that the christ (we name them after) is God.

But again, since I hold the scriptures important to christianity, let me justify my statement. Phil. 1:6, 2;13 (just 2 of very many scriptures that teach this)
"For of this I am confident, that He who has begun a good work within you will go on to perfect it in preparation for the day of Jesus Christ."
"for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure."

My point in all these stuff is just to show you one thing - you may have attended church, done all the activities, etc. but that didnt make you a christian, you have not met the christian God and that is why you can't understand all i've been trying to say. Now, i'm not trying to sound negative, i'm only trying to show you that in all your 'church' days, you never did encounter the reality within the church, or what 'christianity' is all about. That is not exclusive, in fact, its the experience of every true christian  you'd see here (I was in that position for up to 10 years for some others it may be more or fewer); the difference is only that they realized their need - they wanted to really know this God and not just bear the name 'christian' and they did something about it. That became their turning point. There has to be a turning point for one to become a christian. Being found in church or growing up therein and doing all the activities, or even having a good nature does not make you a christian. In your case as with many others, you've concluded that they must be lying just because you haven't touched the substance they are talking about. However, we are not lying. Its just like it is with normal friend-making; there will be a time when you didnt know the one and there will be a time when you become friends. Its possible you've been aware of the person all along, but because you hadn't met you weren't friends, its the same way with God. The only problem is; are you even interested in the possibility of there being a God, and in meeting him if He is? the answer to that will determine a lot of things.

I was reffering to the belief in Jesus as the messiah - that is the belief that makes one a Christian.

LOL, then evil the devil and his hordes will have been christians.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (James 2;19)
Add this;
"Ha! Jesus the Nazarene, what have you to do with us? I know who you are--God's Holy One!" (Luke 4;34)

Even demons (i assume you also don't believe in that, but just to make a point please indulge me) believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
Your statement is not biblically correct and is flawed in many respects. Let me explain further, i'm not saying christians don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. They do, but its much more complex than that.
First, the word used for 'believe' in the greek is much more broad and deeper than the english word which just connotes a mere mental accent. For an illustration consult the amplified bible and you'd see the difference. So ab initio, you have to understand what biblical faith means. I've addressed this issue many times on another thread.
Second, there is a difference between believing that Jesus is the Messiah and believing that Jesus is YOUR messiah. The latter has its implications, which is in the gospel message and which i can go into later. It is a personal message and has personal consequences. As regards this point, one has to understand what messiah means, and why one needs one. Someone in the latter case has already understood that he needs a messiah, and that understanding places a demand on that person to either accept and act on the said christ's finished work or reject it. Do you know what a Messiah means? Do you know why there needs to be a messiah? the term messiah is not just a title, it is also a responsibility. There is a work that the messiah had to accomplish on behalf of every individual. Do you know the work of the Messiah? Have you experienced that work in your life and reaped its benefits?
those are the real issues in christianity. Not just if one believes in Jesus as the messiah or not. Every nominal christian believes that Jesus is the messiah, but that's what they are; nominal christians. Genuine christians have experienced the work of the messiah in their lives and live in fellowship and relationship with the messiah every blessed day.

Not really.

I really have to disagree. Cheers.

there's really no need for the long replies that end up achieving nothing. The fundamental problem here is a confused mind who is having conscience issues. If truly you are convinced as an atheist then why do you go to church at all? To assuage your unsettled conscience?

Why claim to be an atheist christian, why not atheist muslim or atheist hindu? You dont believe in God and yet you struggle to fit your existence with that of the run of the mill christian. You believe there is no God and yet you read the bible? Why wasting your time when you could just as well be reading the quran or shakespeare? Lafile rightly answered you "christianity is NOT about doing but about being". Christianity or a belief in God is a matter of personal conviction and choice, there is no point postulating long and unecessary philosophy to justify your position.
Rather than waste your time going to church which is not benefiting your soul, spend that time watching a movie or sleeping. That way you wont spend wasted hours mulling over whether you are a christian or an atheist.

I knew KAG would be on this thread.  Say cheese Mr. Atheism, it's been a while .

Conscience does make cowards of us all.  Whew, thank you shakespeare, otherwise I wouldn't understand why an atheist would devote so much time to proving the inexistence of a God whose punctilious, unscientific ways obviously intensifies his mind.
Are you fascinated that most religious principles scripted in the Bible defy norm?

God exists; God is real.

davidylan:

there's really no need for the long replies that end up achieving nothing.

they might not acheive anything with the questioner but they probably will with someone else who has 'issues' that they seek answers to and come across this thread. Every person should be given a benefit of the doubt. Its not wrong to have issues with christianity, one must confront and address his doubts and contradictions so that one can build conviction. When answers are provided for those questions however and one doggedly rejects, then such a one cannot be helped. Cheers.

