What makes you a Christian?
I noticed this was a question or perhaps some confusion as to what is a christian.

I thought I'd place this thread up as a sort of question.

What things below make you a christian? Do you have to do all these things to be a christian? Do you have to do any of these things to make you a christian?

-Being born and raised in a christian family?
-Having a Grandmother, or an uncle or another relative who's christian?
-Being baptized as an infant or an adult?
-Being confirmed?
-Attending church regularly?
-Attending Sunday school?
-Observing christian holidays?
-Reading the bible occasionaly?
-Reading the bible daily?
-Serving in the church?
-Donating money to a church?
-Being a good and kind person?
-Participating in Communion?
-Being a formal member of a church?
-Obeying the Ten Commandments?
-Praying Frequently?
-Having some kind of spiritual or emotional experience?

^_^ Well, the most basic definition of being a Christian is believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that through him we have found the key to salvation.
Now how exactly we are saved is always up for debates, and the debates are posted in other threads.
Personally, though, I believe we need:
1. Belief that there is one God and Jesus is His son,
2. Faith in His promise of salvation and
2. Share God's love and mercy to others throughout your life

This is actually a simple question of semantics.  Defining the word won't define the belief or change anyone's claim to be Christian or non-Christian.  Anyone who says he's Christian probably is.

Being baptised a Christian.

Seriously, that's all you need to get teh label. You can be a murderer, you can be a rapist, but in the end, it's still your lable.

Hmmm... I'm not sure about the baptism thing.

Do all Christian religions require baptism? ... I suppose it also depends on what you consider baptism... in Catholicism, it involves water. I don't know about the others.

I think since Christ said that baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven, that it would be a required ordinance to be a practicing Christian, but I think people can still call themselves Christians even just by belief and not practice (because it's all semantics).

The thief on the cross, crucified beside Jesus was never baptized. And Jesus said the thief would be going to Heaven.

I believe he said he would see him in "Paradise," not heaven.  Paradise is a state of limbo before judgment.

??? Limbo must be a great place to be then. Second only to heaven, of course.

Jesus said "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
If paradise is limbo, then why did Jesus go to limbo, and not heaven?
Context is always important.

Jesus went to limbo before going to heaven, just as everyone does.

I think statistically it just means being born into a christian dominated society, and you are recorded as one by default.
I'm sure that many statistical listings assume I am.

I think most people are considered christians just because they were born into a christian family and just go along with it because they have never actually thought about the issue. They haven't made any actual choices one way or the other.

Personally I think you should only consider yourself a christian if you have considered the issue and actually decided 'yes I believe in the premises put forward by such-and-such christian sect as opposed to something else'.

Then there's the other viewpoint from specific christian sects who believe that if you don't subscribe to their specific POV then you aren't a 'true christian', for example the JW's who believe all the other christian groups have got it wrong and still require conversion to the 'true christian faith'.

Don't let semantics fool you.  Paradise simply means an intermediate place where the departed await resurrection and judgment (from the Greek "enclosure, to place a wall around").  It is probably because of Jesus' statement that the word has the connotation of heaven these days.

Paradise is separated into two sections.  The first is where those who have received the required ordinances go.  The second is where all the others go.  Because they are confused, it a place of "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth," a place of confusion.  This most probably refers to what most Christians refer to as Hell, although there is no fire and brimstone or anything like that, simply confused people in a chaotic state awaiting judgment.

It is our belief that after Jesus died, he visited Paradise to begin a missionary effort.  So those who died with the proper ordinances and lifestyle began missionary work by crossing over into the other side to help those who did not.  They help them all have a chance before judgment to repent and enter the Kingdom of God before receiving their resurrected bodies (at which time it would be too late).

For once, GHO, we are in complete agreement.  I don't think anyone should remain part of a religion unless they have had a personal conversion to that religion.  Of course, the exercising of faith in the process would also qualify even before the actual conversion.

Actually, I don't think any of these things "make" you christian.
A better way to say it is, these are things Christians do.
I think it's a common thing to mix up what it means to become a christian, with what it means to be a christian.

Let me make another comparison. Many people can hold hands, kiss each other, and even go back to the same home. but that doesn't make them married, does it? In order for that to be true, they must go through an obvious act beyond dating, and say "I do".

So in answer to the above, while any or even all of those things can happen to lots of people, many of those things are done, even without knowing Jesus(and therefore not christian)

So the factor involved in becoming a Christian cannot be lifestyle oriented. It has to relate to receiving Christ.

The above list, while something you would expect in a christian, is not what saves a person.

Oh, we don't disagree all the time, despite our worldviews.

Okay, got a question to throw at you guys. Rogue said this would be the thread to post this question in, so...

Does anyone know (either generally or specifically) what Unitarian Universalists believe?

The only thing I don't quite get, is it's trying to get people to be valued. When Christianity is all about getting closer to God.
I'd have to look closer before I would say it's christian in belief.
Resepcting people is great, but you don't have to have a relation with Jesus to respect people.

I agree with r4jc on the context matter.  Take for example a fool who once said "the Bible says 'there is no God.'"  He was right.  If you put it in context, that one passage is "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
So really, that guy was making himself out to be a fool.  Always check context before telling the whole world what you think.

What makes you Christian is sort of technical.  I have said several times that the word 'christian' means 'little Christ'.

Sorry I haven't been active for a while, I have been reading posts in my chosen fields but not giving any input.  Like I said before, I don't have time to keep up with all these theology threads, and I don't have much knowledge about them to say much.  So, basically I have been sticking to threads that I think are 'issues.'

Personally, I believe that the main way to consider yourself Christian is if: You believe in your heart that Jesus is God's son, deserving just as much glory as his father, who was sent to Earth, died on the cross, and rose again, in order to make the people presentable to him. You also must surrender your entire life, with all of its good and bad points, to Jesus, willingly allowing him to use you in any way he sees fit. The following things I also believe are must-haves in the Christian way of life:

"Being a good and kind person?
-Obeying the Ten Commandments?
-Praying Frequently?
-Having some kind of spiritual or emotional experience?"

I agree cookies. I just want to clarify doing those things you mention at the bottom are not things done to become christian. They are things christians do. If you understand the minor wording, but big differences.

I didn't mean for the things I listed at the bottom were things you have to do to become a Christian. I meant, (as I said, but would be easily missed,) that they are things that are must-haves in the Christian way of life. If you are truly a Christian, then you will naturally be compelled to do those things, and therefore will almost always do them.

I agree. I wanted to make sure for those who are non christians were aware of the difference. Most christians are aware.

I thought I'd bump this thread, as it seems sometimes unclear, or maybe a question that just pops up, but no quick answer. I figured since some people have said I make it look as if only a certain number of christians exist. The best way to respond to that for me is to say, I think there is only one who has followed the bible perfectly. Not even 5, just 1. And that's Jesus. Where I go with that, is Jesus Christ, is my savior, and my God. That's why I'm a christian. For some, it may appear I'm perfect, and making claims of it. For those in the know, (and particularly the ones who live with me, my family) know I'm not perfect. I raise my voice in anger at times, I'm impatient at times, I don't always read the bible every day, etc(yes, the list can go on)

But where it comes a factor is, I'm not a "real" christian when I stop raising my voice. I'm not a "real" christian when I have conquered being impatient. I am a christian as soon as I accept I'm a sinner, (not perfect), and accept Jesus died for me for my sins, and that I will folow Jesus. That's when I became a Christian. I didn't become one when a friend called me christian, or when I was baptized.  It makes sense I did not know or even understand the bible as I do now, as I did years ago.

But still, God has given us his word, and we are to follow that. I may or may not know more than someone who has been folowing for a year, or two, but we are accountable to God. Even when both of us Christians have a different knowledge of God's word, we are still expected to follow. We both can help each other learn more about that Word, and God.  Just as I would like to learn more of God's word, so does the other christian. It is not harmful in any manner what so ever to hear God's word, and explaining what God has said. If I tell a Christian that God says not to look with lust on another if that person is not your spouse, there is zero harm to the christian in hearing it. Teaching anyone something that God has said cannot be harmful. It can only be helpful.

I agree with everything but that last statement.

Jesus has a message, but the method his message is passed on is very important.  Thats why Jesus came as the son of a carpenter, not as a member of royalty.  I've seen plenty of people who have excellent advice, but the way they deliver it makes me not want to follow it JUST because of how it was delivered.  Jesus didn't reference the Torah nine times out of ten when preaching, and he showed incredible tact when dealing with people.

Are you sure Jesus didn't upset people by telling the truth of God's word?

Which people were the ones who got upset? The ones who followed Jesus, or the ones who didn't?
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:23, Tue 28 Dec 2004.

Yes, he upset some people, mostly the people in power.  But the vast majority of the time, he went out and talked with people drawing on what they already knew.  He talked about managing farms and fishing, not about 'the Torah says...'

He talked to people on their level, and he approached them as an equal, the son of a carpenter.

That's not entirely true. He did use the Word to correct. Specifically when questioned what was truth, he did use scripture. He used scripture as defense against satan himself.

Thought of another way to look at that. It sort of comes across that Jesus is the ultimate teacher, which he is. But does that mean unless the message comes across as the same as Jesus would have taught, should anyone who does not sound like Jesus be quiet?

Let me rephrase that. Do only the most learned of Christians have the ability to teach? Can only someone who emulates Jesus have the right to teach?

When Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness three times all three times he answered by quoting the OT scripture.

100%

Jesus used the OT quite often.

I agree with Paulos on this one.  I have read the Bible front to back and I read it very often.  I am not Christian, I do not consider myself Christian.  I accept the teachings of Jesus because I see his teachings as neccessary.  Why?  They teach people to be better people and how to go about doing that.

I know that Jesus refered to the OT on several accounts, especially when he spoke to those in power.  It was to show he knows what he is talking about.  He himself was a rabbi (if I remember correctly) and was expected to know the OT.  To back up his teachings he would have to have some form of reference, correct?  To make himself more believeable and his argument stronger, he had to refer to the OT to support him.  Simple logic.

God spoke through him and many people did not want to accept this.  Jesus threatened their way of life.  However, by referencing the OT as he did he made his argument believeable and stronger.

And now I have realized I am repeating myself and going off topic.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:12, Tue 28 Dec 2004.

But he used the OT when talking with people who knew the OT.  The Pharisees, the devil, etc.  Thats because he's talking on their level.

When he gave the sermon on the mountain, it wasn't about the Old Testament.  When he broke the fishes and the loaves, he didn't talk about the OT.  His audience wasn't biblical scholars, and so he didn't reference what they weren't studying.

I didn't say he NEVER used the OT, I'm saying he used it with people who already knew it, and didn't when the people hadn't studied it or didn't care.  He was on the same level as his audience.  I'm not saying that people who aren't great orators shouldn't ever try to talk about their religion (although, truth be told, I believe God has made us each with certain skills and incompetencies.  I consider myself well educated and well spoken, but I'm a mighty poor carpenter.  I'm more likely to talk about what I believe in and argue it with others than try to build houses for the poor.  I've tried my hand at both, and one I feel I do a lot better at than the other.)

That's verbatim and misleading.

I almost feel there is something missing from that. I need to think on that and see what rings a bell. As it is, Jesus taught as Jesus could, which means a lot. No one else is Jesus however, and no one will be able to replace Jesus. There are other styles of teaching people which are still correct.

Let's looking at eating the meat used for sacrifices. Some people thought it was ok, and others thought it was not ok.  Yet neither were wrong. Following God allows for christians to disagree but both still follow God.

Because it's out of context:

But the vast majority of the time , he went out and talked with people drawing on what they already knew.  He talked about managing farms and fishing, not about 'the Torah says...'

From what I read, I believe he spent far, far more time talking with the 'common folk' then the pharisees and the devil, and most of the examples of his talking with farmers and fishermen, the biblical references are kept to a minimum.

I think what might direct the topic into focus, is, is it wrong to use the word of God for non christians?

I did intend for the question I asked earlier mostly for Katisara since it was in reply to me.



To me, majority of the time, does not mean a certain way is now wrong.

To answer your question, it's not wrong for someone to teach even if they're poor at it, however it may not be the best use of their time (and may end up being even counterproductive!)  I'm not a carpenter, it's silly for me to go out and build houses for poor people, because they're going to be bad houses (and if one collapses in on the inhabitants, my good intentions haven't done a lot for them.)  If I'm not an orator, I need to choose the method of sharing Jesus' word that works best for me.  In most cases, I think that's simply living it.  Examples speak very loudly.

As for your first question... "is, is it wrong to use the word of God for non christians?"

It's certainly not morally wrong, the question is, is it prudent.  And I think the best way to ask this, is to open it up to the non-Christians in the group.

Do you people feel Christians sharing their beliefs are most effective then they are:
a)  demonstrating almost exclusively through example without explaining the why's and how's
b)  giving ethical, logical justifications for their actions that can stand up on their own without saying 'the bible says so'
c)  quoting the bible to you

The answer is obvious. All three are right some of the time depending on person and circumstances.

Yes, that means it changes from timing and person. what works right now on Billy, may not work on Jane, but next week, month,year is right for Jane then.

Examples work, but not always for everyone and at every moment. God has used his enemies to make someone a christian. I'm not saying we have to be bad to help. I'm saying we can all help. Whether we're new, talented, experienced, or ready.

It's not wrong, so how can it be prudent?

It's not wrong for me to tie my shoe laces together, or put them on the wrong feet.  But it's imprudent to do so.  It's inefficient.  It's imprudent for me to use a screw driver where I need a hammer.

It's also imprudent to speak when I need to act.

Your analogies are a comparison to prudence, not to God's word.

Personally, I find actions speak louder than words.  It's insulting sometimes when someone preaches me or quotes from the Bible, telling me that my way is wrong and that there is only one true way.  It makes me not listen because they're in my face.  When they practice what they preach it enlightens me.  I attend church on some days just because of this.  I feel that goodness and it never goes away.  Getting a lecture never helped me and explanation as to why they do what they do never does either.

There is a secondary purpose in these question Chaos. I think there is a reference to myself, or perhaps others who use scripture on this forum.  In reference to that, I do want to point out people were asking questions about the bible.

Sorry, I guess I misread it.

No, no. It's ok. Your opinion still counts. The point is still valid. I was just being sure that the reason it was brought up in the first place was pointed out as well.

Yes, you asked how it can be prudent.  And I never said it was a bad idea to quote  scripture to those who ask about scripture.  That's what they're asking for, just like Jesus did when people asked him what he thought about this law or that passage.

I don't understand. I asked for how speaking God's word could be prudent, and you used analogies for the definition of prudence. I wasn't asking for the definition, I know what the word means. I am still unclear on how speaking God's word to non Christians could be prudent.

Ah, I didn't understand your question, sorry.

I can think of plenty examples, as can you.  Some people go for quoting authority, in which case the bible may be considered a valid authority.  Many people look at internal consistency, or what the difference between the bible and something they know is.  I think in that case, where they're very interested in the mechanics of it all, quoting bible verse can be helpful (plus, some of the verses are very poetic, which is always a plus).  I think arguing with a LDS about why Catholicism really is okay would rely a lot on scripture.  Arguing with someone who feels Jesus is a prophet, but not God could rely on scripture.  The problem really arises when the person doesn't accept the bible in the first place, then quoting scripture is just wasting breath.

I disagree with that. I do not think scripture is a waste of breath. Scripture can change the heart. The word of God changes people's hearts. That is just an effect of it. Even if people don't understand it, it has an effect. Think of when you read from the bible daily. You know the effect it has.

But when I read it, I'm inviting it in.  There are times when having scripture quoted simply annoys me, and I feel it's inappropriate.

With God, it's not you.

Then God is mighty confusing because there are times when I simply don't want to hear scripture.

