Is this another one of those ugly iMac things? You guys work it out amongst yourselves, I don’t want it. Besides, now that I’ve read tracer’s post, I think I need to go out and buy some ram’s blood or something anyway.
**Others have pointed out the fallacy in this, but I want to try my hand at it. "Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than going to McDonald’s makes you a carnivore." After all, some people go there for the salads.
With the hamburger analogy:
Does that mean in order to become a Christian, you not only need to go to church, you need to be killed, ground up in a meat grinder, sent to church, molded into little patties, and then cooked on a grill for a couple of minutes?
Dang. No wonder there are so few “true” Christians!
Well it seems we’ve got another pot boiling ;).
I’m going to back up to Kimstu’s original response and then work my way down.
Kimstu said:
I do understand how weird it is now (although just to clarify: it’s not based on ‘my evaluation’ of whether they have a relationship with God or not – it’s based on wheter they actually have one or not). One thing that may help in all this it to realize I grew up in and am still living in the Bible Belt. Heck, many non Christians I’ve met in my life have believed that going to church doesn’t make you a Christian. Again, I’ve just rarely met people who didn’t believe this, but it’s no biggie to me that many of you have never heard of it. It might just have to do with the part of the country one lives in as to whether they hear that concept a lot or not.
As for explaining the concept better, let me give a few examples that might help. Again keep in mind the definition: a Christian is someone with a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
- As has already been pointed out later in the thread, you can be an athiest and be in a church building, even regularly.
- I’ve known many people through the years who were not Christians who attended church regularly just to “check it out” and see what it was all about. Within a few months they would usually either come to Christ or leave.
- (Obviously extreme example alert): You could live on a desert island your entire life and be a Christian, obviously never darkening the doors of a church. A Christian is someone with a personal relationship with God, which can be had anywhere.
- *** Here is the example that I think will explain the main difference. You could go your entire life attending church regularly, singing the hymns, BELIEVING that Jesus Christ existed and died and rose from the dead, EVEN believing that the Bible is the totally inspired and inerrant Word of God … and not be a Christian. Again, if you realize the definition, this totally makes sense. You could do and believe all of the above … yet not have a personal relationship with Jesus. This is the difference in “being religious” and truly having a relationship with the living God.
- Here is the opposing example: you could go your entire life and never going to church, never study the Bible, not even doing any religious acts at all, have little understanding of theology, maybe even be very off on many of your beliefs … and still be a Christian. Again, the only qualification is a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Understanding how to come to Christ is the only essential theology you have to have.
Kimstu I think I’ll jump down to your next response just to keep it all together. I had to comment on this:
LOL! That gave me a good laugh.
That’s fair, as long as you believe that ‘believe’ is more than mental assent.
Well I think I take your point but I would reword it. Going to church to worship Jesus as God doesn’t mean I’m a Christian … it’s having a relationship with God through Jesus (which, in all likelihood, motivates me to go to church) that means I’m a Christian. Simply believing that Jesus is God, in church or out of it … well again it depends on what you mean by ‘believe’. If you mean ‘trusting Him to take control of your life’, I agree.
Oh certainly. Christians can act in very un-Christian ways. There are sincere Christians with warped theologies about various things. There are sincere Christians with bad habits that wreak havoc. Etc etc. I would agree. All I’m pointing out is that not everyone in the world that claims to be a Christian is one. This is clear from the scripture Pariah pointed out.
For example: you can think to yourself, “I go to church, I pay my tithes, I sing in the choir, I believe Jesus is the Son of God and I believe the Bible is true: therefore I’m a Christian”. The person who thinks this is tragically mistaken, and there are many out there who do think this. Again, it’s having a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, not “being religious”, that makes you a Christian. They would TELL you they’re a Christian but they aren’t! I realize this will offend some if not many, but I’ve never let that stop me before (as if you couldn’t tell) ;).
Arg … Polycarp and others I will try to get to your posts later this weekend, I’m outta time again. Hopefully I’ve at least somewhat addressed the issues you raised Kimstu!
Um, Friend of God, you started this thread to talk about a couple of movies. Now…forget it. Shake the dust. Admit you made a mistake with the prophecy thing and walk away.
Um, Friend of God, you started this thread to talk about a couple of movies. Now…forget it. Shake the dust. Admit you made a mistake with the prophecy thing and walk away. At least you can leave with the satisfaction of knowing your mistakes are forgiven.
