[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 10:32 PM, said:

I'm a Christian. Personally, I would add another caveat to the true Christian and that is that he is placing total faith in Christ as his sin-bearer and is relying on nothing else for salvation.

So do Roman Catholics qualify as Christians?

After all, the Papists have all that liturgy surrounding the intercession of the Virgin Mary and various Saints. Traditional pilgrimages like the Camino de Santiago d Compestella are still held to grant forgiveness from certain sins. And then, of course, there is the entire concept of indulgences, plenary and otherwise...

[pbleighton]

"Peter, what is your motivation for these questions?

I'm a little bothered by the labels you are using.'

Simple curiousity.

In general, I am interested in what I see as the transition from a traditionally religious society to a more secular (not necessarily atheist/agnostic) society. I am interested in the percentages people give, but even more in what they consider to be a "Christian".

What is it that bothers you?

I don't mean to offend, but if you don't like the thread there is no need for you to participate in it.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

Only one thing is "perfect" and everything else is just a certain degree of imperfection. This, however, is totally subjective and therefore virtually worthless as anything more than a point of conjecture.

Are we, as anti-entropy structures, responsible for the "entropization" of the universe? Or are we the necessary "imperfect" counter-point to balance a universe that is winding into "perfect" chaos?

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2007, 12:08 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 10:32 PM, said:

I'm a Christian.  Personally, I would add another caveat to the true Christian and that is that he is placing total faith in Christ as his sin-bearer and is relying on nothing else for salvation.

So do Roman Catholics qualify as Christians?

After all, the Papists have all that liturgy surrounding the intercession of the Virgin Mary and various Saints. Traditional pilgrimages like the Camino de Santiago d Compestella are still held to grant forgiveness from certain sins. And then, of course, there is the entire concept of indulgences, plenary and otherwise...

Personally, I feel if you believe what the pope says a good Catholic should believe (the cathecism) then I wouldn't call that person a Christian. The term Christian is misleading here though. There are people who are saved who still have lots of problems and don't act much like Christ (Christian meaning "Christ like" or "little Christ"). Conversely there are those who are not saved but who do strive to imitate Christ but they have a powerless faith. Many today interchangeably use Christian for saved and if we want to use that here that is fine but we should be clear about what we are talking about.

[DrTodd13]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That's why I wanted to clarify what we mean by Christian. Many people say they are following the teachings of Christ by trying to be good people but those people are damned. They may genuinely think they are following Christ but reject the main message.

[Al_U_Card]

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That's why I wanted to clarify what we mean by Christian. Many people say they are following the teachings of Christ by trying to be good people but those people are damned. They may genuinely think they are following Christ but reject the main message.

Which one was that? (He left us with quite a few, didn't he?)

[DrTodd13]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That's why I wanted to clarify what we mean by Christian. Many people say they are following the teachings of Christ by trying to be good people but those people are damned. They may genuinely think they are following Christ but reject the main message.

Which one was that? (He left us with quite a few, didn't he?)

Reconciliation to God (forgiveness of sin) by accepting him as sin-bearer through His death and resurrection.

[cherdano]

pbleighton, on Feb 7 2007, 08:24 PM, said:

You could accept self-identification, or you could use one or
more additional criteria, such as:
1. Belief in Heaven and Hell
2. Belief that Jesus is the Son of God, who physically appeared
on the earth, and whose teachings lead the way to Heaven
3. Belief that every word of the New Testament is true
4. Belief that abortion should be illegal
5. Regular church attendance
6. Regular prayer
7. etc.

(...)

I am from the U.S.

You didn't need to add this. While your check list above should already be highly controversial for the US only, it just doesn't make any sense with regards to most European Christians...

Maybe I am a little biased myself, because (while I am atheist now) I come from a German Lutherian-protestant background, which is probably more intellectually dominated than most Christian churches. In Germany, "Theologie" is accepted as a branch of humanities that is taught at most universities. Every priest has studied this for 5 years or more. This may of course be quite controversial in itself (separation of government and religion - it isn't really in Germany though); however it does lead to a Christian belief that is intellectually reflected, knows about philosophy, science and isn't afraid to use computer linguistics as an aid in studying the bible. I am not sure non-religious Americans would recognize the religion as the one that many of their fellow countrymen are practicing...

Here is what, I believe, most Lutherian protestants would answer to your criteria:
1. In hell: no, in heaven: yes, but in a highly figurative sense
2. Yes
3. Of course not. Every school kid who takes the (optional) subject "religion" learns about the various sources of the new testament, how they got combined historically into what is now the new testament, etc. etc.
4. Of course not.
5. Only very few of them
6. Some of them, not sure it is a big majority.

