What is a Christian?

[revrew]

First there was Peter and Paul, then persecutions, then the Crusades. There were schisms, reformations, popes, inquisitions, witch hunts, televangelists, cults, the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, the emergence of the American Bible Belt culture, the charismatic movement, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson. With so many faces, so many events, what the heck is "a Christian," anyways?

Ask a different person, get a different answer. This post will be an attempt to cut through bias, prejudice, and personal experiences to get to an honest definition. Maybe your dear Grandma was a Christian salt-of-the-earth saint, or maybe you were persecuted by a Klan member claiming Christ as the source of his hate. I know we all have biases based on experience. Time to cut through the B.S. portrayed by news sources and by church apologists. What is a Christian?

Option 1:
A Christian is any person who believes Jesus lived and was God.

Option 2:
A Christian is a moralist and sometimes hypocrite who thinks everyone who doesn't believe like he does is going to hell.

Option 3:
A Christian is a cultural warrior who insists on everyone following his or her moral code--one claimed to be derived from the Bible--and is willing to use political power to shape society.

Option 4:
A Christian is a kind, loving person who relies on prayer and faith in Jesus to spread a message of hope, peace, and love.

So, which is it? (Now I know Christian theologians might reject all of the above definitions. This is not a discussion on theology, but on public perception. What characterizes a Christian?)

My answer to follow in the next post.

[Bomber]

Options 2 & 3.

[gottimd]

A Christian is someone who isn't Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Shinto, Atheist, etc

[Noop]

2&3

[WSUCougar]

A follower of Christ.

[Celeval]

#1

The rest of it is not for me to determine or judge.

[lurker]

Someone who calls themself a Christian.

[gottimd]

Christian Okoye?

[BreizhManu]

All of the above but mainly 2&3 for me

[ISiddiqui]

A little of all 4 options. I don't think you can say a Christian is one or other. And you can't say they are all good or all bad. One constant is they have to believe in Jesus. One, that he existed (and he may not have). And second that he was the son of God / God himself.

[Desnudo]

First there was Peter and Paul, then persecutions, then the Crusades. There were schisms, reformations, popes, inquisitions, witch hunts, televangelists, cults, the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, the emergence of the American Bible Belt culture, the charismatic movement, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson. With so many faces, so many events, what the heck is "a Christian," anyways?

Ask a different person, get a different answer. This post will be an attempt to cut through bias, prejudice, and personal experiences to get to an honest definition. Maybe your dear Grandma was a Christian salt-of-the-earth saint, or maybe you were persecuted by a Klan member claiming Christ as the source of his hate. I know we all have biases based on experience. Time to cut through the B.S. portrayed by news sources and by church apologists. What is a Christian?

Option 1:
A Christian is any person who believes Jesus lived and was God.

Option 2:
A Christian is a moralist and sometimes hypocrite who thinks everyone who doesn't believe like he does is going to hell.

Option 3:
A Christian is a cultural warrior who insists on everyone following his or her moral code--one claimed to be derived from the Bible--and is willing to use political power to shape society.

Option 4:
A Christian is a kind, loving person who relies on prayer and faith in Jesus to spread a message of hope, peace, and love.

So, which is it? (Now I know Christian theologians might reject all of the above definitions. This is not a discussion on theology, but on public perception. What characterizes a Christian?)

My answer to follow in the next post.

Your background is kind of heavy on American perspectives, especially in the 20th Century. Are we talking about public perception just here in the US? Or globally? Views on it are going to be a lot different in say, Portugal or Italy, than they would be here.

[Cap Ologist]

I think it's a combination of all four. I believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that He lived a perfect live, God killed Him on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins, and on the third day He rose and lives today.

I'm also what you would probably consider a moralist. I try to live my life in a way that maximizes true pleasure that can't be found in the empty ways of this world, and since I'm not perfect, a lot of times I come across as hypocritical. Christians by no means have a monopoly on hypocrisy, go sit in a football stadium and you'll be surrounded by hypocrites who flipflop between cheering and booing.

As a Christian, one of the cornerstone beliefs is that Jesus is the only way to get to Heaven or to have eternal life. This is a harsh truth, but so is gravity. Why should gravity get to make me stay attached to earth, maybe I just want to float around a little. Truth, at it's very definition, is intolerant because two competing ideas can't be true.

The Bible urges us to pray for our leaders so that we may live in peace. Christ compels us to live our lives for His glory. Probably one of my biggest gripes about my fellow Christians is how we view politics and government. There are too many Christians who believe that if they get Congress to pass a law then America will be changed. I'm a bigger believer that the way to cause change is not to reduce the supply, but to reduce the demand.

Finally, I wish all Christians would live lives of love, hope and faith and would be willing to step out of their comfort zones and make Christ known as the treasure which is worth selling everything you own to obtain it.

So, long ramble, but I think a Christian is a conglomeration of all of those perceptions.

[sachmo71]

My experience has been 2 & 3 mostly.

[revrew]

Option number one is too broad. It includes Mother Teresa, David Koresh, Billy Graham, and the Klan. You have to accept that Christianity has no noticeable effect on its adherents if you accept option one. Jerks and murderers, saints and lovers all fit in option one--and I just can't accept that. Either Christianity means nothing, or it means true Christians are a more select group than just option 1.

Option 2 is a common perception (oddly enough, especially among those that have lived in the South. Don't mean to start a flame here, but this perception--though alive--just doesn't thrive here in the Midwest the way it does other places.) Option 2, however, doesn't describe dear sweet Grandma, it doesn't describe 80% of the Christians I have known and gone to church with, and it doesn't describe me. (Notice, I'll concede a portion of those calling themselves Christians do seem to fit this category.) This option conveniently allows a person to overlook any Chrisitan doctrine as that of jerks and a-holes. It also overlooks millions of so-called Christians, however, who have contributed wisdom, peace, love, and reconciliation to many throughout the ages. Option 2 is a perception twisted more by personal experience than by reality.