Random distraction, has anyone checked out the brick testament?  Some guy remade several books of the bible using legos.  Very well done, very funny.  Go to www.bricktestament.com

That happens to lots of people, not just you. You're supposed to read even when you don't want to. It's not because you are what makes the word work, it's the word that works on you.

I do like the lego bible stories. Very cute. I see a lot of star was lego figures being used. :)

*Bump*

Rouge, under this acceptance of what makes you Christian, Mormon's are also Christian. Mormon's do what Christian do... is it too much to ask other Christians to accept Mormons as Christian? Is doctrinal difference really that much of a hindrance, to call someone Christian or not?

What would Christ think?

Well, I would say that being Christian requires a few things.

I would say these are central to becoming a christian.


Accepting that we are sinful.
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

That the price of that sin comes with a penalty.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death

But that Jesus paid the price of our sins for us
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

A common thought here is that one has to be good to go to Heaven, but Jesus took our punishment for all of our sins, not just paying the price of some sins

That salvation through Jesus is free.
Ephesians 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.

That you need to Recieve Jesus
John 1:12
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God

So that would mean praying to Jesus, who can forgive all sins, to forgive you your sins, and to recieve him, which means you will follow Jesus, and sin no more.

Becoming christian is quite easy. However, many people get fooled into thinking that some sins cannot be forgiven, or that some sins are too sinful, and are not paid for by Jesus. For example, some people think if you murder, hat it is too much to forgive by Jesus.

The price paid by Jesus is for all of our sins, past present and future, and is complete. It's not a partial forgiveness, or something that says one needs to earn their placefor the rest of the trip to heaven.

I've seriously done all of the above, do you consider me a Christian yet? Not that I should care, for really all that matters is that the Savior acknowledges me as his disciple.

It just that it is really funny how Christians in general don't consider Mormons Christian.

Deg, I cannot say that LDS leads to the same Jesus I follow. LDS just has too many issues that are not in line with the bible that Jesus told us to follow to get to God.

Would you say it's ok for someone to leave the mormon church to head to an evangical church to find Jesus?
This message was last edited by the GM at 02:13, Thu 05 Oct 2006.

I think that is taking out of context the term being Christian non-denominational. I wouldn't refer someone to another church for salvation, but I consider people of other Christ centered faiths to be Christians even when they don't share the same beliefs.

When you speak denomination, that suggests similar ideas. LDs and Baptist are not similar.

I think you're suggesting that any description of Jesus Christ, regardless of how He is defined makes one christian. And that is what the "typical" christian is disagreeing with.

How many different descriptions of Jesus do you know are out there? When we say that we believe in the Jesus Christ described in the bible. How different can that be? Seriously, even Jehova Witnesses are to be considered Christian. Intead they say they are Arians. Arian was an early Christian too... to bad he was encarcelated and hindered in his atempt to spread out his doctrince, but it does show that there were difference's amond early Christians as well.

My point, LDS are Christians too... for we believe and follow Christ. If that is not considered to be a Christian, then I don't want to be a Christian and just called a follower or disciple of Christ.

I am tired of trying to make my point on this, so I will leave it at that.

No I understand what you're saying. But hopefully, it is now more clear why the "typical" christian does not feel the two groups are the same. It's the same reason you cannot feel ok in telling someone to leave the LDS for a non LDS chruch. It's a huge difference. If someone were to leave a baptist church, and go to an evangical church, people would say the only difference is likely the music, and maybe not even that. Few people would say that leaving the baptist church to go to an evangical church is not ok.

But you do realize there is a large change if you say you cannot recommend leaving the LDS church for another.

However people may say leaving a Catholic church to go to a Baptist church is NOT okay, and we're still the only true Christians (;P)

edit:  Missed the single most important word in the entire sentence.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:13, Thu 05 Oct 2006.

I take issue with this.  The LDS church follows the Bible, but perhaps just not your interpretation of the Bible.  There is a huge difference there.  We follow everything Jesus tells us to do.  He is at the head of our church and guides it today.  I don't think that other Christian denominations can make that bold statement...

LDS follow the bible, except when the other doctrines disagree with the bible.

Examples would be:
That the Bible says God is eternal.
LDS says God was once man.

Bible says Jesus was from the virgin Mary.
LDs says that Jesus was born of natural sexual activity from Mary with God(Holy Spirit?), plus previously with a goddess, and God.

Bible says that Jesus is God
LDS says that Jesus is a seperate god.

Bible says that satan was an angel
LDS say that satan is a brother to Jesus

Bible says that Jesus paid for all our sins in full.
LDS says that some sins were not paid for by Jesus, such as murder, or adultery.

I don't see that as misinterpretation.



And that's where we disagree as well.

LDS says that God is eternal.

No, it says Jesus is the only begotten son of God through Mary...it does not discuss sexual activity.  Also, we had a discussion before about the virgin issue, which may be a biblical problem, not LDS.

First, where does it say that "Jesus is God"?
Second, the LDS position is somewhat different than you represent, as described in the other thread.
Third, the words used in the Bible are the same words as those used for husband and wife to become "one."  So clearly the Bible does not say that they are one being.


LDS says that Satan was an angel.

This is not what the LDS believe.

There are many above.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:12, Thu 05 Oct 2006.

For crying outloud Rogue, where did you get your facts, from your Anti-Mormon stories that your pastor told to you? Most of the things misinterpreted above are quoted from personal beliefs from some early church members.

This is precisely the reason the Church discourages preaching personal opinions on the subject. They are not official doctrine. I strongly suggest that you pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ that he clear up your misunderstanding of the LDS Church. Tell him in prayer that you concluded that the LDS church but that you are willing to accept the answer that He has for you.

Will you do that?

Actually, I guess what I meant to say was that God has always been God, and not a man at some point in the past.
Brigham Young was a prophet of the Mormon church, and he said this,

Also, Deg agreed already that God and his goddess wife did have Jesus as a spirit child.



John 1:1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Who is the word?
John 1:14
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

To confirm this, Here's God calling Jesus God.
Hebrews 1:8
8But about the Son he says,
   "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
      and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Maybe not so clear. I am not sure what you mean by the same use of one. It's a number.

An angel that is a brother to Jesus.
Which sins weren't paid for in full by the death of Jesus then? The bible says the debt is fully paid.

Colossians 2:13
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

Deg, these early church members you refer to were prophets who are able to change doctrine. However, all are still current, such as God not always being God, or Jesus was born from a goddess and God, or Jesus being a seperate god, or Jesus and satan being brothers, or Jesus having not paid the sin debt in full.

The bible says we should compare against scripture to verify truth.

And where does it say this in the Bible?

So you're saying Mary did not go through childbirth when he was born?

Yes, we are all spirit children of God and physical children of our parents.  There's nothing that says that spirits engage in intercourse though...
(I'm not saying yes or no to this issue, just that it would be presumptuous of me to say one way or the other.)

Ran out of time to continue...I'll have to get back to it later.

What about what Christ said? He introduced new doctrine, would you be among the Jews not to accept his revelations on the grounds that it isn't in the scriptures?

Hey Deg, Jesus used scripture against satan.

And then it was later, after Jesus died and rose again, that it was said to be good to compare to scripture to see if it was from God or not.

Here is an analysis of this (non-LDS source) that shows it may not mean what you are stating:  http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/16.htm


Yes, Jesus is a god...I don't see any contradiction here.  He is part of the godhead and worshipped as such.  He, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings forming one God.  (See my description in the other thread about LDS beliefs.)  Again, no contradiction here.

Maybe not so clear. I am not sure what you mean by the same use of one. It's a number.</quote>
We had this discussion in another thread.  I'd have to look.  Here's some examples though.  These are all using the same words as the Bible words saying that God and Jesus are one:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

"Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which [is] in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, [even] with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand."

So this terminology is used throughout to indicate one in purpose and spirit, so you can't say it's meaning is that it means one being.  That would actually be the exception, not the rule, in the Biblical passages.


Does the Bible say otherwise?  You state it is a contradiction, so show me the contradiction.  Also, as I pointed out, in other documents like the War scrolls of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the word "bene" is used showing that the spirits, including Satan, were "children" of God.


When you are dead in your sins, you do not repent.  When you repent, your sins are forgiven you.

Colossians is speaking about a particular group of people and a particular circumstance, not everyone who ever lived on the earth.  So you can't apply that to say that all sins everywhere are forgiven.  Again, no contradiction with the Bible.

So when God decides to reveal a new gospel of a high law than the new testament, you will disregard it because it isn't found in the current scripture.

Tell me Rogue, if you were a Jew in the times of Jesus, would you have accepted him or would you have denied him... because his words were not in the scripture.

Can God no longer further reveal truths? I hope I'm bringing you closer to God here... tell me if I'm not.

The only problem here is Paul's warning about the introduction of new, false testaments.  I don't believe the Jews had any similar warning (and in fact, to the contrary, were told to expect someone who would bring new testaments with him).

But he doesn't say anything about new, true testaments.

He says:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"  (Galations 1:8-9, NIV)

I read this to say 'hey, we gave you the four gospels.  There is no fifth gospel.  If someone gives you a fifth gospel, they're lying.'  So do you think your new testament does not include any new gospels?

Not to butt in on the arguement here, but wasn't Galations written before the four gospels in the modern bible?

Also, a more perfect example of meme theory in action, I couldn't have come up with myself!  'Even anyone (even an Angel!) tells you anything other than what I've said, don't listen to it, whatever you do!'
This message was last edited by the player at 02:36, Fri 06 Oct 2006.

Shh...  I don't need you interrupting :P

Truthfully though, the gospels were an oral tradition before they were penned.  Even if Galations was penned first, it did not exist before the gospels (assuming the gospels are genuine).

Ditto to Tycho's statement.

Also, "Gospel" here is talking about "Gospel" of Jesus Christ, not to a particular book or text.  If some gives you the Gospel of Buddha or something, then maybe this comment would apply, but, for example, the Book of Mormon is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ."  Are you saying that we should not testify of Christ?  If not, then there should be no preachers, no spiritual guidance books, etc.

I think an issue brought up is of a gospel of Jesus that is different. I think it was also clear that even if that gospel is brought about by an angel was really unique.

I believe the book of the Mormon was brough about to Joseph smith because of the angel Moroni, no? I am guessing that was what made kat double check that scripture in the first place.

We should testify of Christ, but of course, we should not testify anything we do not know is true about Christ.  My reading of Paul would be that we have this set of information on Christ, any new information is questionable (specifically, any gospels.  I don't think a scientist saying Jesus wasn't buried in this hill but in that one over there is a gospel.)  I'd have to double check the dates on the age of the different books, I can't say for certain that Galatians was penned before or after the four gospels.  However the four gospels did exist in oral form.  However the Book of Mormon was, as I understand it, introduced well after Galations when the angel talked to Joseph Smith.

Now that does pose an interesting quandry.  If the testament predates Galatians but was simply lost, well we have to question the nature of Paul's statements.  Is this a new gospel or an old one?  It's certainly new to just about everyone alive at the time.  If the testament does not predate Galatians or, (and I'm sorry to introduce the possibility, I really don't mean to insult), the testament is not a valid testament of Jesus' life, presumably we should not accept it based on Paul's words.  So either way, we will need to ask for proof of age before we can accept it.

I still have to disagree with you over the meaning of "gospel."  Gospel is the all encompassing church of Christ, not any specific book or testament about him.  If someone preaches something that is contrary to the church of Christ, then I can understand that.  By that same token, you could say that the organization of the Catholic Church in Roman times violated this edict of Paul and added many rites, positions, etc. that did not exist in the first Christian churches.

In essence, this is the very foundation of the LDS church -- that the Catholic and Protestant churches had strayed from the original church founded by Christ and the apostles.  That's why we call it the "Restoration" of the Church of Jesus Christ.

So in that terminology, using rogue's analysis, I would say that the LDS church is the only Christian Church, and the others are not because they have altered things.  But again, I believe personally that they are Christian in their hearts, just a different type of Christian.

Absolutely. Indulgences would be a key exaple. The concept of the indulgence, is that you could buy your sins off. If you sinned, you gave money to the catholic church, and the priest or pope would forgive the sins.

It's interesting to look at the history:

Martin Luther believed the Catholic Church had strayed from the preaching of Jesus and branched off...and the Protestant churches followed.  The LDS church believes that the Catholic Church and Protestant churches both went off the mark.  We don't really see it as a blame or anything, though.  Instead, by the time Protestant churches began to be established, much of the plain and precious things were lost and had to be "restored," such as priesthood authority, concepts of heaven and hell, etc.  In fact, our prophets have said something like they believe Martin Luther and the development of Protestantism was necessary to prepare people and society...a stepping stone if you will...so that Christ could restore the fullness of his gospel.  (We believe the same thing about the founding of the country and that the founding fathers were inspired of God.)

Interesting parallels even with differing religions.

http://www.godtube.com/view_vi...ype=&category=tf
A link to a sermon meant to really challenge what it means to be a christian. It specifically addresses the difference between saying you believe in Jesus as your savior, and the life changing difference that will be made when you accept Jesus as your savior.

Interesting stuff, TitL.  Much as I like to see christians taken to task for not acting they way christ told them too, it was a bit over the top for me.  Definitely in the "scare'em into belief" side of things, which I guess works for some.  Things that stood out to me:

-apparently God hates us, or at least those of us not "saved."  This guy seems offended by those who claim that God loves everyone, and says that since God "is" love, he has to hate certain actions.  He didn't explicitly say that He hates any particular people, but that was what he seemed to be implying, especially when he said that people were like "filthy rags" to God.

-He pointed out that christians have just as many (or more) divorces and abortions as non-christians, and act just as immorally (though he's not very specific on just what that means).  This is something I've brought up before, though it never seems to be agreed.  I wonder if this guy saying it will convince more people here.

-He brings up the idea of false prophets, and says that they'll never tell you that you're wrong.  Granting for the moment that there are people out there who are really just maliciously trying to mislead you (rather than people who honestly believe what they say, and just happen to be wrong), I don't think it's true that they'll never tell you that you're wrong.  A false prophet will presumably tell you whatever you need to hear in order to do what he wants you to do.  If you're more likely to act after being told you're wrong than after being told you're right, then a false prophet will tell you're wrong.  And since the people who watched this video seem to be quite impressed with it, it seems that being told they're wrong is what they want to hear, or at least what gets them moving, so if I wanted to get them to act, I'd do better to make a video more like this one than one that told them they're all fine.

-One of the guy's main points is that accepting jesus in a prayer doesn't save you.  He says you absolutely have to change your life and your actions to be saved.  This, it seems, is what Heath has said over and over, and then gets accused of putting a "works" requirement on salvation.  Again, I'm wondering if this guy saying it will carry more weight than the umpteen times it's already been stated here (and then strongly disagreed with by evangelicals here).

-He also says that you'll know you're saved if God makes a difference in your life.  God seems to have made a difference in Heath's life, does this mean he's saved?  God (under a different name, but still the God of abraham) seems to have made a difference in many devout muslim's lives.  Should we accept that they're saved?

-In the verse he's talking about, it is said that Jesus will say "I never knew you."  This seems like an odd statement from an omniscient being.  I assume this is meant figuratively, but it still a strange turn of phrase.

I think you may be placing your own spin on things there. But the filthy rags part may be taken from scripture. I don't specifically remember the pastor stating filthy rags, and the context, but I did find this in scripture,


I was thinking he was using the numbers to show that the christians in the USA don't mean much if they are the same as the non christians. I think he was pretty clear that he was calling people on whether they were really christians, or really people who claimed to be christians.

We have to keep in mind, simply claiming to be christian in a study doesn't actually make you a christian. I believe Canada and USA claim to have about 75% christian population. That's pretty clear to be untrue when looking at laws, and the society itself.