But you see - you don’t know whether or not someone actually has a personal relationship with G-d, so you make these judgements off of your personal perceptions, which is essentially the definition of an “evaluation”. The fact is, it’s your opinion as to whether or not they have a personal relationship with G-d, not a factual thing like you seem to feel it is. The only ones who know about the nature of the relationship are the individual involved and G-d. There are no outside indicators of whether or not an individual has a relationship with G-d and frankly, until you can either read minds or prophesy from God (which we have already seen will not happen), you really have no way of knowing if your opinion is true or not.
Seriously, a personal relationship is kept between a person and G-d. I can’t evaluate your relationship with G-d; how can you possibly evaluate mine? Or anyone else’s? How do you have the ability to know my thoughts, or the status of my personal relationships? How do you presume to know my thoughts better than I do, to the point where you can pass judgement on my thoughts?
In the spirit of full disclosure, I’m an atheist who spent my adolescence in the LDS religion and my childhood in a Charismatic non-denominational church. I also lived in an area that was predominantly Southern Baptist while I was Mormon. I never understood how other Christians could presume to pass judgement on the beliefs of others, especially Mormons, as was my experience at the time. I’m pretty familiar with the attitude that FoG is espousing here, I’ve been hearing it for getting on seventeen years now, and it just doesn’t get anymore logical the older I get.
Got a mouse in your pocket? So far, just about everyone else here has managed to understand you’re the only one on some misguided crusade.
And for about the millionth time: you can not know what’s going on between someone and their god. Your statements above show that you’re more than willing, and do, make pronouncements on other Christians. But you also “make it okay” by telling yourself, and us, that “they’re really not Christians so I can say that.”
I, for one, think it’s incredibly obvious that you have lived your entire life in the Bible Belt.
Nor does FoG’s pronouncements make another not a Christian. Sheesh! It’s that simple. If you can’t understand that, why should you expect us to give credence to anything else you assert?
Then, as I’ve mentioned before, you need to get out more.
No. I seem to remember you saying you live in B’ham, 'Bama. When I search AOL’s online yellow pages for that town, I get 289 different churches and other religious organizations. To quote a line from Angel Heart, “We ain’t all Baptists down here.”
Your explanatory skills are nil as you base everything you want us to accept on your belief and condemn those of us who don’t share your belief.
No. Here’s the actual dictionary definition (taken from the online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) of Christian:
And you can be a Christian and still be a bigot. My personal view of that is the bigot isn’t such a hot Christian, yet he’s still a Christian. But it’s not my place to say if he’s really a Christian or not. Nor is it yours.
With examples such as you, my money’s on the larger number bailing.
{Pointing out glaringly bad example alert!} Well, unless that individual decided to haul off and build a church there. And the matter of a building or not doesn’t seem to have much weight in the matter. The issue is “What’s between the individual and God?”; not “What’s between the individual and God as approved by FoG?”
What? Are you allergic to dictionaries? Maybe this’ll help you out as it’s taken from my Bible Dictionary:
But since this is taken from my LDS Bible Dictionary, I’m willing to bet real money that you’re allergic to it also.
This is true only in your narrow-minded, exclusionary and hateful definition of the word.
As did Slavery, using the same tome (the Bible) with the same narrow-mindedness to justify it.
Again, you do not know what’s between an individual and God. To say you do, is to put yourself in Jesus’ place.
Incorrect. See above.
No kidding. After all, you’re a Christian and you have exactly zero understanding of Theology and apparently are very off on many of your beliefs about the Bible, not to mention dictionary definitions.
That would be your opinion. Please identify it as such and not as fact.
That is not Theology; it’s your catechism (definition posted earlier in this thread). Here’s the definition of Theology (Merriam-Webster again):
However, because Kimstu’s description is quite apt, those of us with hope, faith, charity (recognize these?) do not laugh, but weep because of you.
And what’s your definition of the word “is”?
Reword it? Why? Obviously so you can get it wrong, yet again.
I just leafed through my Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. I didn’t see a single word in there about your approval being required for my belief system.
Exactly when do you plan to climb down from that incredibly high horse you’re riding the wrong direction?
Well, we have your example proving this statement, at least, is true.
And this one.
And this one; etc. etc.
Seeing as you’re not actually a member of the Godhead (although you apparently revel in acting as such), your approval is not needed, nor was it requested.
And the source of your false prophecy was clear from the Scripture Ben pointed out.
Stumble over an open dictionary, hey?
Whoops! You must’ve closed your eyes when you stubbed that toe on that bad ol’ dictionary!
That would be your opinion. Again, I suggest to you to get into the habit of using the phrase: “In my humble opinion.”
Yeah; you’re such a good example of Christian behaviour.