Option 3 is understandable, as there has been a definite "culture war" trend within modern American Christianity. Historically, however, option 3 doesn't hold. This culture was model didn't exist, even in American society, in the 1700's. It doesn't exist in many of the positive missionary models, including Hudson in China and others. It's popular now for Christians to be tempted to be like this, but it only defines a trend, not the true character of Christianity.

Option 4, as you may all realize, is idealistic and a fantasy. Even rock solid Christians can act like a-holes sometimes (myself an obvious example). Christians aren't perfect and often don't live according to the principles they preach.

So, what the heck is a Christian? I submit the following definition:
"A Christian is a wounded, messed up person who looks to Jesus Christ to transform him. Apparently, Jesus isn't done yet. A Christian is capable of being selfish and stupid. The hallmark feature of a Christian is not his or her peaceable demeanor or loving deeds, but his confession that when he does things his way, he messes up, but when he's submitting to God, he's becoming more like the person he wishes he could be."

What are the implications of this definition, if true?
1. Throw a bunch of these people together, give them a bad (or evil) leader, and yes, they do corporately stupid, even atrocious things.
2. Several of them will go off half-cocked and reveal just how "untransformed" they really are.
3. Many will claim to be among their number, but are not. The presence of these pseudo-Christians will do great damage to the public image of all Christians in general.
4. True Christians will stumble, will sometimes say the wrong thing, will sometimes overstep their bounds. They are not, however, evil or oppressive.
5. Every individual true Christian will grow--in time--to be less selfish, more loving, wiser, and more compassionate than they would have grown otherwise.
6. Conclusions 1-5 indicate that the actions of those claiming to be Christians do not nullify the claims of Christianity or the teachings of Christ, but only serve as living examples that true Christians are nothing more than fellow strugglers who have found something to put hope in, even while they continue to mess up.

[digamma]

#1

The rest of it is not for me to determine or judge.
I think I fall into this camp. I think of myself as a Christian, but I know that I don't believe Option 2 or Option 3--though there certainly are Christians who do feel that way.

I'm struck somewhat by Option 4, if for nothing else, because of the hymn, "They will know we are Christians by our love." I would personally subscribe to this description, but it may be because that is the description I would want to apply.

In the end, I think #1 is the most correct.

[StanGunner]

I agree with CAP OLOGIST. Nicely worded.

[revrew]

Your background is kind of heavy on American perspectives, especially in the 20th Century. Are we talking about public perception just here in the US? Or globally? Views on it are going to be a lot different in say, Portugal or Italy, than they would be here.

Yeah, to be honest, I'm definitely just talking American perceptions here. Slanted even more toward my own realm of experience in Midwestern Christianity.

[Franklinnoble]

I agree with CAP OLOGIST. Nicely worded.

Ditto.

I also think revrew has some sound points.

I'm a born-agan Christian. I am by no means perfect because of it. In fact, a lot of times, I'm a flat-out a-hole. I don't like it. I struggle with it. But I thank God that His blood is more than sufficient to wash my sins, and I am always enthusiastic to share the gospel with anyone else who might want to receive the same absolution.

[Blackadar]

None and all of the above, but I'd lean toward #1.

It's not for me to define or judge a "Christian". It's a label/belief that someone gives themself and it's no better or worse than any other self-imposed label. It's how someone uses that label/belief that defines who they really are.

[WSUCougar]

Please don't take this as a slam, Franklin, because I am genuinely curious (and had similar questions for mrskippy way back when).

How can you justify saying that you are a born-again Christian with your blatant disregard for Christian precepts? I consider you one of the raunchiest members of this board, for example.

Again, I'm not judging you. I'm just struggling with what seems to be a disconnect.

[GrantDawg]

Option number one is too broad. It includes Mother Teresa, David Koresh, Billy Graham, and the Klan. You have to accept that Christianity has no noticeable effect on its adherents if you accept option one. Jerks and murderers, saints and lovers all fit in option one--and I just can't accept that. Either Christianity means nothing, or it means true Christians are a more select group than just option 1.

Option 2 is a common perception (oddly enough, especially among those that have lived in the South. Don't mean to start a flame here, but this perception--though alive--just doesn't thrive here in the Midwest the way it does other places.) Option 2, however, doesn't describe dear sweet Grandma, it doesn't describe 80% of the Christians I have known and gone to church with, and it doesn't describe me. (Notice, I'll concede a portion of those calling themselves Christians do seem to fit this category.) This option conveniently allows a person to overlook any Chrisitan doctrine as that of jerks and a-holes. It also overlooks millions of so-called Christians, however, who have contributed wisdom, peace, love, and reconciliation to many throughout the ages. Option 2 is a perception twisted more by personal experience than by reality.

Option 3 is understandable, as there has been a definite "culture war" trend within modern American Christianity. Historically, however, option 3 doesn't hold. This culture was model didn't exist, even in American society, in the 1700's. It doesn't exist in many of the positive missionary models, including Hudson in China and others. It's popular now for Christians to be tempted to be like this, but it only defines a trend, not the true character of Christianity.

Option 4, as you may all realize, is idealistic and a fantasy. Even rock solid Christians can act like a-holes sometimes (myself an obvious example). Christians aren't perfect and often don't live according to the principles they preach.

So, what the heck is a Christian? I submit the following definition:
"A Christian is a wounded, messed up person who looks to Jesus Christ to transform him. Apparently, Jesus isn't done yet. A Christian is capable of being selfish and stupid. The hallmark feature of a Christian is not his or her peaceable demeanor or loving deeds, but his confession that when he does things his way, he messes up, but when he's submitting to God, he's becoming more like the person he wishes he could be."