I'm wondering what the percentage of christians that divorce that pray and read the bible together daily? I'm betting it is not even close to 50%. If there is research that includes that, I'd really like to see it.

I think I'd have to hear the context of why he brings that up.

LDS really do believe that works is a part of what reward you will receive in heaven. Only LDS will make it to the highest level with God, according to LDS. Heath posted a while back several scriptures that was to bring up that point about works, and reward in heaven based on works. I believe you commented that he made some good points to show works did apply to what happens in heaven. To me, it looks like you're bringing salvation and works as a team. Works are only a way for other people to know if the person is really christian. It was never about salvation. I think you might be adding salvation to this, when that wasn't the point being brought across.

The main point was that if you have an encounter with God, you will have a life changing impact. The pastor had a parable about how one person who claimed he was late for work because he had an encounter in being 10 feet away from a speeding logging truck. The idea being that being int he path of a speeding logging truck will leave a lasting impact on your life. The parable being was that God is bigger than any speeding logging truck, and as such, an encounter with God will make a life changing impact.

In other words, if you are really a christian, you living faith will be seen in your actions. Your actions do not save you. The pastor did not say or suggest your actions will save you.

I don't think the pastor's message was about if there is a difference in your life, you're now christian. I know that one can tell a christian by what actions may go around them, but that's not the same as seeing a muslim, or a LDS, and assume they are following Jesus as described in the bible. Maybe seeing that change will want you to ask what's going on in their life, and questions will arise from that. But that's not all that confusing as to which one is coming from the bible, and which one isn't. The qu'ran, the book of the mormon are different than the bible, and I think that would be quick to tell.

In the bible, it's all about what God was doing for us, giving up His son, as a payment for our sins, so that our payment is paid off in full. Nothing we do can elevate us any higher than what Jesus has done.



Not particularly odd, as the bible uses figurative language at times.

That's to help with context. In this scripture, we can see that Jesus is speaking about those who claim to follow Him, but aren't truly following.
This message was last edited by the player at 07:01, Mon 28 Jan 2008.

Okay, first off:  I'm really, really bad when it comes to "debate" or "argument" so while I'm going to try to back up the points I make... well, I tend to run away from disagreement/conflict.  In brief: it's not you, it's me.  *chuckles*

Now, on to my various replies...




Actually, I was of the opinion that Jesus was talking more to those who would lead His people, rather than the people doing the following.  It is my opinion that we (all of those individuals who call themselves Christian) should take this to heart and do our best to 'do it right', but I do think the target of this specific verse was the errant preacher rather than the errant congregant.


---





It is my understanding that what God hates is sin.

And... 15.37 minutes into his sermon he says that even our greatest works are as filthy rags... so yeah, it was in there.


---------



Now, I listened to about 25 minutes of his sermon, but I've had enough.  I believe that I understand the gist of what he's saying, and that same message has been going around lately.  I've heard it - in various forms - via the radio, in our group Bible study... for that matter, the last month of sermons the Pastor of the little church I attend has given have been on this general topic.  And that general topic is, in brief, "Don't be a surface Christian".  IE: If you say it, mean it... have your life/actions/behavior reflect what your words are saying/the label you give yourself.


I have some personal issues with the speaker on that specific video, so I haven't heard the last half of his sermon yet.  I'm contemplating listening to the rest but... eh... he irks me on personal levels.



Still, I think the point was "stop being complacent".  Enough of this "once is good enough" attitude.  It's like the sermon I heard yesterday: It's not the number, but the quality.


In order to be 'saved' the requirements are simple; ask God to save you.  That's pretty easy.  And, each of us has the right to end our "christian" journey there.  But there's more available to being a Christian than just salvation/being "saved".

Let me think of an analogy to explain what I really mean to say...

If you buy a car, you sign on the dotted line and poof, you own a car.  It's done.  You own the car.  It's yours.  You can be satisfied with that.

But, there's more.

You have the option of maintaining your car.  You can drive it.  You can actually use it to take you places.  You can do awesome things with your car.  You can use it to make money or be of service to others or as a tool for freedom.

If you want more than just car ownership, there are things you should do... not "have" to do, but things that will make that car more valuable, more worthwhile.

You can put gas in the car.  You can do regular maintainence - such as oil changes, tune ups, tire rotations, etc.  You can do additional stuff too... you can get your car detailed or have a sun roof installed or get a really cool stereo and speakers.  You can get GPS and blue tooth and all those other nifty things.

Some christians are satisfied with just owning a car.  Some christians are satisfied with just the bare-bones model.  Some christians want "the works" - awesome stereo, leather interior, heated, massaging seats, leg room, head room, passenger room, the tow package...

It is not sin to just own a car.  It is, however, a waste.




While this snippet of verse is specifically pointed toward speach, it is applicable (I believe) to life in general.  Each of us is accountable to God for our choices.  Were we satisfied with just owning a car, or did we put forth the effort required to get the upgrades and such?

Looking at context, if you keep reading Matthew 7, you see this,


It does say everyone that hears those words of Jesus, not just the leaders. I think it's pretty realistic to expect that there are some followers that claim to be christian, but really aren't.

I do agree with you that we do need to do our best to follow Jesus. It would be clear that means a new christian would not have learned as much as someone who has been learning what God wants for many years. Though there are people who have christian for many years, and forget what their purpose is. So it's possible that a new christian has more heart for God than the older christian.





Yes, I went back and checked out that part, and the pastor was indeed quoting the scripture from Isaiah. Speaking about our works are like filthy rags.




I've seen that a lot too. You'll go to bible study, and see one thing, and then you see the same message in the sermon that day, and then while reading a book, you see it again. The first few times it happened, I was amazed, but now I kind of expect it. Now like some circus trick or anything. But I have learned that when God has a message, He's going to keep it on you till you learn it.

I'm curious, what irks you about him? As christians, we're called to support, and bring us closer to God, further from sin. Sometimes that does mean pointing out the issue.

My issues with the speaker:

1.)  Attitude of superiority

I felt a "better than" attitude coming from him; as if Southern Baptists had the real truth and no one else did.  While I understand that he's speaking primarily to youth and in an area where Southern Baptists are more common than they are here (in the Pacific Northwest), but the impression I got was that he believed he was right and everyone else was wrong.

I got enough of that "We have the truth and they don't" attitude from the church I grew up in.  Whether or not he really feels that way, it is the impression I got; thus, it's my issue.

2.)  Similarity to a previous National leader

He reminded me, whether it be mannerisms or accent, of a previous national leader for whom I had very little respect.  Though it's "guilt by association" it still affected my ability to listen and be receptive to his message.

Honestly, had I been there in person, I may well have walked out.

3.)  Allusion to martyr-dom

Before he began, he set up his sermon by saying that I (the audience) wasn't going to want to hear him; that he was going to be asked to never come back; that he was going to be hated.  Those things/statements turn me off.

While he may well have simply been stating his bias/reacting to previous experiences, I heard it as if he were comparing himself to Christ - as if he knew he was going to be crucified but that it would be worth it because he was imparting this tremendous gift to the world with his sacrifice.


These are the impressions I got from him.  And I got them within the first minute and a half of his time on stage.  I don't know what his true motivation was; I want to ascribe humility to him.  My own previous experiences are such that listening to him objectively is quite difficult.

So, they're completely my issues and have little or nothing to do with him or his message.  And, as I said, I think I understand the gist of what he was saying.  It's definitely been going around.

Makes me think that God is calling His children to be a bit more accountable.  Are we His in name alone or are we actually going to take responsibility for our birthright?  Down to Jacob and Esau: Are we going to accept and hold on to our birthright or are we going to sell it for dinner?

I see. I can understand that view. It's only a very short snippet of who that man is, and as such doesn't have other balancing factors such as the rest of his experiences as you say, or even earlier or later talks.

It's kind of like making a judgment call on people on this board. We only see them in heated discussions that they are passionate about, but don't have their family lives, or activities or interests to give us a complete view of the person we are talking with. At least we have an opportunity here on this board to learn more if we choose.

Agreed completely!

Wasn't able to find anything that specific, but I did find this:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
I'm guessing that you'll consider people who get divorced, but call themselves "born again" christians to be not real christians, and so not count.  But that's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Obviously the percentage of people who call themselves christians AND don't get divorces that have had divorces is quite low.  Zero, in fact.  If you define the group of "real" christians as people who don't get divorces, then you'll clearly have no divorces for that group.

I think your line of thinking is the "it stands to reason" type that shows up a couple of times (on both sides of the argument) in this link.  People think "well, we're more moral, so clearly we should have less divorce" rather than look at the actual numbers.


No, it's you who are treating salvation and works as a team.  Yes, LDS believe that there are different levels of the afterlife, and that works are how you are judged, but Heath (and all the other LDSers here) have repeated over and over that you won't get into any level if you don't have faith.  The pastor in this video made it quite clear that if you don't have works, then you don't have faith.  That means if you don't have works, then you won't get salvation.  Not because works are what get you into heaven, but because a lack of works shows a lack of faith.  He's said the exact same thing that Heath as said, but you feel he (the pastor) is in line with your view, but Heath isn't.


Neither did Heath.  He said your faith saves you, but your works indicate your faith.  Your faith can be judged by your works (in a negative sense, at least), since if you don't have works, don't have faith.  Works alone won't get you salvation (as Heath has pointed out every time this topic comes up), but there is also no such thing as faith alone.  As you say, if you're "really" a christian (ie, really have faith) then you'll have works to show for it, even if those works don't save you.



I think you misunderstand my point, though.  He's claiming that "a difference" in your life implies you've been saved.  But there are plenty of ways to get a "difference in your life" other than divine intervention.  Plenty of people believe that God has made a difference in their lives, but you think it's not actually God at all.  You'll happily accept that something other than God can make a difference in the life of muslims, mormons, jews, whoever, even if they are completely convinced that it actually is God making the difference.  But when you're completely convinced, or anyone who shares your religion, you accept it as if it's obviously true.

I started watching that video that Trust in the Lord linked.  http://www.godtube.com/view_vi...ype=&category=tf

I thought he kind of went around the bush a bit, like when he started by saying that he wanted to open with a prayer but he took three minutes telling us about how he was about to pray.  I thought he had some good things to say, but perhaps could have said them with more love for his audience.

This topic reminds me of Monty Python, specifically the "Life of Brian."

I'm not trying to define real christians as ones who are perfect. Rather, I'm suggesting the studies that claim christian have an equal divorce rate to non christians, the term christian used in the study justmeans the person says they believe they are christian, and that's whether they believe, follow, go to church, hate, fight, lie, cheat, steal, etc.

I'm not saying not sinning makes you a real christian, though I am saying the studies that call people christians are clearly not all christians.

Further, I am saying that those who have a real relationship with God are less likely to divorce.

That is not the same thing as saying real christians do not divorce.

Does that clarify a bit more?


It must be the way I'm writing in posts, because I want to clarify that works and salvation do not go together.

No. I think we need to step back and go over the points. I'm talking how LDS use works as part of what sort of salvation one receives. And the pastor from that message was clear to point out that works are not any part of salvation in any way. The idea being it does not matter what works one does, the pastor was not saying that works is in anyway tied to a reward in heaven.

I'm coming from the direction that the pastor was not tying works to salvation, or in any way would works elevate your status in heaven. I was trying to point out the comparison by Heath, and the pastor are different as LDS do feel there is a way to elevate oneself in heaven by ones works.


I think this is addressed by my previous answer as to context of works, and LDS.



I didn't misunderstand that. I was pointing out that the pastor's context was clearly Christianity, and that couldn't have been missed. In other words, the pastor was not saying you're a christian if there's a difference. He was saying if you're a christian, and there's a difference, then you'll know you're growing towards God.

Going to the bible, you would see it does explain some of these differences you would feel, and see for changes.

The fruits of the spirit.

Why?  Because they don't give the results you expect?  This is what I'm talking about.  You assume that 'real' christians will have a lower divorce rate, and thus any study that shows that 'all' christians have a higher divorce rate (or equal) must be due to the 'non-real' christians.  It's assumption on your part.  And it leads you to the conclusion that 'non-real' christians are the ones who do get divorces at a higher rate.  You're assuming that people how fight, lie, cheat, steal, etc., don't have a relationship with God (or whatever it is that defines a 'real' christian in your eyes), despite what they tell you about their relationship with God.  You're judging the 'realness' of their faith based on their actions.  Specifically, you're judging the 'realness' of their faith based on their rate of divorce.  And then, circularly, claiming that 'real' christians will have a lower divorce rate.  It's self-fulfilling.  It could be made about any group, christian, atheist, people who's name starts with T, whatever.  If you say the 'real' members of group X don't get divorces, then it's tautological than the 'real' members of the group will have zero divorce rate.  In order to make this work, you need some independent way to determine if people are 'real' christians, other than the success or failure of their marriage, and then compare that to their rate of divorce.


No?  The guy in your video would say otherwise:  If you don't have works, then you don't have faith, and if you don't have faith, you don't get salvation.  Thus, no works implies no salvation.  That was his argument.  Are you disagreeing with him?


I think the pastor disagrees with you, then.  He made it quite clear that if your actions aren't good, you're not going to heaven.  You can't live a 'worldly' life and get into heaven, he tells us.  Again, you might disagree with him, and fair enough, but it seems odd to say he didn't tie them together when he made it quite clear that if you live a certain way, you won't get into heaven.  He made it clear that your actions have to change if you want to get into heaven.  If they don't change, you don't get in, because you clearly don't have real faith.  The works can be viewed as a necessary but not sufficient condition for entry into heaven.


Exactly!  And that seems to me to be a false statement (or at least not demonstratably true).  Just as "if you're a muslim, and there's a difference, you'll know you're going towards Allah" is false, and "if you're a buddhist, and there's a difference, you'll know you're going towards the buddha nature" is false, etc.  A change does not actually imply correctness in your beliefs.  Changes can come from many sources, not just 'getting closer to God.'  A change in your life does not imply that you're on the right track, as there are many examples in the world of people's lives change whom you would say are not on the right track.  He's trying to equate a change in ones life with correctness of ones beliefs in the particular case of christianity, when we can see in many other cases that this equation does not hold.  It's the same kind of thing that makes other people of other religions convinced that they're right, when you're sure they're not.  It's the same kind of mental trap that's used to re-inforce false beliefs in other religions, so I'd think one would want to be cautious about using it in ones own.  It's the kind of assumption that leads one to believe more strongly what one already believes, but the assumption is false, and shouldn't lead one to that conclusion.  It leads to undue confidence in ones beliefs by making an unjustified assumption.

I think it's fair to expect 'real' Christians to have a lower divorce rate, just like it's fair to expect real Hindus to have lower attendance at McDonald's.  The idea that people who believe something is wrong are less likely to partake in it compared to people who don't believe it's wrong isn't especially controversial, and if I were shown a study saying just as many Hindus eat at McDonald's as any other religious group, I think it would be fair for me to ask for more details (such as 'how do they define Hindu?')

And if the answer were "people who answer 'Hindu' when asked 'what's your religion?'" would you then assume those people were liars?  It might be fair to expect a lower divorce rate, but to assume it a priori is different.  It's fair to ask for more details, but it's another thing to assume the details and state them as fact.

The survey in question essentially says, "despite what we might expect, evangelical christians have higher divorce rates than other groups, including atheists."  TitL is essentially saying, "well, that can't possibly right!  All the people this survey said were christians must not actually have been 'real' christians."  He's letting his position affect his opinion of the evidence, rather than the other way around.

