now that FoG has suggested that we see a courtroom drama starring Mr. T., I think it would be very interesting to find out what he thinks (or even if he’s seen) a courtroom drama starring Spencer Tracy. Namely, Inherit the Wind. In particular, it would be interesting to find out what he thought of the actual Scopes Trial itself. Does he feel that Bryan presented a good defense?
Now, obviously I can’t ask him myself, because he’s decided to execute the Ditwad Maneuver. But I would hope that now that I’ve raised the issue, someone else might be curious enough to ask him.
FoG: *I think you have indeed unearthed the root of the misunderstanding we are having. Thank you! And actually, you have given me another rather large insight into how those on this board think. Apparently, the definition of “Christian” on this board is a very broad definition. *
Happy to help! But I’m puzzled that you feel that most of us here are using an unusually “broad” definition of “Christian”: it doesn’t seem to be any broader than the one that Christian communities worldwide use. Baptist, Nestorian, Coptic, Catholic, LDS, Anglican, Maronite, SDA, they all believe in the divinity of Christ so they’re all designated “Christian”. I would certainly feel very rude trying to impose any other ideological/theological screening procedure on any self-identified Christian, so I think that “broad” definition will be around for a long time to come.
*Kimstu, this may help with understanding more of where I’m coming from: I would agree that America is a very very religious country. Again, most people believe in God. Most people belong to some religion, and the vast majority of those people belong to some Christian denomination. I simply don’t equate “religious” with “Christian”. I have known many people (primarily when I was younger) who go to church almost as a ‘religious fix’ but they have no personal relationship with God. They are very religious but are not Christian. *
See now, this is the part that fries my brain, and I think it’s what has been causing so much confusion for many of us (as well as a lot of frustration for folks like Monty and Ben). I simply cannot wrap my head around the concept of admitting that somebody belongs to a Christian denomination and believes its Christian theology and goes to its Christian church but yet is not a Christian. (It sounds to me like somebody saying “Yeah, he was born in Ireland and his parents’ families have been in Ireland since forever and he has Irish citizenship, but he’s not Irish, you know.” Huh bllblble what? Why not?)
You say that the requirement is that the person have a personal relationship with God: ummm, but as was noted above, nobody but God and the person involved knows whether that’s true, right? Maybe all the religious people you know do have a personal relationship with God. Maybe none of the people you consider Christians have one! Maybe there aren’t any “real Christians” and so it can’t be true that the media display bias against them! The US is not a predominantly Christian society and so all those newspaper “Religion” sections are meaningless blub! Ow ow ow ow ow my brain…
Whew. FoG, you see how intensely weird it appears to me (and probably to most others here) to attempt to qualify people’s religious denomination based on your evaluation of whether they have a personal relationship with God. I’m gonna have to go on classifying “Christians” strictly on a self-identification basis. I make no claims that they’re all “good” Christians or “true” Christians or “Godly” Christians, but if they say they’re Christians then I’m gonna call them Christians. IMHO, this is ultimately the only sane way to deal with questions of religious identity.
(returning with relief to the comparative simplicity and straightforwardness of medieval manuscripts. Good luck, all…)
I am understanding FriendofGod to distinguish between “Christians who have accepted a personal relationship with God through Jesus” and (a) people who profess to be Christian but (at least in FoG’s opinion, and sometimes by their own admission) do not have such a relationship, and (b) people who claim to be Christian but have a different understanding of who Jesus was than traditional orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.
But I think, FoG, you need to think carefully about the point Kimstu is making here – as we’ve discussed before, in hostility and in peace, it’s not for you or me to judge. Are the Mormons, for example, whose conception of God differs in subtle but significant ways from yours and mine, not Christian? I know several Mormons online, and they are sincere in believing in God and accepting Jesus as Savior or Lord. (I’d ask one of them to post the LDS formulary that is equivalent to that vow or the Apostles’ Creed, since I don’t know it myself.)
I’ve known a number of people who are not enthusiastic about evangelism, who tend to find the strong prophetic way of saying things distasteful, yet who have a strong and sincere belief in God. Which side of the line do they fall on?
How about a man who believes sincerely in God, has some skepticism about whether Jesus in fact lived and did the things the Gospels report, and is in search of spiritual answers that will satisfy him? What do you think of him?
What about a girl deeply in love with another girl, and committed to following Jesus? I remember several sharp exchanges between us in the abstract on this topic – I know one quite concrete example now?
And how do you decide? I think I agree there have to be limits to make the term meaningful, but where do you set them? And why is that the proper place?
I’m not arguing a particular viewpoint here, just asking some probing questions on the topic.
**FoG, it is not your place to determine who is or is not a “real” Christian. You cannot know what is in the hearts of others, and you cannot know God’s will. Claiming an ability to do so is an affront to the Lord.
I disagree. And I would say this if you were talking about any kind of group. Why? Because discerning people who have the actual facts laid out before them will be able to see for themselves what’s going on and make up their own minds.