What are the implications of this definition, if true?
1. Throw a bunch of these people together, give them a bad (or evil) leader, and yes, they do corporately stupid, even atrocious things.
2. Several of them will go off half-cocked and reveal just how "untransformed" they really are.
3. Many will claim to be among their number, but are not. The presence of these pseudo-Christians will do great damage to the public image of all Christians in general.
4. True Christians will stumble, will sometimes say the wrong thing, will sometimes overstep their bounds. They are not, however, evil or oppressive.
5. Every individual true Christian will grow--in time--to be less selfish, more loving, wiser, and more compassionate than they would have grown otherwise.
6. Conclusions 1-5 indicate that the actions of those claiming to be Christians do not nullify the claims of Christianity or the teachings of Christ, but only serve as living examples that true Christians are nothing more than fellow strugglers who have found something to put hope in, even while they continue to mess up.
Great post.

[Franklinnoble]

Please don't take this as a slam, Franklin, because I am genuinely curious (and had similar questions for mrskippy way back when).

How can you justify saying that you are a born-again Christian with your blatant disregard for Christian precepts? I consider you one of the raunchiest members of this board, for example.

Again, I'm not judging you. I'm just struggling with what seems to be a disconnect.

Believe me, that is exactly the sort of thing I struggle with.

I have made an effort to cut back on the innuendo and other crap lately. You can look at my recent posting history, as compared to that of, say, two, three months ago, to see what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, I earned the reputation I have, and I have to live with it. And, more often than not, I'm tempted to re-embrace it.

By all means, feel free to hold me accountable. That might be the only way I get my act together.

[MikeVic]

Ok, I was meaning to post about this, or ask SkyDog, or someone... but I'll ask here since this was brought up.

I am a Roman Catholic, and to learn more about the Bible, I go to Christian religious meetings. However, not everyone in my family is happy about that.

I always thought that they were the same. Then I was told that the difference between the two are:

1. Catholic Bible has a couple more books.
2. Christians don't believe Mary was a virgin, or don't hold her as highly as Catholics do.
3. Christian priests/preachers/pastors can marry and have children, while Catholics can't.
4. All Christans are Catholics, but not all Catholics are Christians.
5. Christians are like Catholics, but less strict.

Am I misinformed here? Can someone clarify this for me? I don't see why some of my family members are upset, but if I AM doing something wrong that I don't see... please let me know.

[GrantDawg]

Ok, I was meaning to post about this, or ask SkyDog, or someone... but I'll ask here since this was brought up.

I am a Roman Catholic, and to learn more about the Bible, I go to Christian religious meetings. However, not everyone in my family is happy about that.

I always thought that they were the same. Then I was told that the difference between the two are:

1. Catholic Bible has a couple more books.
2. Christians don't believe Mary was a virgin, or don't hold her as highly as Catholics do.
3. Christian priests/preachers/pastors can marry and have children, while Catholics can't.
4. All Christans are Catholics, but not all Catholics are Christians.
5. Christians are like Catholics, but less strict.

Am I misinformed here? Can someone clarify this for me? I don't see why some of my family members are upset, but if I AM doing something wrong that I don't see... please let me know.
You have a couple of confused points. I'll do what I can here:

1. Yes, the Catholic adds a couple of books to the bible, and they also hold "Church Tradition" is the only way the bible can be interpreted.

2. Protestants believe Mary was a virgin.

3. That is a part of the Catholic tradition.

4. All Cathlolics are Christian, but not all Chritians are Catholic.

5. Again, your mixing Christian with Protestant. Some Protestants are more strict than Catholic, and some less so.

[Franklinnoble]

Ok, I was meaning to post about this, or ask SkyDog, or someone... but I'll ask here since this was brought up.

I am a Roman Catholic, and to learn more about the Bible, I go to Christian religious meetings. However, not everyone in my family is happy about that.

I always thought that they were the same. Then I was told that the difference between the two are:

1. Catholic Bible has a couple more books.
2. Christians don't believe Mary was a virgin, or don't hold her as highly as Catholics do.
3. Christian priests/preachers/pastors can marry and have children, while Catholics can't.
4. All Christans are Catholics, but not all Catholics are Christians.
5. Christians are like Catholics, but less strict.

Am I misinformed here? Can someone clarify this for me? I don't see why some of my family members are upset, but if I AM doing something wrong that I don't see... please let me know.

These are not all easy questions to answer, as there are numerous branches of protestant Christianity, each with some subtle (and some not-so-subtle) differences in their interpretation of scripture (or even which version of scripture they use).

I am a Bible-based non-denominational Christian. I get my doctrine straight from the King James Version of the Bible, as I believe it is the most accurate English translation of the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures. I will give you my answers to these questions. Others will likely disagree. You might find more answers at a place like christianforums.com, which has a huge user base of all different denominations.

1. Catholic Bible has a couple more books.
True. But I don't believe these extra books are inspired by God, and therefore do not consider them scripture. They may be alright as reference material, but should not be considered divine instruction. There are also differences in the books that the Catholic Bible shares with the King James Bible - some very significant. This is an area of study and debate that you can spend a lifetime on. My advice? Do some research on your own, and find a version of the Bible that you think is the most accurate, but don't sweat it too much - I don't know if it's worth having a holy war over.

2. Christians don't believe Mary was a virgin, or don't hold her as highly as Catholics do.
Sort of. Mary was indeed a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Protestants, for the most part, however, do NOT believe in assigning any sort of divinity to Mary, and will NOT pray to her (or anyone else but the Holy Trinity - God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit - who are the same, yet remain distinct. Yes, it's a paradox).

3. Christian priests/preachers/pastors can marry and have children, while Catholics can't.
Most protestants can marry. The Bible says it is good to remain celibate if you can, but the Bible also says it is good to marry. The Bible also says it is better to marry than to burn - which I interpret as saying it would be better for Catholic Priests to get married than to... eh... nevermind... I digress.

4. All Christans are Catholics, but not all Catholics are Christians.
Umm.. I think you have it backwards. If you're Catholic, you're Christian. If you're Christian, you could be Catholic, but you could also be Baptist, Penecostal, Methodist, non-denominational, etc.

5. Christians are like Catholics, but less strict.
Not really. Catholics tend to embrace a more regimental set of sacraments and rituals and such, but as far as what is "ok" and what is not, well, a sin is a sin, and most Bibles agree on what is sinful and what is not. The important thing to remember is that we are saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, not by any works or acts of contrition we might perform.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to PM me if you have questions.