I think this happens all the time when christianity comes up.  People just assume that christians should be more moral, more generous, more this, and more that.  When anything indicates otherwise, they say "well, it must be true, so the evidence must be wrong."  In this particular case, it's assumed that 'real' christians are more averse to divorce than anyone else.  This essentially defines 'real' christians as those who are opposed to divorce, rather than based on what they believe about Jesus, say.  It may be (and seems to be from this survey) that people who believe that Jesus is their savior aren't actually any less likely to get a divorce than anyone else.  Belief in Jesus doesn't seem to translate into additional avoidance of divorce, despite what anyone might expect.

As an analogy, it'd be like someone looking at the data on catholic priests sexually abusing children, and saying "well, obviously this isn't true.  Catholic priests are opposed to that, so clearly none of them would ever do such a thing.  The data must be wrong."  Or perhaps saying "well, those weren't 'real' catholic priests.  They must have just been pretending to be catholic, because a 'real' cahtolic priest wouldn't do that."  It's denying the data based on an assumed conclusion.

The problem is that in many cases religion is really more cultural than about belief systems.  While I was in Venezuela, 90% of the people claimed to be Catholic, yet churches were about half empty except Christmas and Easter.  Palm Sunday (which is during lent, a time of fasting and abstinence) is celebrated by a huge parade where everyone drinks lots of beer, eats too much and has lots of sex.  So sort of like Judaism, where it refers to a religion, a culture and a race, but someone can be Jewish without believing in God, Christianity seems to be heading that way.  I'm fairly certain if you asked people who attended church weekly, who had received communion in the last 6 months (a requirement for Catholics) or who had done some other actual action towards their belief, the results would have been very different.

That isn't quite the same as asking about Catholic priests, since a priest, by definition, must be actively living that.  You can't be a priest without going to church.  So there's a clear, religious definition for what makes someone a Catholic priest, allowing for a well-defined study set.

Do you see how this is assuming a result, though?  You're "fairly certain" of it, so if something says otherwise, it must be wrong.  But this is actually at least a step in the right direction, as you've defined 'real' christians in a concret way as 'those who attend church weekly," etc., and we could possibly test based on that.

There's also the problem (which was pointed out in this survey), that any 'real' christian who got a divorce might feel motivated to leave their church for fear of ostricism.  The lack of divorcee's in any given church pew might have more to do with weeding out the people with divorces, rather than with preventing divorces.  A church that kicked out everyone who got a divorce would have zero people with divorces showing up each week, but that wouldn't indicate a lower likelihood of divorce among its members.

By the way, the same survey finds that catholics have a lower divorce rate than evangelicals (it suggested as a possible cause the pre-maritial councilling that the catholic church encourages).  Do you consider this a likely 'real' result, or is it just that more people who call themselves catholic are 'real' catholics than for other denominations?


This is sort of my point.  TitL is introducing a poorly defined group (the 'real' christians), and making statements about them based on no evidence, just his assumptions.

Consider this:  The survey found that evangelicals had higher divorce rates than atheists or agnostics.  If the evangelicals was a group made up of 'real' christians and 'fake' christians, and the 'real' christians had (by assumption) almost no divorces, then the 'fake' christians must have had even higher divorce rates than the evangelicals as a whole.  So the situation is even worse than the survey indicates:  people who believe in God, but don't practice are significantly more likely to get divorced than people who don't believe in God, by even more than indicated in this survey.

Isn't it easier to say that Christians as a whole, whether they're 'real' christians or not, are just human beings like everyone else.  However well intended they may be, they don't always live up to their own ideals.  Sometimes they do the wrong thing, even though they know it's wrong.  Not because they're christian, but because they're human.  I would argue that being christian ('real' or otherwise), if it has any affect at all on divorce rates, it is likely less important than the known factors like income, education, age of marriage, etc.

No, I agree I'm making assumptions (or a hypothesis, if we want to approach this scientifically).  Like I said, I just think it's fair to ask for more detailed information on the study to separate out miscategorized groups.

However, I would agree it's rather disenheartening to realize that either Evangelicals really do have terrible divorce rates, or that non-practicing Evangelicals have REALLY terrible divorce rates.  Clearly they should all become Catholic.

Here's a link that show that attendance in church does make an impact on the amount of divorces.
http://brewright.blogspot.com/...n-divorce-rates.html
It was talking about a 20% less divorce rate based on frequently and sporadically attending church.

I do realize what you're discussing Tycho. From my perspective, a real christian would have a bigger impact from God than a non real chritian. I know you feel God is a placebo effect, but I really do feel God is real, and as such will help strengthen a marriage. So, yes I will assume that being a christian will have a different result in one's life.


The pastor did not state that works is a part of salvation, and he did not imply it. He specifically stated that works is not a part of salvation, so it could not have been implied.


I don't think the pastor disagrees with me. It appears that we got something different from the words he spoke. I do feel biblically that's possible. That with Jesus, the veil is taken away.





I disagree. I think there is an impact of having Jesus in ones life. I think truth would have a bigger impact that falsehood.

I was trying to bring the point back about the pastor was not saying a change in one's life makes you a christian, like you originally stated. I was pointing being a christian will have an impact on your life, which the pastor did state.

I was clarifying, or at least I was trying to clarify what the pastor said or didn't say.

This is actually much better! Real numbers from which to make a real argument. This I'm willing to accept (though there seems to be some difference between what he says the Barna survey says, and the numbers that the Barna survey actually reported, but I'm not too worried about that). This is something that's convincing (or at least convincing enough that I don't feel the need to double check their numbers).

Now, just as an illustration, imagine you posted this, and I said, "well, clearly this survey is wrong. It simply stands to reason that real christians would get divorces more, so surely most of the people who claimed to be christians but didn't have divorces weren't 'real' christians. If I said that, I imagine you'd be rather frustrated with me. Until you posted this, that's exactly what you had been doing. And all you had to do was post evidence to convince me!


And that's fine. But stating it as a fact is different. I know you believe X, Y, and Z, but expecting me to accept what you believe just because you say so is a bit silly.


He made it quite clear that just believing that Jesus is God isn't enough. He told all those people he was talking to (all of which presumably believed that, being at a baptist youth convention), that that wasn't enough. He told them if their life didn't change, then they weren't really saved. In fact he told them that most of them weren't saved, and he could tell based on the way they acted. If a human being can tell if someone is saved or not based on their works, to me that says works are related to salvation, even if it's not a causal relation.


Fair enough. If you don't think he said that your life had to change in order to be saved, I'm not going to have much luck convincing you, I imagine.  Out of curiosity, what do you feel his message was in this sermon?  (real question) As best as I can sum it up, I'd say it's something along the lines of:  "If you believe Jesus died for your sins, but you live your life like everyone else, and don't change your ways, you're not really saved.  Going to church, praying, singing, and all the like don't get you anything if you just go back to your normal, non-godly life afterwards.  Your life has to change if you're saved.  If you're not taking actions to have a better relationship with God, you're not really saved, even if you believe Jesus died for your sins."  Do you think that's a fair summary of what he was saying?


I didn't say that he said a change means you're a christian. I pointed out that he said that seeing a change meant you're saved. He didn't say just that being a christian would impact your life. I don't disagree with that (though I also don't disagree that being a mormon, jew, muslim, or anything else will impact your life either). He said that you'll know you're saved if your life changes. I'm saying that's not true. I might allow the related claim, "if you're saved your life will change." That doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. But what I object to is the claim that a change implies that you're saved, since we see changes due to all manner of different causes. This shouldn't be too controversial here. You agree that all kinds of different people experience changes in their lives without being saved. If you agree with that, then you disagree with his claim as well.

I did give the illustration of 75% of the country claiming christianity, but obviously our society does not live like what is said in the bible. I made a direct connection with claims verus actual lifestyle. I just want to clear up what was claimed, and what wasn't. From experience, we know the studies didn't group it to the really real christians, and the ones that have a grandmother tell them they are catholics. When you have that knowledge, you can make some claims, and justify that more information will alter the conclusion.



I would think considering my posts I'm not one to lie, or make things up. I don't accept that everything you say must be proven before written down either. There is an assumption that no one can remember where and when they have learned of all their knowledge. Simply put, claims can be made, and not all will be shown as fact, because you may not remember where you read such a study.

It becomes your choice to trust me or not trust what I say.


I agree with the first part. Believing Jesus is God isn't enough. Even satan believes that.

However, it has been clarified by me, and the pastor that works do not lead to salvation, and so it cannot be implied.

running out of time. I'll come back later tonight for the rest.

The divorce issue is getting us a bit off topic, so I'll move it to another thread.


It's not an issue of honesty, TitL.  When I disagree with you, it's not because I think you're lying, but because I think you're mistaken.  If you expect me to believe every word you say, just because I think you're an honest person, I'm afraid you're in for some disappointment.  If you say something that I don't think is correct, I'm going to ask you to back it up with some sort of evidence.  That's not me calling you a liar, but saying I think you may be mistaken.  I'm sure if I said "all historians agree that the bible was complete made up, and Jesus never lived," you wouldn't believe me.  I'd expect you to say "where do you get that idea?" or perhaps go find a historian that didn't think that to prove me wrong.

So yes, you can say whatever you like, and not back it up.  But if you expect me to believe you, it'll usually take some supporting evidence as well.



Okay, belief isn't enough.  Action is required.  You seem to agree with that.  "Clarifying" that works aren't needed doesn't make the part you agree with go away.  Action is what most people mean by 'works.'  If you mean something else, please let us know.  But if you have to do something, not just believe something, to me that sounds like works are necessary.  Not sufficient, but necessary.

Looking forward to it.

Yea, that's a pretty fair sum. Going to church doesn't make you a christian. Making tea for the church functions doesn't make you more christian. None of things make you a christian. Accepting we have chose to do things against God's laws, and that Jesus died as a punishment for us, so that we wouldn't have to pay the price, and finally, accepting Jesus as our savior, and living with Him in our lives.

Having Jesus in your life will make an impact on your life.


I know the pastor did not say that seeing a change in your life means you're saved. It appears this is being taken out of context of the pastor's message. Again, the pastor clarified this by stating it is not actions that save, but a real relationship with Jesus.

And what was so "unbelievable" to say that a christian who follows the Lord would have a better relationship with their spouse?

Again, I have to point out, I already provided some value to the idea by comparing it to the Canada and USA being populated 75% by christians, and yet both countries do not have a biblical view. That's a direct point about the term christian in studies is not meaning a belief in what it says in the bible.

Kat pointed out the comparison to Hindu and an example study about beef consumption.

It is ridiculous to expect evidence for all statements. Only ones that are obvious mistakes, or possible unknowns.

it has been clarified by me, and the pastor that works do not lead to salvation, and so it cannot be implied.

The fact that the only survey we were looking at at the time seemed to show otherwise?


Yes, but what I take issue to is that you seemed to state this as obvious, unquestionable fact, rather than a hypothesis.


Okay, but I considered this a possible unknown.



I'm not saying works lead to salvation.  I've said that the speaker implied they were a necessary condition.  You seem to agree with this, in that you say if you're saved your life will be changed (ie, you'll act different).  If you believe that, then you believe that someone who acts the same (ie, has no works) won't be saved.  That makes works a necessary, but not sufficient condition for salvation.  That's a different thing from saying "works lead to salvation," so no amount of pointing out that "works don't lead to salvation" changes the argument.  Real question: Do you see the difference between works being a sufficient condition for salvation, and works being a necessary but not sufficient condition for salvation?

Right, except a flaw was pointed out which meant there could have been a problem with the survey. Did you feel the survey was rock solid? Did you just believe it because someone said it? Shouldn't you question a study that doesn't fit with the condition? Kat made a good point about a study of Hindu's eating just as much beef as non hindu. Doesn't that suggest automatically the study is over looking something. Why trust a study without researching it? Are you just going to believe it without evidence to verify the study?

It is an obvious undeniable fact that the country does not follow biblical life, when it's supposed to be 75% christian.

Does that mean you believe that the USA is 75% christian? Or is that unbelievable?

No I don't agree. And the pastor didn't say it was either. Works is not necessary. Works in no way, no manner, no how is any part of a condition, or part, or portion of salvation. The two do not go together, the pastor didn't say that, and the bible does not say that.

In order to come to that conclusion, the pastor would have to have his words ignored where he stated so, and bible verses would need to be ignored to come to that conclusion.

But why follow the Biblical life when it is not required, in any part or portion?  Maybe the facts are accurate for the most part, since we need only know Jesus and his love.  A lot easier than going to church if that's all it takes for salvation; no good works required will eventually lead to no good works being done.

My problem was the way that you stated, unequivically, that the study's conclusion was wrong.  Not that it might be wrong, but that it was obviously not correct.  You claimed knowledge that the results were not correct before you presented evidence for it.


That wasn't the point I was questioning, as I think you know.  I was questioning your conclusion, that therefore "obviously" people who get divorces aren't "real" christians.



Again, that's not the point I was talking about.  Though, for the record, I'm not sure of the exact percent of people who are christian in the US.  The number 75% doesn't sound impossible to me, and is probably in the correct ball park.



Have another look at the question up there.  Is "no I don't agree" an answer that realy makes sense to "do you see a difference?"  Let me try again (and this is a real question):  Do you understand the difference between saying something is a necessary but not sufficient condition, and saying it's a sufficient condition?


So you think it's possible that the people in the audience who live 'non-godly' lives were saved?  That they would be saved without taking any action, as long as they believed?  The speaker specifically told them that this was not the case.  He told them they absolutely would NOT be saved if the way they acted didn't change.  real question: do you agree that was his position?.

Right. I will state that I think christians will follow more laws from the bible than non christians.

Here's a question to redirect how natural that is, what would you say about a study that showed Hindu's ate as much beef as non Hindu?






Gotcha. It was just the way I worded it that made it seem odd. It still conveyed my ideas, and tone though. I'll reword it better.
Yes, I understand the difference. And I don't agree that works is necessary, nor a condition.  Works is not necessary. Works in no way, no manner, no how is any part of a condition, or part, or portion of salvation. The two do not go together, the pastor didn't say that, and the bible does not say that.


Yes, it's possible.

 I don't agree that was the pastor's position.

Works aren't required. The question you ask though is why follow a biblical life. The answer is because that brings you closer to God. That is a good thing. It helps you with finding support and direction with life. It gives a real purpose to life.

Alright, though I assume by Good Works, we are speaking of works commanded of us by God, like say, Noah's Ark and the like?  If so, if God commanded me to do something, would not doing what was asked of me bring dire consequences to the future resting place of my soul, despite it not being required of me to do the Good Work?

Also, by being closer to God, I'm guessing you mean spiritually, but once we die and go to heaven after accepting Jesus, wouldn't that be as close as we could get to him?

I'm thinking of a quote, not sure of which book it is from, but it goes something like, "and they shall say 'Lord, Lord', and he shall reply "I do not know you"

This would suggest that simply knowing that Jesus was the Lord would not be enough.

That is a good point with knowing the Lord.



In Matthew, it continues that even those who do things in the name of the lord also are told to go away, because they are evil doers.

We have to look at scripture as a whole. It would make sense to not take it out of context, would you agree with that?

Is there anyone who can make it to heaven by being perfect? I mean other than Jesus of course.

Let's say you do follow the laws of God, and follow them as best you can, for that matter, ignoring other scripture that states all have sinned, and fallen short,let's assume you follow the laws perfectly. What does scripture say about that?



It says that no one will be righteous though observing the law.


This message was last edited by the player at 07:10, Sat 16 Feb 2008.

Yes, there we are; I interpreted this as


 by which I take to mean they are accepting him as the Lord by stating him as such, and yet this is not enough.



this...could mean Good Works; and while it might not necessarily state that they are required, it certainly seems to me that they are considered.

In this, we might confer Good Works (being those commanded by God) as also including the Ten Commandments, which are given by God.  Are following these Good Works?