If you want, this is a Christian belief that has absorbed and accepted the enlightenment.

Arend

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 11:48 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That's why I wanted to clarify what we mean by Christian. Many people say they are following the teachings of Christ by trying to be good people but those people are damned. They may genuinely think they are following Christ but reject the main message.

Which one was that? (He left us with quite a few, didn't he?)

Reconciliation to God (forgiveness of sin) by accepting him as sin-bearer through His death and resurrection.

"Toe the line or you're fucked". Definitely Christianity's core message...

In all seriousness, DrTodd has raised a fairly significant schism within different Christian Churches focusing on what is necessary for salvation.

Some churches allow for the possibility of salvation through good deeds. What is most important is living a righteous life where one's actions are consistent with the teachings of Christ. When I was going through confirmation class in the Evangelical Lutheran Church this point of view was widely accepted, both by the students as well as the various Vicers and Pastors that were instructing. Simply put: None of us were comfortable with the idea of worshiping a God who was willing to burn billions of people who were born in the wrong place or time.

Other groups focus on the concept of salvation through ritual:

Shut down your brain.
Swallow the right flavor of Koolaid.
Learn the right chants

If you guess right and suck up to the appropriate demiurge you get to go to heaven

The following Chick comic is pretty representative of this line of reasoning
http://www.chick.com...041/0041_01.asp

Of course, if you guess wrong...

Here's a few other tracts explaining how all the muslims will burn
http://www.chick.com...031/1031_01.asp

All the Hindus will burn
http://www.chick.com...070/0070_01.asp

All the Mormons will burn
http://www.chick.com...061/0061_01.asp

All the Catholics will burn
http://www.chick.com...023/5023_01.asp

And, course, my favorite: "Who will get eaten first"
http://www.geocities...hulhutract.html

You can probably guess which side of the fence I'm sitting on.

I'll be quite blunt here: Most of the occasions where I've seen serious discussion about "Salvation through Faith" have involved belligerent hard line fundamentalists. I consider this entire line of argument completely abhorent.

[EricK]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 08:21 PM, said:

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That would put the actual percentage somewhere around 0%, wouldn't it?

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2007, 03:08 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 10:32 PM, said:

I'm a Christian.  Personally, I would add another caveat to the true Christian and that is that he is placing total faith in Christ as his sin-bearer and is relying on nothing else for salvation.

So do Roman Catholics qualify as Christians?

After all, the Papists have all that liturgy surrounding the intercession of the Virgin Mary and various Saints. Traditional pilgrimages like the Camino de Santiago d Compestella are still held to grant forgiveness from certain sins. And then, of course, there is the entire concept of indulgences, plenary and otherwise...

not to hijack todd's answer, but he's paraphrasing from a book written by dr. kennedy of coral gables, fla... the book is evangelism explosion and was written a long time ago

i happen to agree with the portion todd quoted, and will give more fodder for whatever cannons there are... dr. kennedy wrote the book to help his church evangelize, but the book gained almost universal acceptance among protestant christians... he suggested that those witnessing for Christ ask two questions, with the direction taken to be determined by the answers given

the second question was, ultimately, the most important... it was, if you died today and found yourself standing before God, and if God asked why he should let you into his heaven, what would your answer be?

in ths way dr. kennedy's witnesses were able to determine whether or not one had a faulty understanding of christianity... if the answer led the witness to the conclusion that the person thought works of any kind were a part of salvation, the witness could explain why they aren't... neither dr. kennedy nor anyone i know will say that a catholic is unsaved... none of us can judge the heart of another, we can only go by what a person proclaims (or denies)... all that can be done is to give the gospel of Christ, which is God's power unto salvation... one either believes or doesn't believe that gospel

Quote

"Toe the line or you're fucked"... Definitely Christianity's core message...

this is definitely not christianity's core, or even adjacent, message... it is one that people have, and in a lot of cases it's our (christians) fault that's so

al said:

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

well a christian is certainly one who *tries* to follow the teachings of Christ, but for me it's impossible to distinguish between salvation (being saved) and being a christian... so it's possible, even likely, for a christian to be very unChrist-like in his behavior... luckily for us, that has no bearing on salvation

richard said:

Perhaps you should read the whole wikipedia article:

i did

Quote

Humanists say that secular humanism is not a religion, while acknowledging that some varieties of humanism may be religious in some senses of the word.

oic... a religious non-religion (in some senses of the word)

[pbleighton]

"You didn't need to add this. While your check list above should already be highly controversial for the US only, it just doesn't make any sense with regards to most European Christians..."