I wait with bated breath.
If I might make two comments:
Firstly, FoG, why does someone need a personal relationship with Jesus in order to go to heaven?
Secondly…
It’s already been pointed out that FoG is using a theological definition of Christianity (ie, a Christian is someone who is going to heaven, and the only people going to heaven are the ones with a personal relationship with Jesus.) People have criticised this definition, and, more to the point, have pointed out that it conflicts with a sociological definition (that a “Christian” is someone who worships Jesus.)
I think part of the confusion also stems from the fact that FoG is not entirely consistent in his own use of the word “Christian.” First of all, he himself seems to switch between the theological and sociological definitions without acknowledging that he is doing so. After all, he says a Christian has more to fear from bigotry than an atheist. Does he really expect the bigots to carefully gauge whether someone has a personal relationship with Jesus before deciding to harass them? Or is he saying that someone who openly declares themself to be a worshipper of Jesus is more likely to have problems?
This is further complicated by the fact that even in terms of his theological definition, FoG seems to have two definitions. His de jure definition is that anyone, no matter what the denomination, can be a Christian if they have a personal relationship with Christ. This seems to be (in a sense, at least) very open-minded, right?
But think of FoG’s statements about the movie “The Rapture.” He states that Mimi Rogers’ character might have had a relationship with a “false Jesus.” Why? Ultimately, because her religion’s dogma differed with FoG’s. Thus we see the de facto dimension of FoG’s definition: in reality, the more your denomination’s dogma differs from FoG’s, the less likely FoG considers it to be that you’ll have a real relationship with Jesus. This appears to be the reason why FoG states that you can’t be a practicing homosexual and a Christian. FoG says that homosexuality is a sin, and if you have no intention of stopping your sinning, you can’t be a Christian. The idea that some Christians don’t think that Jesus condemns homosexuality never enters into the equation. Could it be that FoG feels that any Jesus that would condone homosexuality is a false Jesus?
-Ben
FriendofGod, do you have ANY Scriptural backing for your phrase “personal relationship with Jesus Christ”? I want to see that EXACT phrase, as you’ve used that EXACT phrase a number of times, as if it’s Gospel. I don’t want to see “By faith alone are we saved,” or anything like that. I don’t want to see Jesus saying, “Some of you who say you know me–you don’t,” because that verse could just as easily apply to YOU. If you could find a verse saying, “Some of you who say you know me–you don’t, unless you have a personal relationship with me,” that’s what I’m interested in.
Back when I was a Christian (a pretty conservative one, but not a Fundie, per se), I knew a guy who took your position. He was one of the many who was Born Again, and could nail down the exact moment of his Rebirth. Note, he was raised in a Christian family, went to church, etc. However, his “exact moment” was so real to him, he came to regard it as essential for being a Saved Christian, and came to disregard his earlier churchin’ (his phrase). He would go so far as to say, “Can you nail down the exact moment you found Jesus? If not, then you’re not a Christian.” The presumption in that attitude is mind-boggling.
I’m not saying you’re THAT extreme… although, hell, you might be. Either way, if your presumption isn’t mind-boggling, it’s certainly extreme arrogance.
So please, show me that verse.
Quix
Hey FoG, for the purposes of discussion on this board, how about referring to those who meet your particular definition of a true Christian as “saved” or “redeemed” or “in a state of grace” or “born again” and save everyone a major headache? (Please don’t take my quotes as intended irony; I’m just listing the terms that are more specific.)
Also, isn’t having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” an insufficient formulation in comparison to the classic “accept Jesus as one’s personal savior?” After all, Judas had a personal relationship with Jesus and still rejected him in the end.
I seem to remember an old issue of The Door:
“Carman has the hair that praises Jesus”
And if I recall correctly, it was Butthead doing the talking.
-Myron
Okay, I’ve finally reached Polycarp, who as usual has given good probing questions.
As I said earlier tonite to Kimstu, I am saying it’s all about whether they actually have a relationship with Jesus, not whether I or you or anyone thinks they do. I might see someone I would never in a million years would dream to be a believer, yet inside he loves God with all his being. Conversely, I might know someone in my church, maybe even someone in leadership, who thinks they know God but truly does not.
Having said that, common sense can prevail in most cases. If you know someone who professes a love for Jesus Christ, attends church, and lives a life that matches up to what the Bible teaches … it’s pretty obvious that they are probably a Christian, although in the most technical sense you can’t “judge” that they are one. It could be a huge scam, although it’s unlikely.