Jude 22-23 NIV
"Be merciful to those who doubt;" Weymouth puts it this way; "Some, when they argue with you, you must endeavor to convince;"
23 "snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh."

@ ricadelide,
I have no problems with your posts, i'm just a tad surprised at those who openly profess to be atheist and yet spend so much time struggling desperately to prove God doesnt exist, still go to church and read the bible! There's no point being hot and cold at the same time, just choose one and stick to it. Drop the bible and read shakespeare.

davidylan:

@ ricadelide,
I have no problems with your posts, i'm just a tad surprised at those who openly profess to be atheist and yet spend so much time struggling desperately to prove God doesnt exist, still go to church and read the bible! There's no point being hot and cold at the same time, just choose one and stick to it. Drop the bible and read shakespeare.

and you can drop the Koran and read/ stick to the bible, i have read the things you have said about Muslims here, quotes upon quotes about the Koran. just as you accuse atheist of blowing hot and cold, you too are being a jack of all trade and master of none with your extensive research on Islam to prove them evil and not sticking to what you claim to be ''christian''

just thought i'd point that out, i saw this post on the recent topics and just had to speak my mind . 

@davidylan,

davidylan:

I have no problems with your posts, i'm just a tad surprised at those who openly profess to be atheist and yet spend so much time struggling desperately to prove God doesnt exist, still go to church and read the bible! There's no point being hot and cold at the same time, just choose one and stick to it. Drop the bible and read shakespeare.

i actually agree with you, a stickler for balance that i am however i just wanted to balance things out. And we both know what happens to those who are 'neither hot nor cold' (Rev. 3;16) Cheers.

@kulaShaker,

I'd rather be happy that people (especially atheists) read the Bible. What they do with what they read might even be of more interest than their reading it.

Before I became a Christian, I had read the Bible with disdain. Never actually was reading it to find out any "truth" in it; but rather to find those supposed 'lies' in it that we had been told in my former religion. The more I read, the more I found out that "we" were greatly mistaken; but conversion didn't come until a long while afterwards.

Today, I don't know as much as I should about my Christian faith - and I'm still learning. The quest may be in many people; and I think people should be encouraged to find the grace to believe in Jesus Christ.



@davidylan, easy bro. . . I was worse than an athiest (not because I didn't believe in the existence of God; but because even when truth was starring us in the face, we virulently disavowed the Bible). Thank God for Christ.

no probs pilgrim

pilgrim.1:

I was worse than an athiest (not because I didn't believe in the existence of God; but because even when truth was starring us in the face, we virulently disavowed the Bible). Thank God for Christ.

Exactly, I did a lot of arguing as well in my days as a Roman Catholic, but thank God for those classmates of mine that countered with the truth. And though their arguments may not have been sufficient to convince me, ultimately the conviction by the Holy Spirit of my questionable morality (i used to be a moralist) and their superior lifestyle dragged me to my knees. I hope we get more stories soon from these threads and our friends on the other side. Cheers all.

kulaShaker:

and you can drop the Koran and read/ stick to the bible, i have read the things you have said about Muslims here, quotes upon quotes about the Koran. just as you accuse atheist of blowing hot and cold, you too are being a jack of all trade and master of none with your extensive research on Islam to prove them evil and not sticking to what you claim to be ''christian''

just thought i'd point that out, i saw this post on the recent topics and just had to speak my mind .  

err madam where is it said that being a christian is a profession that automatically prevents you from speaking about islam? Quoting the quran does not make me stop reading the bible. Maybe you should stick to the topic and not using the opportunity to nitpick simply because you have personal issues pls.

watever

ricadelide:

i basically said that in my next statement.

The part I quoted began with: "i still maintain however that a seal's bark is distinct and different from a dog's bark". I felt compelled to point out that it wasn't quite right.

It only illustrates what my arguement was; pocessing certain shared characteristics does not confer on one a shared identity. the identity does not lie in the characteristic. That some seals will sound like some dogs doesn't make them dogs or vice versa. That somone goes to church or does good things etc does not confer on them the christian identity.

Indeed. My point - especially at the time the idea of a label came up - was akin to to using the Christian moniker as a descriptor in very much the same way barking with respect to dogs is used.

Of course, like most analogies, that's not a very accurate analogy like we concluded (because the latter talks about activities rather than attributes amongst other flaws) but it helps to illustrate the point. The real issues still remain; what makes one a christian, what is the definition of a christian? what is the identifying mark of a christian? perhaps you could provide answers to those questions.

Simply put: believing in and accepting Jesus as a saviour

i guess you should read my last post in the previous page. remember it was an analogy to illustrate a point.I and nferyn reached a point of mutual understanding. Do read our rejoinders.