That was the point of 7. etc.

Peter

[akhare]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

The following Chick comic is pretty representative of this line of reasoning
http://www.chick.com...041/0041_01.asp

ROFL -- some of those chick comics were really hilarious. The sad part of course is that someone actually believes that the "heretics" will actually burn in hell.

The cult of Kali was pretty well done -- they based it partly on the historical "thugs" (or Thugee if you will) and borrowed some inspiration from the legend of an encounter between Bodhisatva (an earlier incarnation of Buddha) and AnguliMala (literally garland of fingers).

[BebopKid]

EricK, on Feb 8 2007, 04:40 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 08:21 PM, said:

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That would put the actual percentage somewhere around 0%, wouldn't it?

Amen. No person, other than Christ, has ever or can ever succeed in being Holy.

One can strive, though.

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2007, 12:08 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 10:32 PM, said:

I'm a Christian.  Personally, I would add another caveat to the true Christian and that is that he is placing total faith in Christ as his sin-bearer and is relying on nothing else for salvation.

So do Roman Catholics qualify as Christians?

After all, the Papists have all that liturgy surrounding the intercession of the Virgin Mary and various Saints. Traditional pilgrimages like the Camino de Santiago d Compestella are still held to grant forgiveness from certain sins. And then, of course, there is the entire concept of indulgences, plenary and otherwise...

Loosely, they are the same.

"Christians", to Catholics anyway, is a euphemism for others that have struck out and formed their own sects. Lutherans, Episcopal, Baptists, etc..

Many "Christians" are ex-Catholics that got fed up with the pomp and circumstance, or wanted something more energetic and evangelical. Most Catholic ceremonies are as dry as toast.

The core beliefs are the same (Peter's list), but the rituals are a lot different. The political views are frequently different, as are the group's views toward divorce, homosexuality and abortion.

[pclayton]

Chick Publications; what a joke.

The only groups that I know that uses this garbage are Jehovah's Witnesses.

Richard, you need to come up with something more credible to prove your point.

[Al_U_Card]

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 03:48 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 8 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That's why I wanted to clarify what we mean by Christian. Many people say they are following the teachings of Christ by trying to be good people but those people are damned. They may genuinely think they are following Christ but reject the main message.

Which one was that? (He left us with quite a few, didn't he?)

Reconciliation to God (forgiveness of sin) by accepting him as sin-bearer through His death and resurrection.

Oh, that "the dog ate my homework so I'm off the hook" one...

[mike777]

"Well it only takes faith of the size of a Mustard seed."

I repeat this for emphasis.


To make the other more complicated answers even more confusing

consider if you are only saved by the Grace of the gift of the Holy Spirit by definition an Undeserved Gift of forgiveness bestowed only by the supernatural.

Note the phrase undeserved gift, that is why the term Grace permeates the religion.

[Gerben42]

Quote

1. Belief in Heaven and Hell
2. Belief that Jesus is the Son of God, who physically appeared
on the earth, and whose teachings lead the way to Heaven
3. Belief that every word of the New Testament is true
4. Belief that abortion should be illegal
5. Regular church attendance
6. Regular prayer
7. etc.

If you would, please state your country and your definition
of Christian, and whether you consider yourself a Christian,
or if not, what are you. For me:

I am from the U.S.
I think about 40% of U.S. citizens meet my definition of
being a Christian.
I consider 1, 2, and either 5 or 6 (or both) to be necessary
to be a Christian.
I am an atheist.

I am from the Netherlands but living in Germany so will use that perspective.
I think about 50% of the citizens meet my definition of being a Christian, which means just #2 is necessary. I think #1 is part of #2...

Reality check: Turns out the number of registered Christians (which for me includes Catholics AND Evangelics) is a bit above 60% in Germany (probably higher in Bavaria, where I live).

I think religion is a personal thing so 5 & 6 is up to yourself.

I think #3 includes 0 people because of internal contradictions. However people who think they do might be called fundamentalist (which does not automatically mean they are violent, even though the media want you to believe this)

#4 is usually both connected and correlated to religion but in my opinion is a moral value and not a religious belief, and in addition it is a moral value that one in my opinion should not force upon others.

Personally I am a positive atheist. I cannot possibly believe any of this stuff, sorry people. Instead try to make yourself immortal in the way that when you have died, people will remember you in a positive way and you have contributed something that outlives you as long as possible.

[Al_U_Card]

"And the way of the many shall lead to perdition, while the way of the few will lead to salvation."