In the example you provided: I think the media should interview:
The poor woman: find out what her perspective is on the clinic and the protesters
The protesters: find out why they held their signs and shouted. What was their rationale, and how do they feel about the way the poor woman reacted?
The clinic: what is their opinion of the protesters and the woman
Other Pro Life groups: what is their reaction to this type of protest
Other Pro Choice groups: ditto
What’s wrong with the above? If people view this and conclude that the protesters are terrorists, so be it. If they conclude they are misguided people with good intentions but bad methods, so be it again. What’s wrong with just laying out facts and letting people draw their own conclusions about what those facts mean?
Kimstu said:
You know what I just realized? I’ve been guilty of doing something I thought I would never be guilty of doing: speaking “Christianese”. Ie, saying things that Christians instinctively talk about and understand but that others scratch their heads over and go, ‘huh’?
I really appreciate what you are saying. I am starting to see that I’ve been quite naiive in many ways. I’ve heard so many speakers in my lifetime speak on this topic (or at least mention it in passing) that it’s as bland and natural of a belief to me as simply believing in God. I could probably build a church if I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard ‘Going to church doesnt make you a Christian anymore than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger’, or some variation (ie going to a pet store doesnt make you a pet, etc). In Christian circles, it’s a huge cliche! To be honest, it never occurred to me that some people had never heard this! I don’t mean that to sound bad, it’s just something I never considered.
As a brief aside, I don’t want it at all to sound like I think you can look at someone and say, “Hmmm … long hair … only one button unbuttoned on the shirt … yup, that one’s a Christian”. I’m not at all saying it’s always easy to tell who’s who, but simply that walking into a church building and even regularly attending doesn’t make you a Christian.
Kimstu I really want to respond to your post more in depth (and Polycarp’s further down) but I don’t have time right now. I should be able to tomorrow or at least this weekend. But if I got your head spinning, wait until you read this! Here’s just something to chew on until I’m able to give you a full and detailed reply:
So demons are religious: they believe in God! But somehow I doubt anyone believes they are Christians.
What if that woman is as interested in what you call facts as you are in what the rest of the planet calls facts?
I think the whole group of y’all should just quit interfering with the lady’s constitutional rights.
Just answered.
It’s the clinic bombings, the murder of doctors, and the shouting at and harassment of those seeking treatment that brands them as terrorists because all of those actions are, in fact, terroristic.
OMG! Not the “it’s for her own good” defense?!
See above about the way you view facts.
APPARENTLY, you’ve been playing God.
So who’re you calling demons? Is that supposed to make me feel better than being called “not a Christian?”
This from the guy who didn’t know or understand that non-Christians regularly suffer harrassment and discrimination at the hands of the Christian majority, and who believes the media is pervasively anti-Christian. I would be very, very careful using the words “discerning,” “facts” and “minds” in sentences, were I you.
You know, FoG, this is what gets people’s dander up–this idea that the rest of us are just, well, not experienced enough to know what you’re talking about. I’d wager we all know exactly what you’re talking about, and think it’s silly. Kimstu included.
First off, I bet there are plenty of Christians on the SDMB and elsewhere who have never run into a Fundamentalist in their lives, who have never heard the ideas you espouse about who is and isn’t a Real Christian[sup]TM[/sup], who have never seen or heard of a Biblical literalist, etc. You say you have never heard of a believer who didn’t believe the Bible was inerrant and literally true? Until I was 19 years old, I had never heard of one who did.
Second, we aren’t idiots. Indeed, I daresay that many of us are a lot more experienced and a lot less naive about life than you are. Don’t assume that when you go off on your little exegeses about matters Christian that we don’t understand–we simply disagree.
Third, you’re doing it again. " . . . things that Christians instinctively talk about and understand . . ." Sure, as long as you’re only talking about your narrow definition of what a Christian is. You talk in circles, son. You’re pulling the True Scotsman shtick again. (“Christians instinctively talk about and understand these things.” “None of the Christians I’ve ever known have done so.” “Well, then, they weren’t Christians.”) I’ve been in plenty of Christian groups throughout my life, and they never talked about the things you’re referring to.
Fourth, this stuff about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is a fairly recent theological derivation, has no Biblical basis, and is disagreed upon by many of the mainstream Christian denominations. The Bible says, quite clearly, that whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ – which is to say, that he is the only begotten Son of God, that he was crucified in Jerusalem around 33 CE, that he was a sacrifice who took upon himself the sins of all mankind for all time, and that you accept that sacrifice and ask forgiveness – shall have eternal life. Period. You, Jodi, Polycarp, Triskadecamus, Crunchy Frog, Thea Logica, Guinastasia, all of you believe this. You are all Christians. What you personally think about their walk with God is of no consequence whatsoever. And any actions they perform in life which might appear to be in conflict with the generally accepted tenets of Christianity are a matter to be taken up between them and their God. This is about the ten millionth time this has been explained to you, and if even a heathen bastard like me can understand it, then what hope is there for you?
I hereby nominate this statement for Understatement of the Millennium.