[Radii]

On a personal level I loosely classify myself as a Christian b/c I believe in god and was raised going to a Methodist church. But I dont really talk about it much because I have huge, mostrous problems with most organized religion, the church(any church), and the bible, and the way many people interpret the bible.

I don't really look at another person's religoius beliefs when I decide if I think (s)he is a good person or not. I don't think I've ever used the term "christian" to describe anybody at all.

I will use the terms "religous right" (a very very negative term if I'm using it to describe someone), or "bible thumper" or will reference some of my own very, very negative personal experiences when it comes to Southern Baptists(though I will try my best not to generalize others based on them).

I think "Christians" are all of options 1-4 in the original post, all of what Cap Ologist said, and all of what Revrew said(all of which are very interesting and well stated posts, btw). In the end, Christians (to me) are people who all likely have varying beliefs about religon, but who have at least thought about their religous beliefs and attempted to define what they believe in.

[revrew]

My motivation for this excercise was primarily to explore how prevalant the "2 & 3" perception was. From the sound of many posts on this board, I would have expected it to be quite common.

Some of you have put more thought into it, and that's very interesting. But I want to answer the common misperception that a Christian is like 2 and 3. Here's the answer:

"When I was a kid, I knew a gay couple. If I allowed that limited experience to define what it means to be a gay person, then I would have concluded that 'gay men are effeminate perverts who I wouldn't trust near my children.' (It was an accurate description of these two). If such was my conclusion, you would answer, 'Jeez, man. You need to get to know more gay people. That's such a slanted conclusion. Being gay doesn't mean being effeminate or predatory.'

"Likewise, being a Christian doesn't mean being a judgmental hypocrite trying to impose morality on everyone else. Jeez, man, you need to get to know more Christians. It's the same concept."

I'd also like to answer the interesting response that a Christian is option 1 and let someone else be the judge. "Don't disrespect me like that. You're going to let some nut job calling himself a Christian shape your opinion of Christians (and, therefore, me)? That's like allowing the World Trade Center bombers to shape your view of Muslims. Wouldn't most Muslims say, 'hey, that's not fair. Those guys misunderstood; they were extremists; they violated our basic beliefs!'? Likewise, you will meet or study in history or hear on the news nut jobs calling themselves Christians. Don't allow the nut jobs to shape your perceptions of real Christians. There must be some discernment between those who only claim a religion and those who live it, otherwise stereotypes and prejudice are perpetuated."

[Celeval]

I'm a Roman Catholic as well.

2. Christians don't believe Mary was a virgin, or don't hold her as highly as Catholics do.
Sort of. Mary was indeed a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Protestants, for the most part, however, do NOT believe in assigning any sort of divinity to Mary, and will NOT pray to her (or anyone else but the Holy Trinity - God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit - who are the same, yet remain distinct. Yes, it's a paradox).

Sort-of again. But the biggest difference is not the virginity of Mary, but the conception. Catholic teachings say that Mary was conceived and born without Original Sin (the Immaculate Conception), not that she was divine in any way. Also, a misnomer with the bolded (my emphasis) text above - the most common words in Catholic prayer can be said to be 'Pray For Us'. It's not that we (or I, I speak for my own experience here) pray to Mary or the saints, it's that we ask for their assistance in prayer. The analogy I draw is that if I am sick... just as I would ask my parents, or other members of my parish congregation to pray for me, I ask Mary and the saints to pray for me as well.

Example:
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. (here just a greeting, using some of the traditional words of Elizabeth's greeting to Mary)
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.


4. All Christans are Catholics, but not all Catholics are Christians.
Umm.. I think you have it backwards. If you're Catholic, you're Christian. If you're Christian, you could be Catholic, but you could also be Baptist, Penecostal, Methodist, non-denominational, etc.
Correct. Christian > Catholic.

[Radii]

My motivation for this excercise was primarily to explore how prevalant the "2 & 3" perception was. From the sound of many posts on this board, I would have expected it to be quite common.

I was actually about to comment on this myself. It's disappointing to me to see that people have such a sweeping view of a religon in those terms. It's no less disappointing when I see someone generalize Muslims. There is no difference in my mind. Some individual Christians are very bad. Some individual Muslims are very bad. Some religous people holed up in areas where their beliefs are virtually mandated can be led by a mob mentality and can appear as a group much, much worse than most individuals in the group are in reality.

[Celeval]

I'd also like to answer the interesting response that a Christian is option 1 and let someone else be the judge. "Don't disrespect me like that. You're going to let some nut job calling himself a Christian shape your opinion of Christians (and, therefore, me)? That's like allowing the World Trade Center bombers to shape your view of Muslims.
Since I was the one (one of the ones) to answer this way...

Nope. I'm not going to draw a conclusion about Christians from a nut job. Nor do I draw a conclusion about Muslims from the WTC. Nor do I draw a conclusion about whites from the Scott Peterson trial.

Wouldn't most Muslims say, 'hey, that's not fair. Those guys misunderstood; they were extremists; they violated our basic beliefs!'? Likewise, you will meet or study in history or hear on the news nut jobs calling themselves Christians. Don't allow the nut jobs to shape your perceptions of real Christians. There must be some discernment between those who only claim a religion and those who live it, otherwise stereotypes and prejudice are perpetuated."
Any grouping of enough people will span the entire range. A Christian is someone who believes in Christ as God, imho. It's not my place to judge whether someone who claims they believe actually believe, nor is it my place to judge the strength of their beliefs, or if they are living in that manner. That's for God and God alone, after death.

There are enough examples in the gospels - the tax collector v. the Pharisee praying, the thief on the cross beside Christ - to show that the general view of someone is not necessarily right. All I can do is live my own life as best I can, take example from those I see, and set example for others.

[sachmo71]

Believe me, that is exactly the sort of thing I struggle with.