Yet another thing to ponder; are the many evildoers because they did not accept the Lord, did not do Good Works?  Or was it that they did evil in God's name, perhaps?  Though not required, if the 10 Commandments are Goodworks, would killing in Christ's name and not doing the Good Work of Commandment 1 be considered, though it was not required?




Well, depends on what you mean by pefect; unless he had some self-esteem issues, it's pretty hard not to accept yourself :)



Yes, though I don't think it's absolute at that; while observing the law will not in itself make you rightous, it is a way to become concious of sin, which you must be concious of to be forgiven, yes?



Now here, I notice it does not say Good Works (though it may imply that), by which I interpret the difference as being personal works, that one can not boast.  Rare are the works that are Good Works; ones commanded by God himself.  The few that are given to us (as the 10 commandments), they are inherantly things that most people do not boast about anyways ("Hey, you know Helen, I've never killed a man in my life, how about that, huh?")

Grace is gifted by god, not given in exchange for the Good Works however; the Good Works are expected of you regardless of whether you recieve Grace or not.

Good Works are not required, but they are considered, I believe.

Fair enough.  That seems quite possible to me (though I think it'd still be worth looking at the actual data to see if it's true).  What I object to, though, is that you then turn around and declare that anyone who doesn't follow the laws in the bible isn't actually a christian, which makes your original statement tautological.  It reduces to "people who follow the rules of the bible follow the rules of the bible more than people who don't."  Imagine if I said "everyone in this thread agrees with ever thing I say," but add that "people who don't agree with me aren't real people in this thread, so don't count them."  Pretty silly, right?  You've essentially said that what makes a "real christian" is going to church, reading the bible, following the rules, etc., NOT believing that Jesus is the son of God and died for your sins.  This is particularly ironic considering your stance on works in this very thread.


I'd say "wow, that's counter intuitive!  Let's investigate further."  I wouldn't say "well, that's obviously wrong.  It simply can't possibly be true, no matter what any data shows."  It's one thing to question the methods of a survey, it's another thing to assume your beliefs are true no matter what.  If you reject any result that doesn't match your expectations, you'll never change any false beliefs that you have.  In the specific example you give, if it oddly happened that hindus did actually eat more beef on average than everyone else, and you just dismissed survey results out of hand because they didn't match your expectations, you'd never realize that you were wrong.
Amusingly, my girlfriend tells a story of a hindu friend of hers from gradschool who did eat beef.  "American cows aren't sacred," was his argument! ;)

By the by, did you see my post in the divorce thread relating to your link?  Any thoughts on it?



Okay, could you please state the difference then?  From you response below, I don't think we're on the same page.  By thinking it's "not a condition," I think we're not meaning the same thing here.


Okay, then.  Are they any part of being a "real christian?"



Interesting.  Why do you think the pastor made such a big deal about how they lived their lives, then?  Why do you think he made such a point of telling them that most of them weren't saved, and how did he know that?



Wow, it's like we were watching different clips here.  You don't think he told people they weren't saved if they lived ungodly lives, and you don't think he said that you'd know you're saved if your life changed.  What do you feel his position was, then?  What was the whole point of his talk?  What was his thesis for the whole talk?
This message was last edited by the player at 16:44, Sat 16 Feb 2008.

You're making a straw man argument here.  No one has claimed that works alone get you into heaven here.  You keep trying to play it like we're arguing "you earn your way into heaven just by doing works."  That's not the argument anyone is making.  No one is saying works are sufficient for salvation.

Definitions should be tautological.  "Katisara is the GM who is katisara" is perfectly acceptable.

Again though, TitL is using an exclusive definition.  To be a Christian, you must believe in Christ, try to follow the rules in the bible, be baptized, etc.  The study seems to use an inclusive definition - if you say you're Christian, you're Christian.  That means you can me Christian but also a Satanist and an Atheist.

If TitL sees a study that says the majority of Christians don't practice the rules of Christianity, he would probably be fair in assuming the study has a different definition of Christianity for him.  Just like if we saw a study that said the majority of Hindus don't consider themselves Hindu, we'd have to say 'well...  How did the study define 'Hindu' then?'

I disagree that definitions should be tautological. If you look up "chair" in the dictionary and instead of "a thing you sit on" it says "a thing that's a chair," you'd probably feel a bit cheated.  But more importantly,  he's not just defining it, though, he's making statements about it.  His claim "christians have lower divorce rates than non christians," is a testable hypothesis.  But if he defines christians as "only those who don't get divorces (and have some other qualities)," then his original statement looses all it's punch.  It's true, but it's true in a completely insignificant way.

Put more directly, it's not at all impressive that christians lead more morals lives if define anyone who doesn't live a moral life as a non-christian.  You can't claim being a christian makes your marriage less likely to ended in a divorce if you say people who get divorces aren't christians.  It eliminates the causality that he's trying to imply.

As an example, if I say "absolutely every car is red," that's a pretty big claim.  You might disagree it, and point at a green car, and say "well, what about that one there?"  If I say "well, that's not a 'real' car.  The only 'real' cars are the red ones," then my original claim doesn't seem particularly important.  It's simply a tautology.  You won't doubt it anymore, but you won't care about it either.

The dictionary provides descriptive definitions, which aren't particularly absolute or necessarily to the point.  The most precise definition of a chair would be to summarize all individual chairs into a single set and present that.  However that would be tautological, since it's basically saying { Chair } = { chairA, chairB, chairC, chairD, ....} which, of course, through the reflexive property, is equal back to the original { Chair }.

I haven't been following the thread too closely, I haven't noticed TitL give any particular, really clear definition of Christian.  However if his definition is as I gave above, his surprise still stands.



He may not be going for something with lots of impact (although it would be good of him to provide a precise detail so we know if he's going with the position of 'Christians are those who more or less successfully have overcome themselves and do X', or if he's going with 'Christians are those who are trying to do X, but still fail a lot'.  Most people tend to go with the latter, perhaps his understanding is different.

If he IS going with the latter, that Christians are people who try to follow the bible, well, surprise, even good Christians mess up.  Good Christians sometimes get abortions, sometimes flip out and kill people, sometimes steal, etc.  Not everyone is a saint (thank goodness).  So yeah, then he's putting a lot of faith in people and I guess is surprised that faith is at times misplaced.

Why do you feel they are accepting Jesus?  I can call out "science, science". Does that mean I am accepting you?

Ok, so you're saying you think that means works are considered required. To clarify, you think they are required to go to heaven, right? How would you confirm this idea in scripture, would you compare it to other scripture?

I'd say they are good works.

I'm not going to answer that question, as I think the context you're using isn't correct. Going back to Matthew, we can see the context is how to tell a false prophet.


So in this instance, we can see that there are people who drove out demons, and prophesied, and yet were not doing so under God's direction.  We could compare this to the multiple versions of christianity. That there is a right way to follow God, and a wrong way to follow God. Simply stating one is christian doesn't mean they are following Jesus the way it is written in the bible.




I don't think I get what's being said. I was talking about being perfect by the standards of God as described in the bible.

I'm breaking up the sentence because I want to make sure what you mean. What about that verse seems not absolute?

Ok. So then following the law does not make you righteous, we agree to that? That nothing we do elevates our position in any way?

Following the law, which you described as following God's commands, and which you stated was good works, like the ten commandments, does not elevate anyone into righteousness, agreed?

Could you rephrase this? What are personal works, and what are Godly works? Second question is are you saying one can break as many personal works as one wants, but Godly works are not optional to go to heaven? Can you see how I may find that worded a bit strange?

Agreed.

Considered for what? If they don't save you, and don't bring any righteousness, and do not elevate your standing, what are they considered for?

I object to that too. I didn't state that anyone who doesn't follow the laws aren't christian. If you look back at what I stated, I talked about how the term christian was used on people who do not follow the bible. That does not automatically translate that if you don't follow the bible, you cannot be christian. It's a subtle difference.

Think of it this way, a christian who follows the bible, is different than a christian who was told they were protestant christian by their grandmother. The idea being the person has no idea what that means, only that their grandmother obviously has chosen a title which she agrees with, and apply it to others in the family. Would you agree with that?

 I am hoping that my clarification shows I don't agree with the conclusion here.


Please don't fault me because I didn't use the correct terminology. The concept was that because I knew that the general use of christian in country wide studies does not match what is in the bible. It is counter intuitive. While I wish I could back back and say that better, I think I did point out that it did group christians in a way that allowed for any use of christian, even if they obviously were not christian.
Of course. American beef cannot have known Indian religion. ;)

It was too over my head.



Well necessary means required, and not sufficient means it's not enough.  Sufficient means that it is enough.


Of course they are, and by no means are they. Let me clarify. God says this is good for us, and good for others. But in no way is it required to be christian. So we can do works, and that is a christian thing. But the works themselves do not make us christian.




I think probably because God wanted him to speak about it. Perhaps that message is   specific to that group in the audience. Perhaps the audience was really the internet audience watching the uploaded video. I suspect that God gave the pastor the words to say.



I'd like to avoid the last three questions for the moment, and go back to what was stated in the quote above my quote here. I stated I didn't agree with that being the pastor's position. And I do not feel the pastor's position was that no one is saved if they they don't change the way they act. Can you see that as a very specific point? That's a clear yes or no, and I'm saying no, it's not his position.

I'd recommend for others to watch the video. I don't think it can be summed up in a sentence.

I was talking about works, and their importance towards righteousness. Science brought up that good works are a consideration. So I was trying to build up they do not bring even the tiniest bit of righteousness to anyone. They are not considered at all towards being a christian.


I thought strawman is more something along the lines about it not being brought up by anyone, and was not any part of the conversation. Science did talk about works and their consideration.

I don't define christians that way. I did say that before, pretty early in the debate. It's kind of like building up a strawman argument.


The rest of your post describes defining in a similar way. So it really doesn't apply to my line of thinking.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:37, Sat 16 Feb 2008.

You are recognizing me as existing.  You have accepted me as real, and in this case you have also accepted me as the person who is talking to you, and thus someone who deserves your attention.

When someone says 'Lord, Lord', they'd probably say it a lot more graciously, and what they were accepting would be much more than what you accept of me by recognizing my existence.



Incorrect; if I had meant that they were required, I wouldn't have chosen the language I did.  But let's go of on a semi tangent, and explain what I mean by considered:



So God does expect of us good works, or he would not prepare them (would not have sent Moses the 10 commandments if it was not expected that we would follow them.)  Also note the difference there; he says works, but then uses "good works; perhaps a difference.



In this I see, comparing it to the above quote, that you cannot be saved by works, but God has set before us Good Works for us to do, and if we are with Jesus, the Good Works will be performed by us.

By that, I don't mean "If, then" as "if you want this, give me this".  I mean "if you do this, this will happen", as if a cause and effect.



Good Fruit is another name for Good Works, so I assume Bad Fruit would be either Works that are not commanded by God, or those commanded by demons.  "picking grapes from thornbushes" could mean making light of a bad situation, making people not care about certain things.....sort of like saying "It's okay, you don't need to do anything to get into heaven except to accept me as God", only something different.

18A: That means to me that if one's works do not bring good things, then it was not Good Work.  Though this also suggests that someone who does Good Work is a Good Tree, and cannot do bad works.  If he cannot do bad works, then by his Good Works it is proven that he is not an evildoer, and will be accepted into heaven?



Ehh, well, some people only find jokes funny if they're the ones making them; Jesus didn't have to be perfect to get into heaven, in my opinion, even if he was perfect.

But a thought just came to me:

Is accepting Jesus commanded of us as the Ten Commandments are commanded of us?


Not the verse, your interpretation of it.  I viewed it with more interpretation than you, is what the above meant.



Agreed, and does not one who is righteous follow the law, and do good works?  Those who are truly righteous can not do bad works, for only bad trees can perform bad works.  These actions are a result of your righteousness, not the cause, and thus though Good Works themselves do not get you into heaven, they are considered, for they are percieved as an effect of your righteousness. (Good Works done by someone who is not righteous is not Good Work, and thus Good Works can not make one righteous, and so Good Works can be considered in Heaven, for God knows Good Work from Bad Work)



First Question: Did not those with able hands and timber build boats when the flood was truly known as real to save themselves from the Flood, though it was not commanded of them?  Only Noah's Ark was saved from destruction, for it was Good Work.  Good Work is what God commands.  Personal Works are what we do for ourselves.  You cannot buy your way into God's Grace, or into heaven.  Nor can you state that your works are good if they were not commanded of you by God.

Would Noah have been saved had he not built the Ark, though it was not required of him?  That is irrelivent; he was a rightous man, and so he did build the Ark.  The Building of the Ark did not make him Rightous, but his rightousness could be known by his Good Works.

Second Question: Imagine Jesus as the Sun; those who accept him dwell in his light, and take him in.  Good Works are the flowers and fruit that grow, but the flowers and fruit cannot grow without the Sun.  One would be foolish to say that those that bear sweet fruits shall not be allowed into heaven, for it is their acceptance of the Sun that lets them bear such fruit, and is a sign of their acceptance.

The Mushrooms, however, make works without the need for the Sun.  These are not good works, and though their fruit may be edible, and do the body well, they have not accepted the Sun.  It may not be easy some times in Real life for us to tell the Mushrooms from the Flowers, but the Lord knows.



They are considered, because only those who are Rightous can perform works that are good.  Good works can not make one rightous, but that doesn't matter in the slightest, because Good works cannot be performed by the unrighteous anyways.

By considering, here's what I imagine:  You arrive in heaven, and meet Jesus; if you have accepted him, he tastes of your fruit; if it is good, he lets you through.  If it is bad, however, you did not truly accept the Lord, for your fruit could not be bad if you had, and he sends you away.

Oh, missed this:



The Virgin.




Actually in warmer climates (mostly southern US) the Brahmen beef cow is very popular because of its high heat-tolerance, and that's a substrain originally from India.

If I were to label any cows as godless heathens, it would have to be those European ones!

That's true, but accepting someone as real doesn't mean anything. I accept satan is real too, but I'm not a satanist.


I disagree based on the context of the verse we're taking about. It's specific in that it discusses people who accept the Lord is real, and yet they are not christian. Accepting someone is real doesn't make you a follower of that person/object/being.



I don't think there is anything there to differientiate between works or good works. Neither one elevates, or adds to righteousness.



I'm in complete agreement so far. Having the Holy Spirit come in you will change the way you look at things.



Those signs aren't for God, they are for people to tell what is going on. This way they can tell a false prophet from a true prophet.



Ah, I get it now. I read that originally as saying being perfect meant accepting ourselves. I guess having to explain a joke kills a little, eh? ;)

Yes.

What other meaning do you have? If I'm saying no works results in righteousness, and the law only condemns us, what do you mean that verse is not as literal as I speak of it? I've seen people suggest other interpretations exist for a variety of verses. But that one seems fairly clear.



You've said this, but I can't figure out what you mean that it is considered. Good works are considered. Considered required, considered ________? It makes it feel like the idea is not finished.

I do agree with you that christians can do good works.



Ok, I think I understand what you're saying. I don't think there is a difference between personal works, nor Godly works. Everything is for God, or it is not for God. Me going to work is for God. Me watering my garden is for God. Me sharing this time on the net is for God.

Noah was saved from destruction not because of his works, but because of God.

  God already knew before any works. Works is for people to know, not for God who already knows.

I'm a bit clueless here, but I don't understand how that works. I was talking about the difference between Godly works, and personal works. You clarified earlier in your post that personal works are things you think are for you. But I don't see any combination of that information that is helping me figure out what was said earlier.




Considered in this case means Jesus will know if you're good or bad?

Wouldn't an omnipotent God just know without "considering"? I think this might be just a personal view or something. I just don't understand why good works are considered. It has a feeling like the sentence needs to be finished to be understood.