Maybe it’s because you’re naive, inexperienced, and unschooled? I don’t mean that to sound bad, it’s just that you live in a box [sub]thisbig[/sub]. That Reality Tunnel of yours that Cervaise refers to? It’s really, really, really narrow. Maybe about the diameter of a drinking straw.
Me neither. I’m Catholic, and I’d never heard of any of that when I was growing up. When I was 19, I was shocked to find out that one of my friends, also a Christian, didn’t believe that evolution had taken place. I wasn’t aware that there was such a large group of Christians that didn’t think Genesis 1 was obviously metaphorical.
I’ve never heard of this “personal relationship” stuff before, either.
What?? That analogy doesn’t make any sense at all! A hamburger is the product sold by McDonald’s (just like pets are the product sold by pet stores), but unless your church is very, very different than the ones I’ve seen, one does not go to a church in order to purchase Christians. Let’s fix it to read, “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than going to McDonald’s makes you a fast-food customer.” There, now at least it makes sense from an analogical standpoint. It’s still missing the point, however. If you go to McDonald’s and make a purchase, you are a fast-food customer. If you go to church and pray and claim to be a Christian, you are a Christian. The only one who can say differently is God, and it’s been awhile since He’s last dropped by.
Apparently, you and I travel in very different circles, FoG.
The demons don’t really believe in God, they know for a fact he exists. We don’t. That’s a big difference.
They shudder. It doesn’t sound to me like they worship God. Christians - even ones which aren’t “real Christians” - do. That’s an even bigger difference.
FoG said to me: *Here’s just something to chew on until I’m able to give you a full and detailed reply: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder.” (James 2:19)
So demons are religious: they believe in God! But somehow I doubt anyone believes they are Christians.*
(chew chew chew chew)
?
(chew chew chew chew)
!
Good golly. I think I understand, but this seems like, um, a very special type of thinking (“it’s not logic, it’s FoGic!”) You seem to be arguing against the proposition that anyone who believes in God ought to be considered a Christian. But I never suggested that: after all, Jews and Muslims believe in God, but of course Jews and Muslims aren’t Christians, and don’t call themselves such. All I said is that people who believe that Jesus is God and worship him are, and should be referred to as, Christians. If the demons worshiped Jesus as God, they’d be Christians too.
Yes, I know that just showing up in a church doesn’t make you automatically a Christian: I attended church regularly for about ten years up to a few months ago (to sing in the choir), and I was an openly convinced atheist throughout that time and still am. (They were nice Christian folk and let me sing anyway; altos are scarce. :)) But as pointed out above, going to church to worship Jesus as God (or simply believing that Jesus is God, in church or out of it) does mean that you’re a Christian, at least by any sane criterion of religious identity.
It doesn’t automatically make you a “true” or “good” Christian, but it definitively settles the question of what basic label to apply. As I pointed out on another thread, unsatisfactory Christians may be rotten apples but they’re still in your barrel: you may decide (at whatever sacrifice of your Christian humility and charity) that they fall short of your personal standards of friendship with God, but you don’t get to officially define them out of your religion and into some other one on that account. They are Christians.
I hope that makes it more clear how I (and, I think, everybody else here) use the term “Christian”: i.e., in the same way that pretty much everybody in the world uses any label of religious identity, namely, based on self-identification and a few basic issues of religious belief. I am kind of surprised that anybody could have grown to adulthood in this world without learning how to employ this usage (at least, when speaking to people who have different beliefs from yours).
If it will really drive you nuts or feel like a betrayal of your convictions to call other people “Christians” just because they believe in Jesus Christ, you might try adding a qualification such as “so-called Christians” or “self-proclaimed Christians”. I should warn you that a lot of Christians will probably be kind of miffed at such expressions, but I think it would be a more honest usage than pretending to be nonjudgemental while at the same time using the word “Christian” specifically or primarily to describe those Christians who share your particular sectarian beliefs. Verbum sap.
I think (and I could be way off, here) that FoG might be alluding to Matthew, Chapter 7…
Rather than post the whole thing here, I’ll post the ‘hinge text’:
Matthew 7:21-23
This whole chapter has the potential to be used as ‘ammunition’ for/against both sides in this thread/argument/debate/debacle–judging, belief vs nonbelief, faith and it’s foundation–I hope that folks will simply address the highlighted text and the surrounding contextual information regarding Christ’s assurance that though people do things in the name of God, they somehow miss the mark.
I’m trying to clarify: is this the pith of the matter FoG has addressed regarding ‘Church Attendees Who Are Not Christian?’
Hey, everyone, look what I got! (Freyr holds up a Golden Apple). It’s really neat, I got it from the Erisians now the street. Look what is says on it “To the TRUE Christians.”
I’ll just toss this in here! (Freyr lobs the apple to the crowd …exit one Norse God…)
but I think it would be a more honest usage than pretending to be nonjudgemental while at the same time using the word “Christian” specifically or primarily to describe those Christians who share your particular sectarian beliefs. Verbum sap.