I have made an effort to cut back on the innuendo and other crap lately. You can look at my recent posting history, as compared to that of, say, two, three months ago, to see what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, I earned the reputation I have, and I have to live with it. And, more often than not, I'm tempted to re-embrace it.

By all means, feel free to hold me accountable. That might be the only way I get my act together.

I believe God loves "retarded" kids, too.

[sachmo71]

I forget smiley. Franklin not get mad at me.

:D

[Franklinnoble]

I believe God loves "retarded" kids, too.

Yep. And God even loves trolls who imitate software designers and make fake posts, who I was actually trying to make fun of, but misfired.

[Blackadar]

Since I was the one (one of the ones) to answer this way...

Nope. I'm not going to draw a conclusion about Christians from a nut job. Nor do I draw a conclusion about Muslims from the WTC. Nor do I draw a conclusion about whites from the Scott Peterson trial.

Any grouping of enough people will span the entire range. A Christian is someone who believes in Christ as God, imho. It's not my place to judge whether someone who claims they believe actually believe, nor is it my place to judge the strength of their beliefs, or if they are living in that manner. That's for God and God alone, after death.

There are enough examples in the gospels - the tax collector v. the Pharisee praying, the thief on the cross beside Christ - to show that the general view of someone is not necessarily right. All I can do is live my own life as best I can, take example from those I see, and set example for others.

Since I also answered in a similar fashion...

I don't think that "Christians" are any better or any worse than any other general group. They'll run the gamut from saintly to devilish. Trying to judge a "Christian" based off actions and not a general belief (Christ is God) is like trying to squeeze jell-o. The more you try to define the belief characteristics of a "Christian", the more difficult it will become.

[AENeuman]

So, which is it? (Now I know Christian theologians might reject all of the above definitions. This is not a discussion on theology, but on public perception. What characterizes a Christian?)

Well yes this is a discussion on theology, at least according to most of the post thus far....

Seems to me that the word "Christian" is a verb. It has to go beyond the believing of Jesus and the cross. Saying the 10 "magic" words so you can get into heaven is vulgar, and selfish and has very little to do with what Jesus said and taught.

Looking at what Jesus said: love God, each other, blessed are the poor, the just, etc.. seems to be the heart of what it means to be Christian.

A final thought. If believing means you have allowed the Holy Spirit into your life, and the "Kingdom of God is here", then it makes sense that we should see this life as our reward, gift of grace. If we are Spirit filled then what comes out of us, through our love of God and another should then be Christianity.

[oliegirl]

Can't we just talk about Christian Laetner? YUM!!!!

In all seriousness, I think it's a combination of 1 and 3...

[WSUCougar]

Can't we just talk about Christian Laetner? YUM!!!!
Ladies and gentlemen...

I give you...

...radii's worst nightmare:

http://www.courier-journal.com/cjsports/news2002/11/~uk100years/sp112402s1p140577.jpg

[dawgfan]

So, what the heck is a Christian? I submit the following definition:
"A Christian is a wounded, messed up person who looks to Jesus Christ to transform him. Apparently, Jesus isn't done yet. A Christian is capable of being selfish and stupid. The hallmark feature of a Christian is not his or her peaceable demeanor or loving deeds, but his confession that when he does things his way, he messes up, but when he's submitting to God, he's becoming more like the person he wishes he could be."

What are the implications of this definition, if true?
1. Throw a bunch of these people together, give them a bad (or evil) leader, and yes, they do corporately stupid, even atrocious things.
2. Several of them will go off half-cocked and reveal just how "untransformed" they really are.
3. Many will claim to be among their number, but are not. The presence of these pseudo-Christians will do great damage to the public image of all Christians in general.
4. True Christians will stumble, will sometimes say the wrong thing, will sometimes overstep their bounds. They are not, however, evil or oppressive.
5. Every individual true Christian will grow--in time--to be less selfish, more loving, wiser, and more compassionate than they would have grown otherwise.
6. Conclusions 1-5 indicate that the actions of those claiming to be Christians do not nullify the claims of Christianity or the teachings of Christ, but only serve as living examples that true Christians are nothing more than fellow strugglers who have found something to put hope in, even while they continue to mess up.

It strikes me that, with only a slight amount of editing, the above could be said for Muslims, Jews, etc.

[Tigercat]

As far as #1, I don't know how many modern day christians take the life of Jesus, as told to us by the Bible, and get that Jesus is GOD*. Just because it is referenced that Jesus is part of God(as we all are), and Jesus is the Son of God(as we all are in various ways) does not mean that under Biblical interpretation that Jesus is GOD.

It would appear to me that Jesus can save us of all our sins through his teaching and his life without being GOD.

I guess thats why I never understood the whole "Do you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" thing. If I am going to be a Christian, I will except Jesus's life and example as my "Savior," but judging from what Jesus HIMSELF said, I don't think Jesus, whatever type of holy spirit he was, would want to be my personal GOD above what we know as GOD dating back to the Old Testiment..?

God by most monotheistic traditions is in and of all things, why is it that many Christians see Jesus as the one to be worshiped as THE GOD? Someone who takes this viewpoint of faith care to explain it to me? It just doesn't make sense to me as Jesus himself would seem not to have wanted such a thing through his own actions/words.

*note the reason why I have GOD written the way it is is because if one is to say they "accept Jesus as my personal lord and savior" and say that in a way that it is the most important part of their faith in God, than one must be saying that Jesus is the ultimate form of God for them.

[wbatl1]

This is part of the beauty that comes from the monstourous number of Christians, all hailing from different denominations, backgrounds, and faiths. Heck, as a Christian, my Bible is not the same as other Christian's Bible's(the apocalypse). Therefore, it is extremely hard to characterize all Christians or even the majority into an option. I believe that the first option is required to classify yourself as a Christian, and I believe option 4 is part of the "job description" of being a Christian, but I believe that there are also many people who call themselves Christians who fit into options 2 or 3.