Conversely, if you know someone who never attends church, has never professed love for Jesus Christ and in fact says he wants nothing to do with belief in God or Jesus, and lives a life consistant with that … it’s pretty obvious that they are probably not a Christian, although in the most technical sense you can’t “judge” that he’s not one. It could be a huge scam, although it’s unlikely.
The hard part is what I’ve heard one friend call the “gray area Christians” … those who aren’t so obvious. What if someone professes love for Christ but their life doesn’t match up? What if they lead a Godly life and go to church but profess no love for Christ? It’s not abundantly clear where these types are coming from and you really just simply can’t know for sure in virtually all cases.
Lets go through your examples:
Interestingly enough, I knew a woman in my former church in Atlanta who has walked with Jesus for over 15 years. However, she is somewhat naive (she would tell you that herself), and for one year before she joined our church she belonged to the Mormon church. So here was a born again Christian going regularly to a Mormon church. It was only over time that she began to realize the things the Mormons believe, and she finally got out of it and has since been to my former church and another healthy church now. She looked at me with wide eyes when she was telling me her story and said that it ‘sounded so good’ at first, and only after a while did she discover the oh-so-subtle deceptions.
So sure, there might be born again Christians in the Mormon church. There might be born again Christians in all kinds of groups. But again, common sense prevails. While I realize you probably don’t believe this Polycarp, I believe the Mormon church teaches things that are antithical to Christianity, with some truth sprinkled in. Therefore, if you sit under teaching that leads you to a lie, it is likely that most of the people under that teaching believe the lie. But again, there might be exceptions.
[Disclaimer]
Because Polycarp brought up this example, I responded but I am not interested in a huge debate on Mormonism. It’s been nearly 20 years since I studied their beliefs in depth (back in High School :eek:) and I would not even begin to recall specifics. I know you skeptics won’t like me saying that, but that’s the way it is. Sorry.
[/Disclaimer]
In all honestly, there’s no way to know in this example. They might just intellectually believe in God but have no relationship with Him. Or they might love Him with all their heart and just have a weakness they are battling in the area of sharing their faith, and their giftings and personality type don’t lean toward the prophetic aspects of Christianity. If I was boxed into a corner and forced to guess I’d lean toward the latter.
This to me sounds like a person who is simply searching for the truth spiritually but hasn’t found it yet. They are on the journey toward God but haven’t reached the destination yet.
Again, there’s no way to know. I know of at least one woman who was in a lesbian relationship when she came to Christ, and continued in it for a few weeks until she began to realize the sinfulness of it. You can’t know the person’s heart. They might be agonizing inside about their sin and trying to break out of it, or they might be deceived into thinking they can live this lifestyle and be right with God. But who can know what they are thinking? This is definately one of those that I would call “gray area”, because there’s a contradiction in their life.
Hope that helps. Great questions as always.
tracer said:
ROFL! Now I’ve got it too 
pldennison said, rather forcefully:
I’m sure you are right. In fact, this whole situation has reminded me of something my former pastor in Atlanta had said once: that for the first 11 years of his life when he lived in the north, he never once met a single Christian, which to this day blows my mind! Of course when his family moved to Atlanta he had a bit of culture shock ;).
I can believe that. Again, I’ll bet it depends on the area of the country and even the specific city you’re from.
Well hold on. The impression I got was that people were saying honestly that they didn’t ‘get’ this whole idea of believing you can go to church and not be a Christian. If they ‘got’ it and just disagreed, I simply misread.
All I can go by is what I’ve seen. I’m just describing my interactions with believers for decades, from many places. The definition is something neither you or I can change pl. The experience of how Christians talk/think/relate might be different from place to place, sure.
Pl … forgive me for being honest here, but I busted out laughing at this. This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard! If you want a starter kit for what the Bible actually says about this, here you go:
Luke 10:25-28
Matthew 7:21-23 (pay attention to the word ‘knew’)
The entire gospel of John, especially Chs 14 - 17
2 Timothy 2:19
Oh sheesh this barely begins to scratch the surface. Not to mention it’s probably a waste of time as I don’t expect you to go poring over a Bible to study this. If you do, study the whole New Testament and you’ll see it everywhere!
Well yeah that’s true … but what’s the PURPOSE of accepting the sacrifice and asking forgiveness? Restoring a relationship with God that was impossible before! It’s all intertwined. The whole point is your spirit is dark, and when you accept the sacrifice and ask forgiveness, God comes in and turns on the lights! And now it can be like the Garden of Eden again, where we can have daily fellowship with God (except this time we aren’t all walking around naked :eek:).