I have; I don't see how it affects the point that the concept of barks tie in to the discussion abstractly.

ricadelide:

i agree and disagree with you here. I was actually going to go into that but didnt want too lenghty a writeup. However one correction: it's the fruit of the spirit, not the fruit[b]s[/b] (Gal. 5:22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is" it is singular and it also says IS, and believe me, its not a grammatical error. I wont really go into the meaning of that passage though.

Fair enough. Probably due to the influence of grammar and Matthew's "by their fruits you shall know them", I'd always read that verse as "fruits".

That said, if you look at those qualities listed, you'd see they refer to the character (or nature) of a person. True, they can be reflected in actions and the bible actually teaches that they should result in actions. But the issue still is, good actions can stem from bad motives or from people with bad characters. A very ready example is giving; just look around at the many 'donors' we have all around. With many the motive is selfishness ie pride, vanity etc - which is 'normal' with men, but frowned at by God. And that was what Jesus tried to address in Matt. 6. You can try to read it. The emphasis in biblical christianity is on a changed heart and nature, rather than on what one does.

On the other hand people who give anonymously and without rancour do, to some extent, display the right qualities; however, I should add (and I know that isn't what you were implying) that it goes a lot further than simply giving. The characteristics go a lot further than that and should be taken as a whole.

And, a lot of people can and do 'fake' christianity; its all about how you appear before men. However, God is not mocked (Gal.6;7).

In my opinion, every Christian is sort of "faking" Christianity.

Considering we are talking about christianity, and considering that the bible is held by christians as the reference book and final authority on issues regarding their faith, i am not surprised that we have to be arguing. If 'it matters not what the bible teaches' when talking about christianity, then when will it matter?

Perhaps I I should have been clearer and less abrupt when I dismissed the Bible. What I meant was it doesn't matter what the Bible says in regards to how people believe and why they believe because, especially in this instance, it is trumped by factors that it couldn't have taken into account or would have discounted anyway.

And what phenomena do you refer to?

Belief and the influence of it on humans thereof.

and from where do the so-called objects of study derive their convictions?

Most often they have different beliefs and different sources of inspirations.

what is the yardstick for the lifestyle practiced by those subjects (or objects) which you observed?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could perhaps elucidate?

If we were talking about some other issue, it might not matter much. that is why i'm not likely to quote a bible verse with nferyn, but considering that we are discussing christianity, i'm surprised.

There are instances when quoting the Bible is useful in a discussion; however, I didn't think it useful in that instance.

considering that you think the bible is inconsequential as regards christianity, i really can't be surprised. If you just said 'people', i wouldn't be so concerned although i wouldn't agree. But when you add 'christians' then i have to wonder.

Not quite. I think the Bibel is inconsequential - in a sense - when it comes to the questions of why people believe, how they believe, and the influences their beliefs wield.

what is your basis for determining what experiences christians have or go through? Do you have biblical arguements to contradict what i said? Oh, i forgot. The bible isn't important.

Exactly.

How does the belief one 'holds strongly' produce a changed nature? If 'christians' aren't changed by 'any Gods or Spirits' then what makes them christian? why do we still call them christians? Are they lying when they say God is working in and with them? Are they lying if they say they have a relationship with God? If they are, why do we still call them 'christians'? Remember that they also believe that the christ (we name them after) is God.

First, the beliefs we hold are usually what affect our actions and behaviour; ergo, a new belief, strongly held, can and has brought about significant changes in the way one thinks, behaves - basically significant changes in the nature. There are untold accounts of people who, on embracing a new religion or philosophy - it matters not which, just that they join a new religion, turn their lives around and become better people. The reverse is also true.


Second, they are Christians because of the beliefs they hold. Think, for instance, of how you classify people of other religions and philosophies. A follower of Athena isn't an Athenian believer because, as one follower has claimed, because She touched his life and has made a big change for the better in his disposition, it's because of the beliefs held.

Third, no they aren't lying, they are most likely mistaken.

Finally, not all Christians believe Jesus is God.

But again, since I hold the scriptures important to christianity, let me justify my statement. Phil. 1:6, 2;13 (just 2 of very many scriptures that teach this)
"For of this I am confident, that He who has begun a good work within you will go on to perfect it in preparation for the day of Jesus Christ."
"for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure."

I see your point but, again, it isn't the magic touch of a God that makes one a Christian.