Edit: And reading over option one, I have to agree with the post above me. I originally read it to be "Jesus lived and there is A God." Jesus is not God, but he was the Son of God, and sitteth on the right hand of God. There are 3 distinct holy bodies in many Christians beliefs, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

[wbatl1]

As far as #1, I don't know how many modern day christians take the life of Jesus, as told to us by the Bible, and get that Jesus is GOD*. Just because it is referenced that Jesus is part of God(as we all are), and Jesus is the Son of God(as we all are in various ways) does not mean that under Biblical interpretation that Jesus is GOD.

It would appear to me that Jesus can save us of all our sins through his teaching and his life without being GOD.

I guess thats why I never understood the whole "Do you except Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" thing. If I am going to be a Christian, I will except Jesus's life and example as my "Savior," but judging from what Jesus HIMSELF said, I don't think Jesus, whatever type of holy spirit he was, would want to be my personal GOD above what we know as GOD dating back to the Old Testiment..?

God by most monotheistic traditions is in and of all things, why is it that many Christians see Jesus as the one to be worshiped as THE GOD? Someone who takes this viewpoint of faith care to explain it to me? It just doesn't make sense to me as Jesus himself would seem not to have wanted such a thing through his own actions/words.

*note the reason why I have GOD written the way it is is because if one is to say they "Except Jesus as my personal lord and savior" and say that in a way that it is the most important part of their faith in God, than one must be saying that Jesus is the ultimate form of God for them.

I think the reason that this phrase was crafted is because lord is taken to mean a ruler above a person. Therefore, Jesus rules above me, which in turn came from the Old Testament which prophsied that God would send a King to rule over all lands. Jesus is believed to be that king. So in saying Jesus is my lord and saviour, it says that I believe Jesus came, rules over me and saved me, but he is not my GOD, as there are three distinct heavely beings(as I mentioned above).

[Tigercat]

I think the reason that this phrase was crafted is because lord is taken to mean a ruler above a person. Therefore, Jesus rules above me, which in turn came from the Old Testament which prophsied that God would send a King to rule over all lands. Jesus is believed to be that king. So in saying Jesus is my lord and saviour, it says that I believe Jesus came, rules over me and saved me, but he is not my GOD, as there are three distinct heavely beings(as I mentioned above).


Thats an explanation/point of view i can understand. I still wonder when I hear many talk about Jesus as their Lord and God how many think from that point of view though... It just seems there is a segment of the population that puts Jesus in the place of God. Perhaps putting a living being in that position makes it easier to understand God? Defeats the purpose of faith though, IMO.

[wbatl1]

Thats an explanation/point of view i can understand. I still wonder when I hear many talk about Jesus as their Lord and God how many think from that point of view though... It just seems there is a segment of the population that puts Jesus in the place of God. Perhaps putting a living being in that position makes it easier to understand God? Defeats the purpose of faith though, IMO.

Yeah, your point of view makes sense, since "Christians" come from so many denominations, backgrounds, beliefs, as I said in my first post. There are probably people who do believe Jesus is God, while there are defenitly many Christians(myself included) who believe in the Trinity.

[Warhammer]

Ok, I was meaning to post about this, or ask SkyDog, or someone... but I'll ask here since this was brought up.

I am a Roman Catholic, and to learn more about the Bible, I go to Christian religious meetings. However, not everyone in my family is happy about that.

I always thought that they were the same. Then I was told that the difference between the two are:

1. Catholic Bible has a couple more books.
2. Christians don't believe Mary was a virgin, or don't hold her as highly as Catholics do.
3. Christian priests/preachers/pastors can marry and have children, while Catholics can't.
4. All Christans are Catholics, but not all Catholics are Christians.
5. Christians are like Catholics, but less strict.

Am I misinformed here? Can someone clarify this for me? I don't see why some of my family members are upset, but if I AM doing something wrong that I don't see... please let me know.

As a fellow Roman Catholic I will address some of these questions/issues.

1) The Catholics do have a few more books in their Bible, mainly for historical purposes.
2) The Catholic teaching regarding Mary is that she was a virgin when Christ was conceived. There is no dogma regarding her subsequent sexuality.
3) Actually some Catholic priests can marry, however the priests of the Latin rite (Roman Catholics) cannot (under most circumstances) be married. This is due to past practices in which parishes were passed down through generationsm which led to many abuses.
4) All Christians are not Catholic, but all Catholics are Christians. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and died for the forgiveness of our sins. By the grace of God, and the sacrifice of Jesus, you can be saved from the fires of hell.
5) I disagree entirely with #5. Any fundamental Christian is much more strict than Catholicism. Most people do not realize it but the Catholic Church does not rule out evolution, most other Christian Churches do. Unlike most other religions, Catholic dogma holds up under scutiny, which many other faiths do not.

[Buccaneer]

Well yes this is a discussion on theology, at least according to most of the post thus far....

Seems to me that the word "Christian" is a verb. It has to go beyond the believing of Jesus and the cross. Saying the 10 "magic" words so you can get into heaven is vulgar, and selfish and has very little to do with what Jesus said and taught.

Looking at what Jesus said: love God, each other, blessed are the poor, the just, etc.. seems to be the heart of what it means to be Christian.

A final thought. If believing means you have allowed the Holy Spirit into your life, and the "Kingdom of God is here", then it makes sense that we should see this life as our reward, gift of grace. If we are Spirit filled then what comes out of us, through our love of God and another should then be Christianity.
Very nice post. You are a gifted Theologian.

[ShaqFu]

Nice thread. Christians aren't sinless and they aren't perfect. This is one of the reasons why they turned to Jesus for salvation in the first place. It's not up for you or I to decide who has genuine saving faith in Jesus Christ. Can a convicted felon like Scott Peterson be saved? I think so, but it doesn't mean he will be. We can only pray that he finds salvation and asks the Lord to forgive him of his sins.