Okay I’m off to bed, more tomorrow. G’night everyone :).
I suppose I can respond to this post as well, since I explicitly asked you for Scriptual backing for your oft-quoted phrase, “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” Let’s go through your response (although I’m going to skip over John, as I’m not going to post three chapters worth). New King James Version, BTW.
First of all, your definition does nothing to address the second part, loving your neighbor as yourself. Secondly, loving God does not equate to a “personal relationship.” Perhaps your hellbound Churchgoer goes to Church because he loves God. Perhaps another volunteers at a Soup Kitchen because she loves God. Perhaps a young Catholic priest has given his life to God because he loves God. None of these necessitates a “personal relationship.”
Hey, call me crazy, but my eyes keep going back to that “[s/he] who does the will of My Father in heaven” bit. To me, this is saying what James said–faith without works is DEAD. You specifically called our attention to the word “knew.” WOO, quite a stretch there. I “know” you in a sense, FriendofGod, but I don’t have a personal relationship with you.
Again, I’m hearing echoes of James. Faith without works is dead, and “naming the name of Christ” means that you’ll not be a jerk, for lack of a better word. I can’t believe you think that this quotation is support for your position. Naming the name of Christ = personal relationship? If so, then a helluva lot of practicing Catholics, Lutherans, etc. are going to Heaven. They “name Christ” every Sunday in their Creeds.
It sounds to me like pldennison was dead on when he called this “personal relationship” mumbo-jumbo a fairly recent innovation. I know Luther wasn’t the first to focus on the “by faith alone shall ye be saved” idea, but it was probably one of his earlier contemporaries. That’s about 500 years, or 25% of Christianity’s history. And I’m leaning towards agreeing with him when he says that it doesn’t have any Scriptural basis, either. You have done nothing to help dissuade that leaning.
Quix
And yet you’ve flat out said before that no homosexual can be Christian.
Satan is working wonders with you, my friend. Repent your sinful ways and get right with God before you are lost forever to Hell. I will pray for your eternal soul because I love you.
Esprix
What I wrote above about FoG’s de facto and de jure definitions of “Christian” is beginning to look more true. If I might expand upon the original point, FoG had said earlier that he thought that nearly all Christians were inerrantists. There are three (not necessarily mutually exclusive) ways of interpreting this:
-
FoG looked into the lives of the nominal Christians whom he knows, weeded out all the ones who don’t have a personal relationship with God, and 99% of the remainder were inerrantists. Clearly this would be an enormous generalization from an extremely small sample selected on the basis of a judgement which he cannot make accurately.
-
FoG is mixing the “sociological” and “theological” definitions of “Christian.” In other words, nearly all of the people whom FoG knows who call themselves Christian are inerrantists. If this is the case, FoG can scarcely claim that the confusion lies in the fact that we are unaware of the definition of what constitutes a “real” Christian.
-
FoG is saying that in his experience, most people who disagree with Biblical inerrancy also have other disagreements with his dogma which make it vanishingly unlikely that they could worship the “true Jesus” instead of the “false Jesus.” (IE, they might believe that homosexuality is not a sin, that evolution is true, that unbelievers do not go to hell, etc.) Ergo, you de facto more or less have to be an inerrantist in order to be a Christian.
I don’t know which of these alternatives is true, and since I raised the question, I doubt FoG will answer it.
-Ben
Either your pastor was pathetically undersocialized, absolutely oblivious to the REAL world, delusional, blind and deaf, using some pathetically disgustingly definiton of the word Christian, or lying. To claim that one could live a halfway normal life in the north without meeting a single Christian is truely laughable.
Err…disgustingly twisted definition…
There you have it folks! According to The Self-Appointed Fourth Member of the Godhead, FoG, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a healthy church. And the proof of this, apparently, is that someone tells the story with “wide eyes.”
Also, FoG makes an oblique reference to “oh-so-subtle deceptions,” yet oddly enough doesn’t mention them. Who’s willing to say that FoG’s knowledge of the LDS church is any greater than ARG’s “knowledge” of same?
Let me help you out here, FoG; here are the 1st, 11th and 13th Articles of Faith of the LDS:
There’s my proof that FoG is not the Fourth Member of the Godhead. My counting of those members listed in Article 1 above yields three: 1-God, the Eternal Father; 2-Jesus, the Christ; and 3-the Holy Ghost.
F.O.G. of the approximately 1.5 billion people who profess to be Christian in the world today what percentage of them in your opinion are “true Christians” like yourself? Please give an answer I am really curious to know this.