I concede that, on some level, you are correct, as there are people who believe as you do, and I cannot force them to change their minds. But it just…it seems wrong, y’know? The idea that such an important organization, deep down, is essentially meaningless does not sit right with me. You are right, I think–but I wonder if the world would be a better place were you wrong.
Sure, but the whole performing miracles and rising from the dead and claiming that no man could enter but through him seems to suggest that when he states that God is his father, he means it.
What is in his original post, and what is in his heart are not infallibly within my perception.
When I said other judgements would not matter, I intended to include my own.
Tris
A person who doesn’t believe in the supernatural would say that these miracles were exaggerations by his contemporaries (same as miracles accomplished by Catholic Saints).
“…not believing in God is something else.”
Yet believing in god is something else, too.
Nup, only you can say if you are a christian or not. No man can see in another man’s heart.
It’s not an organization. That’s one of the important factors.
To me it’s very simple, you are a Christian if you say that you are, regardless of your beliefs affiliations, or practices or if you are going to spend time in the underworld or not.
Now this is quite different then knowing Jesus, which is knowing Love - and these are interchangeable as God is one, and God is Love.
Yep. In fact, the dogma of “salvation through faith”/accepting Jesus as your personal savior and the divinity of Jesus (the widely accepted key definition of Christianity among fundamentalists and evangelicals) can be argued to contradict the teachings of Jesus.
He said, “Don’t worship me” and “work out your own salvation.”
He never took credit for a single miracle, but said something along the lines of, “As you believe, so it has been done to you” and “By your faith have you been healed”.
He said, “Ye are gods” and “The things I do, ye shall do far greater.”
He acknowledged or at least didn’t refute reincarnation in at least one passage (his disciples had arrived in a town ahead of him and upon his arrival, he asked, “Who do they say I am?” His men told him, “They say you are Elijah, come again.” (A reference to a long dead prophet). Instead of taking the opportunity to correct them or generally reject the common concept of reincarnation, he responded, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, a man must be born again to enter the kingdom of Heaven.”)
So someone could call themselves a Christian and NOT accept the divinity of Jesus (or the EXCLUSIVE divinity of Jesus) and be on pretty solid ground, even though under the current, widely accepted definition, they would not qualify as such.
But the OP also says he/she doesn’t base personal morality on or give any mind to the teachings of Jesus, which sort of makes adopting the title of Christian grounded in nothing other than social identity (as in “I’m not a Muslim or Hindu or Jewish, so I’m a Christian”, which is why I suspect polls often show such a high percentage of Americans identifying as such…no WAY are 85% or 97% of Americans “Christians” as in practicing as such) :dubious:
I was asking a rhetorical question.
I assume you consider yourself a Christian. Would you be willing to cede to some authoritative body the right to determine whether you are “really” a Christian? What if they choose some set of criteria that puts you outside that definition?