Ahh, I forgot the catholics believe Mary was sinless.

believe because it's true ;)

Depends on how you say it.  The comma denotes a considerable pause between each statement of his name, indicating perhaps that the tone of their voice was reverence, as one perhaps groveling to someone of higher power.

You probably wouldn't say "Satan, Satan", however.  More like "Satan!" (perhaps with some mixture of confusion and fear in the tone, if you can manage any words at all; I'd be scared ****less, personally)



Yes, neither elevates nor adds to righteousness, though for most cases it's quite easy to tell the Good Works from plain Works, as unless you're doing something because God commanded it of you, it's just Work.  The main problem comes from when someone does Work, but claims it as Good Work, and thus displays himself as someone capable of doing Good Work, which passes himself off as someone with Righteousness.



(This being in conjunction with above) Like so, we can run the following hypothetical scenario:

The village Parish states that he hopes all shall donate to the cause of repairing the local church.  This is a Work performed by all that donate.  Not a good work.

If the Parish states that he hopes all shall donate to restoring the church in the name of God so that he might shine his love upon them more affectionately, he is either performing a Good Work requested upon him, he is getting quite creative with his Sermons, or he is making a false Prophet of himself to get a little more in the donation pot.

Now, if he is a False prophet, after a few speeches such of these it would become apparent whether or not his intentions bear good fruit.



So that thought came to me, since because Commandments are Good Works, then would accepting Jesus be a Good Work (rather, THE Good Work, hehe) which is required for Salvation?



I don't see how the Law condemns us; it is by observing what laws are in place that we become aware of what our sins are, since those laws would not be in place were there no crimes of that nature. (The Laws could also include the Ten Commandments)

Sure, though following "Thou Shalt Not Kill" by not killing anyone doesn't make anyone rightous (though I'd say they're very upstanding citizens), but it is in this law that we are made aware that we have the potential to commit the sin of killing, and it is thus that we have that sin inside us.

The Laws lead us to Salvation, for they make us Concious of Sin, and thus they help us to realize that we need a Savior.

Now, this is not the only route to realizing this, but it is one of them.



Mmm, I'm not sure about the other ones, but yes, God commands of his people that they speak the Gospel, so our time on the net is a Good Work, I suppose :)

I'd say that all works are Godly, yes, but are they Good Work, or just Work?
Or to put it simply, who tells you to go to work every day?  This would be your will, and so it is Work.  Going to church is God's will, his Command, and is Good Work.  Works are expected of you by other people (aka, your boss expects you to show up at work), but you are not required to do so.  I'd say God expects you to perform Good Works (not in as authoritave context as your boss), but likewise, you are not required to perform them.




I'd Say God saved Noah quite well by Commanding him to build that Ark, though he was not saved because of the Ark, but because he loved God, which allowed him to do the Good Work that was God's way of saving him.  God wouldn't have picked Noah if he didn't love God, and if he hadn't loved God, he wouldn't have been capable of the Good Work.



This Metaphorical description of Salvation, Faith, and Good Works is just another example I made of how Good Works do not lead to Salvation, but Salvation leads to Good Works.

It is not to say that all works by those who are saved are Good Works- the Flower still has it's stem, petal, and roots- but that he can create no Bad Works.

Likewise, those who are not saved can perform works that are not Bad, but they cannot perform Good Works.

It is this way that others can see the Salvation of others.  But most importantly (and to the next question), it allows that person him/herself to see that Salvation or Lack therof in themselves at the end.





Of course Jesus knows, but why does St. Peter stand before the Gates to judge if you are worthy, if God can simply open the latch to hell before you ever make the second step onto the clouds?

It's not for God that we are judged, but for ours, to give us a sense of Closure as our life is recounted; by considered, we are told our life, and we are reminded of our Good Works, if we had any.  Then we are judged, and sentenced to Heaven or Hell.

All of this seems rather pointless, but I'm pretty sure that by granting the Keys of Heaven to St. Peter, he recognized that all souls, damned or saved, are granted Closure as to their fate.

I don't know if you've ever done something, and worried that you would be caught, and yet when you finally did, you felt somehow better even though you were in for some sort of punishment, but I believe that feeling is the final gift we recieve before we recieve our just rewards, whatever they may be.

Science, even if the person is saying it with reverence, the scripture says outright that they are false prophets, and even those who do things in the Lord's name will not go to heaven.

This cannot be an issue of acceptance.



I've never seen this concept before about plain works, and Godly works. It does not seem to match anything in the bible. I think I'll let this go since it's just guessing.



Science, this is all guessing. Even a few sermons is just a guess as to when one will see what's going on. Who knows, I could guess that I figure it five minutes into his first sermon. It's all a guess. What if the people he's preaching to leave in that few speeches, sure, it's guessing that happens. If it's thirty or forty, it's guessing.



Well technically the use of works has always been to physical work, hard toil. The original word itself was used for physical labor in the every day use. It hasn't been attributed to the mental choice of choosing.



Look back at the scripture.


Through the law, we become conscious of sin. In other words, because of the law, we become aware of what we have done wrong. No one other than Jesus according to the bible, has lived sin free. The law points out where we have wronged God.

An example, have you ever told a lie? I'll assume yes, which makes you a liar. I've lied too, so don't feel alone in this.

Have you ever fornicated? Jesus says that to look upon another with lust is guilty of sin. Let me assume that if you're a male, you've looked upon a woman with lust. That makes you an adulterer in the eyes of the lord.*  As a man, I'm guilty of this too.

Have you ever stole anything? Taken something that didn't belong to you that? Even as a child? That makes you a thief. When I was young, I went as far as shoplifting.

I'm guessing that by the laws given forth by God, you're likely a thieving lying adulterer. Now if you're not christian, you're possibly not even concerned that held to the standards of God, you'd be those things. However, if God is real, and He will hold you to those standards he spoke of, then what does God say if you are guilty of breaking the law? God says that the penalty is death.

That's not the end of this though. God provided for a way that justice is done, and so that you are still able to be with Him. God is a good judge, and good judge wouldn't let a crime go unpunished. Even though your law breaking has earned you a severe punishment which you cannot repay in any way, since it's cost is so severe, someone has stepped in for you to take that punishment. Jesus has literally come forward, and came to pay the punishment for your law breaking.

Jesus paid that price in full. It's yours right now. A free gift. Anytime. If you need His help, He'll be there for you. It's up to you.

Now to step back about being aware of sin. What does the law do? It's a way to know what is legal, and what is not. Since no one can follow the law perfectly, the law only tells you what you are guilty of. It makes you conscious of sin.

*

The bible says we sin because our flesh bodies are sinful.


No, everything can be done for God.   Trust me, God made everything in the world. Everything you see, everything you do, God made it. Now before someone starts going on how they want to steal for God, or lie for God, there is still things that can be made profane. You can do things that are bad, and that's the choice people may make. But you can make the choice to do everything for God.




Noah was already saved. Loving god, and wanting to do good things is not bad. Noah did not increase that love by building an ark for God. In other words, Noah's work did not increase God's love, and it did not save Noah from destruction. God saved Noah, not Noah's construction.



I always become wary when I see a present cause, being applied to a future action. Let's just leave it that being filled with the Holy spirit will result in that person having real positive change.


You've listen to too many catholic jokes. ;)
You will not find that St Peter is mentioned anywhere in the bible waiting at the  pearly gates.

None of this is in the bible. It's not something I will be able to discuss other than it's not supported biblically.

ok.

Fair Enough, feel free to do tha as often as you like, though on some occasions I might go back to a few points to elaborate on things I say, though feel free to disregard those if you want as well.




Mmmm, sure about that? :/




And Revelation 21, specifically....


That's what I interpreted it from, not a Weird Al music lyric ;)

Hmm, I guess I don't think of a list of all examples as actually being a definition.  It might be more informative than a definition, but I don't think it's actually a definition.  This is all a bit besides the point, though.


Yeah, this I would agree with.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding what you do mean then.  Are people who don't follow the bible christian or not?  Are you saying that people who believe they are christian, but don't follow the bible really aren't?


I suppose I would agree with it, but I think that the number of people who consider "christian" to mean nothing more than "what granny told me I am" to be rather small.  Do you honestly feel that this 70% of the country that's claiming to be christian but don't go to church very often really have no idea what the term means?

How about we try this:  What is the definition of "christian" that you'd like us to use when looking at the question of "does being a christian make you less likely to get a divorce?"


I have to say the irony of this brightened my day a bit!


What would make someone "obviously not christian?"



Ah, sorry.  I was afraid the math would scare people off.  The long and short of it is that if 50% of practicing christians who do get a divorce end not practicing after the divorce, you'd get pretty much the same numbers he showed in his survey even if practicing christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians.  The nice thing that the hypothesis does is explain why non-practicing evangelicals would have a higher divorce rate that non-religious people.  I'd be interested to hear why you think that is the case, actually.  If you're not practicing, it really shouldn't matter what you're not practicing, right?


Okay, I think the trouble is that I'm using a formal logic usage, and you're thinking more of the standard, conversational usage.  What I'm saying is that, whether it's taken into consideration or not by God, a lack of works will imply, logically, a lack of salvation.  Or, more specifically, that's what I thought the speaker was saying.  He seemed to be saying "If you're saved, then you'll live in a different way."  In formal logic, you could write that as:
A => B
where A is "you're saved"
and B is "you live a godly life."
By the rules of formal logic, it will also be true that
~B => ~A
That "if you're not living a Godly life, then you're not saved."  If you accept the first statement (A=>B), then the second (~B=>~A) follows logically.
I realize by now that you don't seem to feel that the first is true.  In other words, being saved may not always make you change your life.  But I think the speaker in the video would disagree with that.  I think he'd say if you're saved, then your life/habits/actions/etc. will definitely, without a doubt, change.


Okay, so why do you think it's important that so many people in the US claim to be christian, but don't follow the bible?  Can't they be "real" christians and not follow the bible, if the works don't make you a christian, and aren't in anyway required for salvation?


The speaker didn't come up with the words himself, then?  Interesting position.


Okay, fair enough.  Can you explain what his position was, then?

Yes, he said it was a consideration, and arguing that it's not a consideration at all is fine.  But he also pointed out that they, alone, cannot get you into heaven.  So trying to argue that works alone can't get you into heaven, and presenting that as a counter to his position is making a strawman.  The problem here is not that you're saying works aren't considered at all, the problem is that you're treating his argument as if it were "works alone can get you salvation," when it's not his position.


No, making a straw man argument is creating a weaker version of what someone really is arguing, and arguing against that instead.  It's acting as if they said something that they didn't, and proving the thing they didn't say wrong.  Arguing that works alone can't get you into heaven, and treating that as disproof of sciencemile's point is tearing down a straw man.



Can you explain how you do define christians, then?  I got the impression that you thought 70% of the country saying they're christians can't be true because they don't all follow the bible.  Are you now saying that people who don't go to church regularly, get divorces, etc., really are christians?  Because I had thought you had said just the opposite.  Perhaps a clarification needed?
This message was last edited by the player at 13:23, Sun 17 Feb 2008.

Sciencemile brought up a good point a while back that I think sort of got overlooked, and I think it'd be good to bring it up again.

In the quote from Mathew that TitL cited Jesus says:



The interesting point is the "only he who does the will of my Father" bit.  Only people who do God's will will get into heaven.  Doing God's will seems like works to me.  It sounds like action to me, not just belief.  Note that it doesn't say "only those who belive..." or "only those who accept that..."  or anything like that.

The context of the verse (as I'm sure TitL will ensure that we consider) is that people were casting out demons, prophecying, doing miracles, etc., but it wasn't stuff God wanted them to do.  It wasn't "God's will."  Clearly they had faith, since they accepted Jesus, and thought they were doing stuff in his name.  What they believed won't get them into heaven, Jesus tells us.  Only doing the right thing will.  Only doing what God wants you to will get you into heaven.  Seems like a pretty strong statement in favor of works, and one that comes from Jesus no less.

This discussion sounds very similar to the situation here in Israel between the Ultra Orthodox and the secular Jews. The Ultra Orthodox claim that the secular are not real jews because we do not follow all the laws, of course the secular jews do not agree so there exists a great devide between the two sides and a great deal of dislike because of various acts done on both sides.

When one is new to anything, there's a learning curve. Becoming a christian doesn't automatically mean they know every verse of the bible as soon as they make their choice to follow Jesus. As one follows the Lord, they they learn more and more from their desire to be with God leads them to live for God.


It's not a matter of knowing what a Christian is, it's a matter of accepting Jesus in your heart. It's a life changing impact. It makes one turn from past ways, and embracing God's ways.

To be a christian means to follow Christ. You cannot follow both Jesus and satan at the same time.





Going against the bible.



Not really up my alley. It'd be just guessing about something I haven't looked at closely.


Both the speaker, and myself state that accepting Jesus into your life will result in your life being changed. To counter that, neither he, nor I am stating that making a change makes you a christian.


Absolutely they can. There's a learning curve. The longer you love Jesus, the more you will grow closer to Him, and learn what He wants.


To sum it up in one quick sentence, if one truly is accepting God into their lives, they will turn away from hating God, to loving God. There's a real change when one turns to the Lord.

You have to keep in mind that as a christian, the end result is that everyone on this world will be around forever. Some will be with God, and some will be without God. But everyone you see today, in history, or yet to be born, these people are not around for a short time. They have a spirit that was designed from creation to live forever. Becoming a christian, we know this to be true, and one turns away from their God rebelling ways, the short instant gratification. They turn to God loving, eternal life for every single person to live, or ever will live.

I guess we disagree then. I felt that if I show there is absolutely zero consideration, then it is not a consideration. I feel that addresses the idea about consideration directly.


My argument wasn't works alone, it was any works at all being a consideration. The scripture I posted addressed how much righteousness one can add through works, zero.



Being a christian means following Christ.

I think we need to get back to the original issues here.  There's sort of two conflicting (as I see it) ideas being discussed:
1.  You feel that people who call themselves christians but don't attend church regularly shouldn't be counted as "christians" during surveys about christians.  If they're not following the bible, they must not really be christians, and so should be counted as some other group in surveys about christians (such as divorce rates, etc.).
2.  You also seem to feel that works aren't consider at all in terms of salvation, and that's it's entirely possible to be a "real" christian even if everything you do is absolutely evil.  All that matters is your faith, not your actions.  They're not considered in any way, shape, or form.
My thought is that if God doesn't consider for one moment how people act in deciding if they're "real" christians, why should we?  How can we?   Put differently, how should we, in your opinion, determine if people are "real" christians in surveys?  What question(s) could be asked that would allow us to properly classify people the way you think they should be classified?


So, asking people "have you accepted Jesus into your heart" might be a suitable way to determine which group they should be listed as in a survey?



Can you be a bit more specific?  That just gives us one vague definition for another.  What are the things we would test for, so to speak, to determine if someone should be listed as a "real christian" or a "not real christian" in a survey?




Okay, in what way(s), specifically?  What is the determining factor that makes it possible for you to look at someone and say "obviously not christian?"  Would eating shellfish be "going against the bible?"  Would wearing clothes made of two different types of fabric?



Heh, fair enough.  Didn't stop you from guessing about divorce rates in the first place, but I guess if you don't want to talk about it, I can't twist your arm over it. ;)




Okay, it's been a while since we were in the thick of the discussion, so I'll assume you've just forgotten what we were talking about here.  I never said, and no one else ever said, that making a change makes you a christian.  The speaker did imply that you'll know you're saved if your life changes, but that's sort of a separate issue here.  This was about works and salvation.  I said that based on your position, leading a godly life is a necessary but not sufficient condition to salvation.  That doesn't mean God necessarily considers your works at all.  But if being saved naturally leads to living a Godly life, then not living a Godly life implies that you haven't been saved.  That's what a "necessary but not sufficient condition" means.  Can we at least agree that far?