[Celeval]

Heck, as a Christian, my Bible is not the same as other Christian's Bible's(the apocalypse).
I think you mean the apocrypha. The apocalypse is... well, entirely different. :D

[Bubba Wheels]

As far as #1, I don't know how many modern day christians take the life of Jesus, as told to us by the Bible, and get that Jesus is GOD*. Just because it is referenced that Jesus is part of God(as we all are), and Jesus is the Son of God(as we all are in various ways) does not mean that under Biblical interpretation that Jesus is GOD.

It would appear to me that Jesus can save us of all our sins through his teaching and his life without being GOD.

I guess thats why I never understood the whole "Do you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" thing. If I am going to be a Christian, I will except Jesus's life and example as my "Savior," but judging from what Jesus HIMSELF said, I don't think Jesus, whatever type of holy spirit he was, would want to be my personal GOD above what we know as GOD dating back to the Old Testiment..?

God by most monotheistic traditions is in and of all things, why is it that many Christians see Jesus as the one to be worshiped as THE GOD? Someone who takes this viewpoint of faith care to explain it to me? It just doesn't make sense to me as Jesus himself would seem not to have wanted such a thing through his own actions/words.

*note the reason why I have GOD written the way it is is because if one is to say they "accept Jesus as my personal lord and savior" and say that in a way that it is the most important part of their faith in God, than one must be saying that Jesus is the ultimate form of God for them.

Jesus stated numerous times that He was God. "Before Abraham was, I AM." That is actually the name of God, the Great "I AM." Jesus is a version of the Hebrew 'Eshewa" (not sure about the exact spelling, and not looking it up at this time.) Translation is 'God is with Us." Christ is from the Greek "Christos", means 'Annointed One', or 'Messiah" in Hebrew. The name is descriptive. Jesus was known as Jesus, son of Joseph during His life on earth.

[Warhammer]

An easy way to think of the Holy Trinity is:

1) God is the Creator, and he made his covenant with his Chosen People, the Jews.
2) Jesus is the fulfillment of this covenant, God's Word made Flesh.
3) The Holy Spirit is the ongoing faith in God's Word

[Cap Ologist]

An easy way to think of the Holy Trinity is:

1) God is the Creator, and he made his covenant with his Chosen People, the Jews.
2) Jesus is the fulfillment of this covenant, God's Word made Flesh.
3) The Holy Spirit is the ongoing faith in God's Word
wow, i think that's the first time in a long time that i've heard someone say there is an easy way to think about the trinity. not picking on you or anything, but i'm taking a class on the trinity, and well, from all the monster volumes that i've read (or supposed to have read;) ), whenever someone tries to simplify the trinity, they usually end up making it more difficult. it's pretty much incomprehensible to understand how there can be one God existing in 3 equal persons from eternity at the same time.

[Cap Ologist]

As far as #1, I don't know how many modern day christians take the life of Jesus, as told to us by the Bible, and get that Jesus is GOD*. Just because it is referenced that Jesus is part of God(as we all are), and Jesus is the Son of God(as we all are in various ways) does not mean that under Biblical interpretation that Jesus is GOD.

It would appear to me that Jesus can save us of all our sins through his teaching and his life without being GOD.

I guess thats why I never understood the whole "Do you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" thing. If I am going to be a Christian, I will except Jesus's life and example as my "Savior," but judging from what Jesus HIMSELF said, I don't think Jesus, whatever type of holy spirit he was, would want to be my personal GOD above what we know as GOD dating back to the Old Testiment..?

God by most monotheistic traditions is in and of all things, why is it that many Christians see Jesus as the one to be worshiped as THE GOD? Someone who takes this viewpoint of faith care to explain it to me? It just doesn't make sense to me as Jesus himself would seem not to have wanted such a thing through his own actions/words.

*note the reason why I have GOD written the way it is is because if one is to say they "accept Jesus as my personal lord and savior" and say that in a way that it is the most important part of their faith in God, than one must be saying that Jesus is the ultimate form of God for them.
good post, just wanted to answer the question of whether Jesus could save us without being God, and the answer would be no.

I think at the core of one's perception of God would be perfection. I mean who would want to worship someone who screws up like we do. So, if we start with the assumption that God is perfect, then we have to define what sin is.

Sin isn't bad because it makes us look bad, sin is horrible because it is having the choice between doing what is good, right and brings eternal pleasure or what is bad, wrong or forsaking eternal pleasure for short-term pleasure. So, when we sin, we are basically stating to God that we know better than He does and that we don't value the things that He values.

So, how bad is it when we reject the things that God values? Well, to the degree that God is perfect, it is equally heinous. So, sin against a perfect God is an incredibly heinous act.

How can we be made right with this perfect God? It can't be by our works or deeds or thoughts or wishes. We need a substitute who can take our place and offer an incredibly perfect sacrifice to atone for the incredibly perfect judgement that we deserve.

The only way that the infinite wrath of God can be appeased is by the sacrifice of God the Son, Jesus. It is because Jesus was one person with perfect human and divine natures that He is able to qualify as the perfect sacrifice to make atonement.

If Jesus isn't God, then He doesn't qualify as the perfect sacrifice because many times in Scripture He claimed to be God. He would be a disgraced liar, not a perfect loving savior.

Hope this helps.

[Bubba Wheels]

wow, i think that's the first time in a long time that i've heard someone say there is an easy way to think about the trinity. not picking on you or anything, but i'm taking a class on the trinity, and well, from all the monster volumes that i've read (or supposed to have read;) ), whenever someone tries to simplify the trinity, they usually end up making it more difficult. it's pretty much incomprehensible to understand how there can be one God existing in 3 equal persons from eternity at the same time.

I think the question might be: Are there three distinct and individual personalities with a Devine nature? I think that the Bible answers yes, although the United Pentacostals would disagree.

[Neon_Chaos]

good post, just wanted to answer the question of whether Jesus could save us without being God, and the answer would be no.

I think at the core of one's perception of God would be perfection. I mean who would want to worship someone who screws up like we do. So, if we start with the assumption that God is perfect, then we have to define what sin is.

Sin isn't bad because it makes us look bad, sin is horrible because it is having the choice between doing what is good, right and brings eternal pleasure or what is bad, wrong or forsaking eternal pleasure for short-term pleasure. So, when we sin, we are basically stating to God that we know better than He does and that we don't value the things that He values.