My point in all these stuff is just to show you one thing - you may have attended church, done all the activities, etc. but that didnt make you a christian, you have not met the christian God and that is why you can't understand all i've been trying to say. Now, i'm not trying to sound negative, i'm only trying to show you that in all your 'church' days, you never did encounter the reality within the church, or what 'christianity' is all about. That is not exclusive, in fact, its the experience of every true christian  you'd see here (I was in that position for up to 10 years for some others it may be more or fewer); the difference is only that they realized their need - they wanted to really know this God and not just bear the name 'christian' and they did something about it. That became their turning point. There has to be a turning point for one to become a christian.

Oh, now I know I didn't experience God, etc. That is not to say, however, that I didn't really believe, at the time, that I had met God, I had been in her prescence and had something of a relationship with her. Oh yes, at one point, irregardless of what the proclaimers of true Christianity may claim, I was convinced I was experiencing what True Christians experience(d). And, coincidentally, I had that turning point experience you mentioned.

Being found in church or growing up therein and doing all the activities, or even having a good nature does not make you a christian.

I know. Although, to just briefly tie this part to the OP, it would seem that that since those characteristics are often associated with Christianity that someone hoping to acquire labels that decribe his/her stances would just use the "Christian" moniker.

In your case as with many others, you've concluded that they must be lying just because you haven't touched the substance they are talking about. However, we are not lying.

Um, I don't think I said anyone was/is lying.

Its just like it is with normal friend-making; there will be a time when you didnt know the one and there will be a time when you become friends. Its possible you've been aware of the person all along, but because you hadn't met you weren't friends, its the same way with God. The only problem is; are you even interested in the possibility of there being a God, and in meeting him if He is? the answer to that will determine a lot of things.

I'm not not interested in the possibilty of a God - I've just found the idea for and evidence of one lacking. Basically, I don't see a God existing.

LOL, then evil the devil and his hordes will have been christians.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (James 2;19)
Add this;
"Ha! Jesus the Nazarene, what have you to do with us? I know who you are--God's Holy One!" (Luke 4;34)

Even demons (i assume you also don't believe in that, but just to make a point please indulge me) believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
Your statement is not biblically correct and is flawed in many respects. Let me explain further, i'm not saying christians don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. They do, but its much more complex than that.

While I said Christains believe IN Jesus as the saviour, you're right. I would add that Christians are those that accept Jesus as their saviour.

First, the word used for 'believe' in the greek is much more broad and deeper than the english word which just connotes a mere mental accent. For an illustration consult the amplified bible and you'd see the difference. So ab initio, you have to understand what biblical faith means. I've addressed this issue many times on another thread.
Second, there is a difference between believing that Jesus is the Messiah and believing that Jesus is YOUR messiah.

The latter has its implications, which is in the gospel message and which i can go into later. It is a personal message and has personal consequences. As regards this point, one has to understand what messiah means, and why one needs one. Someone in the latter case has already understood that he needs a messiah, and that understanding places a demand on that person to either accept and act on the said christ's finished work or reject it.

I did say they believe in Jesus, etc.

Do you know what a Messiah means? Do you know why there needs to be a messiah? the term messiah is not just a title, it is also a responsibility. There is a work that the messiah had to accomplish on behalf of every individual. Do you know the work of the Messiah? Have you experienced that work in your life and reaped its benefits?

Yes.

davidylan:

there's really no need for the long replies that end up achieving nothing. The fundamental problem here is a confused mind who is having conscience issues.

If you think the discussion is unecessary then feel free to not participate in the thread. Don't poison the well.

If truly you are convinced as an atheist then why do you go to church at all? To assuage your unsettled conscience?

For a short while after becoming an atheist it was, on the one hand, because of parental influence; on the other, I had nothing else doing and a hope I could become a Christain again. This days I only go to church when I've been invited.

Why claim to be an atheist christian, why not atheist muslim or atheist hindu? You don't believe in God and yet you struggle to fit your existence with that of the run of the mill christian.

Look, instead of being a jerk, you could at the very least try reading the thread first. If I had being a Muslim or Hindu before becoming an atheist I would have used those.

You believe there is no God and yet you read the bible?

I didn't know there was an embargo on reading religious literature. Good thing I haven't started on the Dianetics yet - I'd have had no choice but to believe in Xenu first.

Why wasting your time when you could just as well be reading the quran or shakespeare?

I have read a lot of Shakespeare's plays (some more than once) and I've read parts of the Quran. Banquo lives!

That way you wont spend wasted hours mulling over whether you are a christian or an atheist.

For you and other people: [size=16pt]PLEASE READ THE THREAD FIRST[/size]. Thanks.

[/quote][quote author=davidylan link=topic=9356.msg1271501#msg1271501 date=1183841105]
err madam where is it said that being a christian is a profession that automatically prevents you from speaking about islam? Quoting the quran does not make me stop reading the bible. Maybe you should stick to the topic and not using the opportunity to nitpick simply because you have personal issues please.

Interesting. Hypocrisy