Okay, good.  In that case, why should we not count them as "christians" in the survey?  Why should they be put into some other group of "not real" christians?


Great!  There's a real change when you turn to the Lord.  Which means if there isn't a real change, then you haven't turned to the lord.  And if you haven't turned to the lord, you're not saved (I'm assuming that's your position here).  In other words, no change means no salvation.  Can we agree on that?

You misunderstand me.  Like I said in the last point, it's not your saying that works are absolutely no consideration that I object to.  It's saying "no amount of works can get you into heaven."  Because that's not what anyone said.  Arguing against it, as if someone had implied that, is tearing down a strawman.  It's arguing against something that no one's said.

To reiterate:  I have no problem with you saying that works are no part of salvation.  That's fine.  Argue for that all you like.  However, don't imply that people are saying things they're not in the process.  Arguing against a position of "works by themselves can get you into heaven" when no one's taken that position is what I'm objecting to.


Yes, exactly!  If your argument isn't works alone, you shouldn't talk about works alone.  Talk about them not being a consideration.  But saying things like "No amount of works can get you into heaven if you don't have faith" is arguing against a position that no one has taken.  Does that make sense?  I only mentioned this in the first place because you specifically had asked people to point it out to you when you did it.  If you think this isn't actually an example, you can ignore me, and I won't lose any sleep over it.  But keep in mind why you asked people to point it out in the first place.


Okay, but what does that mean?  I was after something a bit more specific.  I'm sure that the people who call themselves christians think they follow christ, even though you don't.  So really this isn't any more clear than the original confusion.

The word "Christian" originally was a Greek word meaning "Little Christ".  It was a durogitory name given to those who followed what was then called "The Way" which was the foundation of the early Christian church.  I bring this up because I think it's important to keep in mind that the essence of being a Christian is being "like Christ".  It's more than just following Him, it's endevoring to be like Him.

While I agree with TitL that being a Christian is a process, I strongly disagree that works are inconsiquential to faith.  While I agree that salvation is a gift and that it cannot be "earned", that's not really what's being asked here, as Tycho has so clearly pointed out.  Put another way, if you were put on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?  I don't think the question is "how do you know someone is "saved"", as salvation is something we are both ill-equipped to judge, and are warned not to judge.  Only God see's a man's heart and true motives.

But the question is "What makes you a Christian?", not "What makes you saved?", and so works defineatly plays a role in it, according to Jesus:

Matthew 12:33 NKJ
"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit.

According to Paul:
Romans 8:1 NKJ
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,* who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

According to Jesus' brother James:
James 2:26 NKJ
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


And According to the apostle John:
1 John 1:6 NKJ
If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

And that's just for starters.  According to the New Testament, works play a vital roll in distinguishing a Christian from the rest of the world.

Now Tycho, you've asked what the specifics are, what EXACT actions define a Christian.  I'm afraid you won't like my answer, but this is what the bible teaches:

Romans 8:13-17
13. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
16. The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17. and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

This is the defining, seperated life of the Christian, being lead by the Spirit of God.  That will look different in different people.  I guess the key is, are people:
A. Trusting in the saving power of Jesus Christ?

B. Living life in such a way that they are "putting to death" the habbits and attitudes that make them unlike Christ?

C.  Endevoring in all they do to be more and more like Jesus every minute of every day?

D.  Realizing this cannot be done by human strength, but only by surrendering to the power of the Spirit of Christ in them to do this work?

If a person is living in this way, I would say the chances are high that they are a "True Christian".

To properly classify people as christian or non christian, we could bring things out from the bible, such as do you love the Lord, do you hate what God hates, etc.


If they don't know what accepting Jesus means, then they wouldn't be able to answer it accurately.



I didn't think following Christ was vague. There's been quite a large amount of information of what Jesus thought was good, and what he wanted us to learn. Instead of me setting what Christ wanted, let's compare it to what He said he wanted us to learn.




Yes, the bible, every part of it. When a christian says something that is sinful is not sinful, I'll approach them and try and discuss the subject. I had a friend who liked tattoos. We had an interesting conversation about Leviticus 19:28


It was kind of humorous, because he asked me what he should get tattooed on his body, and I replied that he should get "Leviticus 19:28". He didn't know the verse by heart, and asked me about that, and figured he'd get some really wise or favorite verse. When he realized what it said, we had a fairly good conversation about that verse, and then followed by other verses we do or do not follow.

So as a christian, we are called to help each other learn about what is good, and what is not. Becoming a christian does not result in an instant knowledge of every law.



?? I don't follow how that came about?

No, I guess we can't. Because I believe you can be saved without living a Godly life. I feel it's possible to be the worst person in the world, say Hitler, or Stalin, and it's possible they have gone to heaven. It seems unlikely, but I do not know their last moments of life. Anything could have happened.




Because the 3/4 of the USA and Canada clearly do not love the Lord. Being a christian does not allow one to love the Lord and satan.


Right, no turning to the lord, means no salvation.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:05, Sat 01 Mar 2008.

That's what I disagree with. I feel it does handle the part about what consideration it is, directly.

I brought up that in reference to Science, and how faith was not enough, and works are part of that salvation. I was addressing the works are not part of salvation in any way.


Tycho, I haven't brought up an argument of works alone. I have brought up the argument of how much value works are worth, which is zero. This is why I feel there is no misdirection, no strawman argument.


The bible has a lot more information about what Jesus found good. Let's start with that as our source about how to follow Jesus.

I don't recall saying faith wasn't enough, though I can guess that you might have inferred from my speach that I said such a thing, since it would make it easier to discount the "Salvation leads to good works" argument I was actually making.

Or maybe I did say it, in which case I ask you to quote where I did, and until then I'll remain assertive that you did in fact just make up a position for me to support that I do not actually support.

The underlined part, the part where you say that knowing Jesus is not enough. That implies works was also needed in addition to knowing Him.

Also you have stated in several posts that works are considered, this in reference of salvation. We haven't really established what considered means, or how it is considered.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:25, Sat 01 Mar 2008.

Ahh, let me clarify, and perhaps shed light; I meant by that that "knowing" Jesus as the Lord was not accepting him.  Does that clear up my intentions?

My preamble was "Works are not sufficient, but are considered" is repeated in several of my posts, and thus in reading what I post, you must keep in mind the Preamble to determine my intentions.  To say that I meant that Faith was not enough by my statement would be to go against my Preamble, misinterpret my intentions, and thus draw a false conclusion about the meaning of what I say.

Why would I say that Accepting Christ would not be enough if the rest of my argument revolves around saying the exact opposite?

Likewise, I do not misread you saying that only those who follow the Bible are true Christians, since reading your Preamble message, I know that by that you mean the teachings of Christ in the bible in order to accept him, not that you need only to follow the bible to be a Christian.

You post previous to that one stated, In that you were going by the idea that works was required to be christian. And I replied that works are in no way required to be christian.

I think they might be some confusion on my part, and I can agree that I may have read into your posts, but it appears we seem more clear on why we responded in the way we did.

To question a practice is not necessarily to disagree with it, for I did so to explore further into percieved knots in scripture and faith, in order to untie them in my mind.

The previous post was made to propose a question to you as to a problem I saw with not requiring works; this did not mean that I disagreed that they were not needed, I only meant to express my worry due to the fact that people generally do not do things unless they are required.  Though the following back and forth between us pretty much dissolved this dissonation, and so the post you mention, expressing confusion, is now a sign of my previous misunderstanding, as you can see.

And that's fine. I was explaining to Tycho why I stated my words. They were in direct responses to those two posts. The resulting conversation has gone back and forth, and off in tangents since then.

I stand corrected. I understand why you could read that Peter stands at a pearly gate.

Your joking right?  From those two passages you get that in Heaven, when we die, the Apostle Peter is going to be standing at a pearly gate taking roll call?
*Jude3 slaps his forhead and drags hand down over face*

They are two unrelated scriptures pertaining to two completely different events.  It's like justifying suicide because:

Matt 27:5 "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."

and then:

Luke 10:37 "Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

There you have it!  Jesus promotes hanging yourself, it's in the bible!

The scripture in Matt 16:19 is pertaining to the founding of the earthly church. Look at the context:

Matt 16: 13-20
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" 14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

Jesus is making a prophetic statement about the day of Penticost when the ministry of the church will be founded on Peter's preaching, and later on the Apostle's Holy Spirit inspired doctrine.  The "keys to the kingdom" are metaphorical and pertain to the Holy Spirit.

Revelations 21 is pertaining to the New Jerusalem that will be established after the white throne judgement (now there is your roll call and Peter isn't even mentioned) where all the children of God will dwell forever.  Again, this is metaphorical and presented as revelation to the Apostle John in a way that he would understand and be able to pass on.  Paul makes it clear that our finite minds cannot grasp what Heaven will really be like, but a beautiful city with gates (denoting security and safety) made of one huge solid pearl is pretty spectacular.  These scriptures are unrelated to each other.



I'm going to bump my earlier post because I think it may have gotten missed.  If it just wasn't worth any response, so be it, but I just wanted to be sure it didn't get passed over in all the back and forth.

Jude3 Typed:

The word "Christian" originally was a Greek word meaning "Little Christ".  It was a durogitory name given to those who followed what was then called "The Way" which was the foundation of the early Christian church.  I bring this up because I think it's important to keep in mind that the essence of being a Christian is being "like Christ".  It's more than just following Him, it's endevoring to be like Him.

While I agree with TitL that being a Christian is a process, I strongly disagree that works are inconsiquential to faith.  While I agree that salvation is a gift and that it cannot be "earned", that's not really what's being asked here, as Tycho has so clearly pointed out.  Put another way, if you were put on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?  I don't think the question is "how do you know someone is "saved"", as salvation is something we are both ill-equipped to judge, and are warned not to judge.  Only God see's a man's heart and true motives.

But the question is "What makes you a Christian?", not "What makes you saved?", and so works defineatly plays a role in it, according to Jesus:

Matthew 12:33 NKJ
"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit.

According to Paul:
Romans 8:1 NKJ
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,* who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

According to Jesus' brother James:
James 2:26 NKJ
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


And According to the apostle John:
1 John 1:6 NKJ
If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

And that's just for starters.  According to the New Testament, works play a vital roll in distinguishing a Christian from the rest of the world.

Now Tycho, you've asked what the specifics are, what EXACT actions define a Christian.  I'm afraid you won't like my answer, but this is what the bible teaches:

Romans 8:13-17
13. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
16. The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17. and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

This is the defining, seperated life of the Christian, being lead by the Spirit of God.  That will look different in different people.  I guess the key is, are people:
A. Trusting in the saving power of Jesus Christ?

B. Living life in such a way that they are "putting to death" the habbits and attitudes that make them unlike Christ?

C.  Endevoring in all they do to be more and more like Jesus every minute of every day?

D.  Realizing this cannot be done by human strength, but only by surrendering to the power of the Spirit of Christ in them to do this work?

If a person is living in this way, I would say the chances are high that they are a "True Christian".

So, you would say that most of the people who claim to be christian in the US don't actually love the lord?  Again, I'm trying to figure out what question one needs to ask on a survey to determine if someone is "christian" or not by your definition.  I'm looking for a practical answer here.  Remember where this discussion came from.  You said that most people who think they're christian in the US "obvious" aren't.  I'm trying to figure how how we can sort the "christians" from the "just think they're christians" in a real-world situation.


You've been a part of this site for as long as you have, and you don't think "following Christ" is vague?  I'm a bit surprised by that.  The fact that we're talking about people who you say think they're christians but really aren't should make you realize that it's not clear to all people what it means.  Remember that video you linked to?  Wasn't part of the message "All you kids think you're following Jesus, but most of you really aren't!"



Really?  Just to be clear, you're saying that it is sinful to eat shellfish, and is sinful to where two different types of fabric at the same time?  And anyone who does either of these isn't a real christian because they're not following the bible (at least not once they're made aware of the verse)?







How what came about?  The reason I posted what I did was because you wrote "I'm not stating that making a change makes you a christian," as if it was a counter to what I had been saying.  I'd never said that, so it's not a counter to what I said.  In fact, it's rather unrelated to what I said, which was that if accepting Jesus will change your life, then the lack of a change implies a lack of accepting Jesus.



Ah, okay.  You're saying it's possible to live a Godly life for .1 seconds at the end of your life, and then be saved, and we might not be able to see the change that really did occur.  Fair enough, I'll rephrase my position:  If we know that a change hasn't occurred, then we know that person hasn't accepted Jesus, and thus we know that they're not saved.  Do you agree with that?



How can you tell that someone "clearly" loves satan?  Are you sure that those are the words you really mean?  Does being a sinner imply that you love satan?  Does not living up to the bible mean you love satan?  Is it possible for someone who really does love Jesus to have a weak will, and sin often?  I think claiming that 70% of the US "loves satan" is a pretty strong claim, and one that I think you'll have to use a rather broad meaning of "loves satan" to argue in favor of.


Okay, and just for clarity's sake, you agree with the first part as well?  If you turn to the Lord, your life will change, which implies that if there is no change, you haven't turned to the lord?



Okay, I'm on the verge of giving up and walking away from the discussion at this point.  This wasn't a trick question, nor a hard question.  It was pretty straight forward.  There's no need to obfuscate here.  I didn't ask "where do we start?" or "what source should we use?"  I think I was pretty clear I was asking for your view of how specifically we can determine if someone is a "real" christian.  Answers like the one you gave imply that we all already know exactly what you mean, so there's no point in you explaining.  Again, the idea that everyone knows exactly what it means to be christian is clearly false, because you're stating that 70% of the US doesn't actually know what it means.  You can't have this both ways.  You can't say that most of the people who consider themselves christians don't know what it means to be a christian, and at the same time act like it's perfectly obvious what it means and there's no need to state it clearly.

Alright, that's getting us much closer to a workable, real-work way to check.  It's still a bit beyond what we can actually put on a survey, though.  I think all the people who call themselves Christians would agree with A.  I think they'd all say they try to do B, but admit they weren't competely successful.  I don't think anyone in the world can claim to succeed at C.  Even the most saintly surely has at least one moment each day when their thoughts aren't on Jesus.  And again on the last part, I think all the people who call themselves christians would agree to D.  I don't think putting those 4 questions on a survey would really change the results much.  Additionally, the survey TitL made use of didn't ask those questions.  It asked "how often do you go to church."  He seemed happy to treat people how went to church at least once a week as "real" christians in that survey.  Would you say that's a decent proxy?

If you're trying to sort the real from the fake, then you would need to compare to the genuine article, right?


Alright. The bible does seem fairly specific. Details, and what not. Where else would you go other than the bible to know what christian means?



If you were to look at the bible, you'd find eating shellfish and two fabrics wouldn't apply to christians. That was a jewish law.







It was to counter the point previous, (the sentence I wrote) to counter I wasn't saying a change makes you christian. I was countering the point so it was more clear what was being said.



I agree with with that if we knew the change did not occur, then we know the person did not accept Jesus. However, do you want to explain how we knew the person did not change inside?



There are only two sides. God and satan.


I agree that if there is no change, then you haven't turned to the lord.



If you want to be an aircraft mechanic, would it ever occur to you to turn to a cook book as your guide book? Where do you turn to if you want to be a christian? There is only one book that serves as a guideline.

I don't see how anything else could be less obvious.

Let me first say that I don't believe in most "surveys" per say.  I have more faith in studies and reports because they tend to delve a bit deeper into their subjects so you have a bit more information to work with.  Surveys are a bit too general to seperate what a "true Christian" is from what I would term as a "casual" or "carnal" Christian.  I would agree with you Tycho that on a survey most people would answer as you have suggested if they held to any christian belief system at all.  The problem is some people think they're Christians just because they live in the US or because they attend a church once in a while or they don't sleep around much or are better than their neighbor who is a real creep.  To answer your question directly, no, I think chruch attendence is a small part of being a true Christian.  I believe church attendance is important in the life of a believer, but it's very easy to go to church one day a week and sleep through a sermon, then go and live like you've never set foot in a church the rest of the week then call yourself a Christian.
People are lifelong members of churches, go every week faithfully, and never have a personal connection to Christ.  That would be the essence of being a Christian, having that personal connection that is life altering.  It's near impossible to say how that will look in real life however because as the term implies, it's a personal walk.  If a person's behavior goes against the teachings of Christ then it's obvious they are not living a Christian life, but whether or not they are a true Christian is hard for us to judge.  The bible says that there will be those who's works will be burned up, but they themselves will be saved on the day of judgement.  Jesus taught that there would be those who performed precieved miracles in His name and He will say, "Away from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you."  The bottom line is "man looks at the outward, but God sees the heart."  You're correct in the idea that a person can genuinely be saved and a true believer who has a besetting sin that he or she keeps falling into.  That isn't a person you'd put up as a role modle or have in a leadership position, but you certainly wouldn't throw that person out of the church if each time they fell into that sin they came back broken and repentant.
For the purpose of the survey, Tycho, I'm not sure there is a great answer for your question.  You could ask things like,
1. Do you have sex outside of marriage?

2. Do you use drugs/alcohol to excess or to deal with your problems?

3. Do you believe in one God, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, and His Son Jesus Christ?

4. Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ on a daily basis?

5.  Are you in accountable relationships that encourage you to grow in your faith and your walk with God?

6.  How often do you pray?

7.  How do you deal with sin?

8.  How's your relationship with your parents?

9.  Do you harbor bitterness or ill-feelings towards anyone?

10.  Do you lie, gossip or slander others with your words?

The list could go on for twenty or thirty questions, and even then all of this doesn't absolutely tell you if a person is a true Christian or not because simply doing or not doing these things will not get you into Heaven.  Only a personal relationship with Jesus will do that.  The heart is what's important, what's in yoru heart?  If you are truly repentant and desiring to follow Christ and looking to His sacrifice to atone for your sin, then you're on your way.  Proverbs says "The righeous man falls seven times, but he gets up again each time."  That's the essence of Christian righteousness and holiness.  It's not that we will never sin again, nobody can achieve that but Jesus.  It's a question of when we fall, do we let it keep us down and destroyed or do we own it, bring it to the cross of Jesus and release it, learn from it, and move on?  If you are doing that in your life your probably a true Christian.

Okay, I'm giving up on this half of the discussion at this point.  I can't get a straight answer on this out of you after many many tries.  I just can't believe you don't understand what I'm asking at this point.



Well, to be honest, I had thought you were going to tell me.  I thought your position was that you could tell that 70% of people in the US hadn't made a change.  As that information doesn't seem like it's going to be forthcoming, I can only say I don't know how to tell.  Asking them would probably be a good way to find out.




Okay.  But how does that translate into "they love satan."  There are only two sexes.  Do you only love one of them and hate the other?  Can we follow Jesus' orders and love everyone if there are two different genders?  Do you love all women, and hate all men?  Vice versa?  The fact that there are only "two sides" doesn't imply that you have to love one (and only one) of them.  There are only two democrats still in the running for the presidential nomination, do you love one of them?  There are only heads or tails, do you love one of them?

Why do you think 70% of people in the US "clearly love satan?"  What does it mean to you to "love satan?"  [note: these are both real questions]


Great!  That's what Heath believes too, as I stated so long ago when this argument started.

That's entirely legitimate.  We can switch to a hypothetical study instead of a hypothetical survey from this point out.

This all sounds fair to me.


These are good, and pretty much what I was looking for.  But now we have to realize something:  If we use these questions (or others like them) to sort the "real" christians from the "not-real" christians, we can no longer make meaingful claims about those things in the questions and how being a real christians has a causal affect on them.

For example, if we ask them "do you have sex outside of marriage," to determine if they're real christians or not, then we can no longer make a meaningful statement such as "our studies show that being a real christian leads to a lower rate of sex outside of marriage."  It's the other way around:  not having sex outside of marriage leads to you being labelled as a real christian in the study.  Similarly, if we ask them whether they have a good relationship with their parents to determine if they're real christians or not, we can't draw any conclusions about how being a "real" christian affects your relationship with your parents.

What I'm saying is that we need to avoid writing our assumed conclusion into the test itself.  "Real christians live a different way than everyone else" is a hypothesis we might want to test.  We might think "it seems like it should be true, but is it?  How can we find out?"  If we really want to know if "real" christians live a different life than everyone else, we have to make sure our way of determining who's a real christian and who's not isn't based on our assumption that they live different types of lives.  If we're sloppy, the study will only really tell us tautological results like "people who don't get divorced have a very low divorce rate."

Further, to be fair, we can't compare someone who can give the 'right' answer to all 20 questions to those who get at least one 'wrong.'  Maybe having a good relationship with your parents leads to a lower divorce rate.  If that's possible, we shouldn't compare people who have a good relationship with their parents (and a number of other qualities) to people who may or may not have a good relationship with their parents (and may or may not have a number of other qualities).  We should compare "real christians" who have a good relationship with their parents to other people who also have a good relationship with their parents but aren't real christians.  And likewise for the other questions.


This is much better.  If we ask people "are you truly repentant and desiring to follow Christ, etc." that's (in my opinion) a much better way of determining if they're a "real" christian or not.  And, it's independent of the assumption that being a real christian will lead to a better life style.  We could ask this question of people, and see if those who say yes really do lead a different type of life, or if they're more or less like everyone else in their behavior.  If you use people's actions to determine if they're christian or not, then you cannot make a meaningful independent statement that being a christian leads to those actions.
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:02, Mon 03 Mar 2008.

Bump - since we're talking about the definition of a Christian, and what makes a group Christian or not...  Feel free to continue it here!

Bumping for myself, so I can address some stuff from the Catholic thread here.

Interesting real world effect of Protestants claiming Mormons aren't "Christians:"
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...hp?storyId=130682153

Quite offensive, really.  Too bad the Mormons are too "Christian" to sue...  ;)
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:12, Thu 21 Oct 2010.

Seems rather odd myself. To be honest, as a christian, I wouldn't send my children to a mormon based child club. I don't see why a mormon family would send their child to a club that is supposed to be based on book that does not support mormon faith.

My opinion is the article or the parents are trying to grab a few minutes of fame. Not sure what purpose that attention serves though. Maybe appear victims? Gain sympathy?

Is the issue here the boy scouts or the prebertyrians?
The boy scouts essentially went to the supreme court to defend their right to discriminate freely, what do you really expect?

Yea, I agree. Wouldn't it be silly if a woman's fitness club were forced to accept men?

I do not understand why people want to join a club that has a different belief or goal. Joining a club so you can change their goal to match your interests seems so silly.

The boy scouts went well beyond that, basically asserting a broad base in rights to discriminate that would cover race, creed, or whatever basis they felt like, not just things that are intrinsic to the experience.
I agree with teh legal standpoint that they are allowed to do it, but I don't exactly expect anything resembling tollerance from the BSA. Might as well have Phelps watch your kids.

I am reading you feel the boy scouts are able to discriminate on any reason they feel like, and suggest they are discriminating on anything.

That's not accurate. I'm assuming from previous posting, you know that they cannot discriminate on any reason they feel like for anything.

If you agree with the legal stand point, what is the problem with a group wanting to ensure it's leadership matches in goals? I get the impression you are suggesting they are discriminating in a bad way.

For me, I consider the form of discrimination they are using is the exact same as a woman's gym. In other words, a non negative use of the form of discrimination.

Like one discriminates between flavors of kool aid.

They discriminate against homosexual men because it is their perogative to do so. This is a part of the national charter, nd is based on bigotry towards homosexuals, pure and simple. It is litterally teh cause they took to the supreme court.
I believe they have the right to do so, and that the government shoudl not force them to accept someone into their ranks on a basis they do no like. On the other hand I also feel that in response as say an employer I should be free to discriminate against boy scouts, or other groups which make similar exercise of teh same rights like the Klu Klux Klan.
But that is my opinion.
And yes, I do put the BSA and the KKK in teh same category whe it comes to the basis for their discrimination. The BSA may not preach violence or active hatred, but their cause is just as based on prejudicial stereotypes.

Right, the boy scouts don't discriminate for any reason. They are selective in trying to have leaders that support their position. That seems reasonable. Freedom of religion in this case. It's supported and should be supported.

Like you say, you agree with that right.

So why is it negative?
This message was last edited by the player at 02:30, Fri 22 Oct 2010.

First of all, the BSA is not a religious organization on a national level, but on a national level they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and religion. This sin't like the women's gym saying women only- if they were the Christian scouts of America then that would be one thing, but they are not- they are equally accepting of christian ans Jewish leaders and officially Muslim, unofficially they are fine with atheists as well (again on a national level) but not gays.
It isn't because they are organized arround questions of homosexuality, they simply *are* homophobic and want the right to discriminate against 'those icky people'. It isn't based on some theological statement fo belief or doctrine, or category of who s being served by theri mission statement, just 'we don't like them keep them away'.

Though having said that i generally don't care for organizations which *are* organized on teh basis of atheological aversion to a person's innate characteristics. I can understand but do not fully support the idea of seperation by sex, but for most other things unless it defines what an organisation is actually about (no atheist ministers in the christian church for example) I just do not like organizations whihc are discriminatory in nature.

Just because I believe they have a right to do something does not mean I believe it is the right thing for them to do.

Yea, I'm going to have to say that the boy scouts speaking of a duty to God seems to have a faith based approach. A duty to God cannot be anything but a stance related to religion.

However, their ability to not include a group is exactly the same as a woman's gym. The woman's gym and Boy scouts are privately owned, and can choose any membership they choose to.




Uhm, this seems like an opinion. Is there an official stance on this, or anything they have at least stated to support your viewpoint?

Discrimination isn't always a bad thing. It's just plain silly to say that everyone should be included even if their ideas are contrary to what the goal is. Discrimination can and does mean the ability to tell the difference, which isn't automatically bad.

Right, but not agreeing with a viewpoint doesn't mean they are wrong.

In my opinion, you posted incorrect information attempting to smear the boy scouts for doing something they are allowed, and should actually be encouraged to do. We shouldn't be making people conform to our view points.

http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=542
is their official position on homosexuality, and
http://scoutleaderawards.com/a...yscout/religious.asp
is the available religious badges, including Muslim, Ba'hai, Buddhism, and Hinduism

http://www.religionfacts.com/h...xuality/hinduism.htm
outlines the debate within Hinduism regarding homosexuality which has a long tradition of viewing homosexual unions as sacred.

Finally the BSA oath to serve 'God and country' is as generic and non-specific as 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance, added by congress. does that make the US a religious based organization?

You do realize none of that supports our earlier statement about being homophobes, and "icky people"?

I am aware that the boy scouts have groups that are based on different faiths/religions, yes.

While I do understand you feel they are being hypocritical in their stance to award a badge for faith in a particular religion, but then ot encourage the ramifications of those religious beliefs, it's not exactly possible to have all those faiths be enacted all at the same time and be equal. I see that as a non issue. No one should expect such a long list of religions to agree on everything at all times. Plenty of those religions listed are beliefs that counter each other.



To your last question, on serving God and country, does it make the US a religious based group? Originally, they were a group of religious people. Now, that seems pretty clear the country is not.

Think of it this way. Some music bands have music based on faith. And some bands have band members of a faith, but their music is not based on faith.

The USA had a government that used to be faithful men, but their laws while originally based on faith cannot say that any longer.

The BSA is more religious-based at the national level than it is at the local level, in my experience. The second goal listed for Tiger Scouts is spiritual growth. It is also primarily a Christian organization. Baden Powell was a Christian, and believed in the value of Christian behaviors. The BSA movement is closely aligned with several churches, and has historically been associated with predominantly Christian countries.

However, at the local level, the troops and packs are given a lot of leeway in how they operate. While BSA is officially against atheists and homosexuality, a number of informal surveys have found that individual troops and packs usually have no issue with it, and will work around religious requirements for boys who don't have a religious leaning.

Packs and troops are also oftentimes associated with another organization, such as a YMCA, a location, a language group, a church, etc. They may restrict themselves more or less to those standards on a case-by-case basis. I know for instance of ones which won't accept people who are outside of the local area, or who won't accept boys who don't have a learning deficiency, such as autism. I don't think those are unfair grounds to discriminate based off of. It's a community program, and they are focusing on a single, tight community. In this case, they are focusing on a single church community. They wouldn't accept the Lutheran from the church down the road, or the agnostic, or even another Episcopalean if they aren't part of that Church (at least, presumably). If that is the standard they're adhering to, that seems okay to me. It doesn't seem any worse a sort of discrimination than limiting a pack to a particular school or neighborhood block. I don't think it's a question of Christian vs. Not-Christian.

When I was in the BSA, back in the 80's, the troop I 'graduted' into from cub scouts sat arround at meetings talking about merit badges, scoring with girls, gettin drugs, alchohol and cigarettes, then played their game of "smear the queer". Needless to say I didn't stay long.

Sorry you had a negative experience with it. Things have changed since the 80's, and like most groups, awareness, and understanding have increased dramatically.

Really? Because from where I sit it sounds like they have been taken over more thoroughly by the same intollerance that I saw in that troop, when faced with their own double standards they have fought tooth and nail to engage in prejudicial discrimination rather than try and improve the organization. Can you show me documentation of how they have improved, when what I see is statements affriming and expanding upon those negative outlooks I saw when I was there?

Christ Covenant Church is about 25 miles of where I grew up.  Perhaps someone should tell the Stokes family that an LDS church(Abundant Life Foursquare) in Mooresville has a Scout group that is solely for Mormons.  It's quite popular from what I remember.

Again, troops vary significantly from troop to troop. I've been involved with three boy scout troops and three cub scout packs, and I've never seen anything *remotely* like that. In fact, needless to say, all but one of those are directly contradictory to the Boy Scout code of ethics, so you would have been in your right for reporting them.

Well Silver, I understand you have a negative history, but there is simply nothing that suggests what you experienced continues in that fashion. "smeer the queer", and how to score with girls, and get alcohol and drugs seems rather unsupported.

I get you had a negative experience, and you are holding some pain or some feelings of what the group is. But your statements so far have remained unsupported.




To me, I don't see "smear the queer", how to score with girls, and how to gain drugs and alcohol on the list above in the goal of responsible citizenship, etc.


To be honest silver, I do understand your feelings towards the group. They aren't in line with your views. I get it. However, what happened to you is not the goal of the organization. You don't have to forget, and really you don't even have to forgive them for your experiences. However, you also don't have to make things up either about them that aren't exactly truth.

To me, just because they don't have the same viewpoint as you, you shouldn't fault them for not agreeing with your viewpoint.

Those goals were part of the public statements back in the 1980's as well. You asked where I got the idea that their aversion to homosexuality was based on 'ick factor' rather than doctrine- I have shown where they are non doctrinal to the point of including religious disciplines which have a favorable view of homosexuality and my personal experience for how the 'ick factor' applies. The fact they don't have a press release stating 'we exclude homosexuals because we find them icky' does not mean that all other experience is irrelevant, and personally I don't find the idea that 'well they must be better than that now because their PR paints a much rosier picture' very convincing.
And yes I'm sure not every troop was like that, but at the same time the leadership in that area didn't seem to feel there was anything wrong or abnormal about that behavior- and in fact endorsed and promoted the 'smear the queer' game.