So, how bad is it when we reject the things that God values? Well, to the degree that God is perfect, it is equally heinous. So, sin against a perfect God is an incredibly heinous act.

How can we be made right with this perfect God? It can't be by our works or deeds or thoughts or wishes. We need a substitute who can take our place and offer an incredibly perfect sacrifice to atone for the incredibly perfect judgement that we deserve.

The only way that the infinite wrath of God can be appeased is by the sacrifice of God the Son, Jesus. It is because Jesus was one person with perfect human and divine natures that He is able to qualify as the perfect sacrifice to make atonement.

If Jesus isn't God, then He doesn't qualify as the perfect sacrifice because many times in Scripture He claimed to be God. He would be a disgraced liar, not a perfect loving savior.

Hope this helps.

The only problem here is what would you define as 'good and right'? This is highly influenced by one's culture and his enviroment while growing up.

I am, well... was a Roman Catholic, but I have recently been disenfranchised by general religion. Religion in itself is selfish, cruel, restrictive and bigotted.

I now, however, hold much more stock in Faith. Faith on the other hand, is something deeper... faith is something that resides deep inside you... the faith of something higher... that we have a certain purpose, that we're here for a reason.

I am now avoiding religion, although I certainly have no problem with what other people's religions are... afterall, we all have our own belief systems, right? But I think that wether you call him God, Allah, Karma... whatever... I do think that there is something...or someone... much, much higher at work in our midst.

It's all a matter of FAITH, gentlemen.

[Sharpieman]

The only problem here is what would you define as 'good and right'? This is highly influenced by one's culture and his enviroment while growing up.

I am, well... was a Roman Catholic, but I have recently been disenfranchised by general religion. Religion in itself is selfish, cruel, restrictive and bigotted.

I now, however, hold much more stock in Faith. Faith on the other hand, is something deeper... faith is something that resides deep inside you... the faith of something higher... that we have a certain purpose, that we're here for a reason.

I am now avoiding religion, although I certainly have no problem with what other people's religions are... afterall, we all have our own belief systems, right? But I think that wether you call him God, Allah, Karma... whatever... I do think that there is something...or someone... much, much higher at work in our midst.

It's all a matter of FAITH, gentlemen.
I couldn't agree more with the faith part of your comments. However, I don't believe religion is a horrible thing. Religion has never been the problem; it is the interpretation of religion, which has caused many problems. Those who use God's name as an excuse to do horrible things may have believe in a certain religion, but they certainly don't have faith. Religion is like a culture, the vast majority of people never picked their culture or religion, they were just born in a certain area and grew up with that religion or culture. What I'm saying is; it doesn't matter whether you go to a church, a temple or a mosque, we all pray to the same God. Furthermore, your faith isn't measured by how much you talk about how you love God, but it is measured by how you live your life. It is not a coincidence that there is not a large variation in what different religions say is right or wrong.

[revrew]

[QUOTE=Tigercat]As far as #1, I don't know how many modern day christians take the life of Jesus, as told to us by the Bible, and get that Jesus is GOD*.

It would appear to me that Jesus can save us of all our sins through his teaching and his life without being GOD.

why is it that many Christians see Jesus as the one to be worshiped as THE GOD? Someone who takes this viewpoint of faith care to explain it to me? It just doesn't make sense to me as Jesus himself would seem not to have wanted such a thing through his own actions/words.
QUOTE]

Though this is a bunny trail on the thread as a whole (hey, no prob), since you asked for an explanation, I'll bite. "Why Jesus as THE GOD?" in a list:

1. Cap Ologist already hit on the need for a GOD sacrifice, not a human sacrifice, so I'll just let that stand as is.
2. John Chap 1:1 establishes John's belief that Jesus was THE GOD - "In the beginning was the Word (later established as code for Jesus)...the Word was with God, and was God."
3. As mentioned above, Jesus called himself the GOD of the Old Testament when he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." That's why immediately afterward, people picked up stones to stone him for blashphemy. He claimed to be THE GOD.
4. Isaiah 9:6 prophecied the Messiah would be both God and Man, a "child" born who would also be "Mighty God, Everlasting Father".
5. In Philippians 2:1 Paul refers to Jesus as "being in very nature GOD."
6. I know I'm forgetting some "proof texts;" I don't have a textbook in front of me, though I do recall the book of Hebrews establishes this as well.
7. Round about year 400, the formative creed of the Chrisitian church established Jesus' divinity. The same creed is said today in many churches, where Christians affirm, Jesus as "True God from True God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father."
8. As for "how many modern Chrisitians," I'm not George Barna with a great polling company behind me, but at least here in Iowa, the notion that Jesus is THE GOD is the most commonly held viewpoint. It is considered the very essence of the doctrine of the trinity.

The early, post-apostolic (in other words, the apostles and Paul were dead) church argued about this. There were many heresies that erupted in the early days, and the need for truth compelled the church to argue out the various positions. When the dust settled, however, the church agreed with John and Paul and the writer of Hebrews: When Jesus said he was GOD, he meant it.

[G-Man]

I think it's a combination of all four. I believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that He lived a perfect live, God killed Him on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins, and on the third day He rose and lives today.

I'm also what you would probably consider a moralist. I try to live my life in a way that maximizes true pleasure that can't be found in the empty ways of this world, and since I'm not perfect, a lot of times I come across as hypocritical. Christians by no means have a monopoly on hypocrisy, go sit in a football stadium and you'll be surrounded by hypocrites who flipflop between cheering and booing.

As a Christian, one of the cornerstone beliefs is that Jesus is the only way to get to Heaven or to have eternal life. This is a harsh truth, but so is gravity. Why should gravity get to make me stay attached to earth, maybe I just want to float around a little. Truth, at it's very definition, is intolerant because two competing ideas can't be true.

The Bible urges us to pray for our leaders so that we may live in peace. Christ compels us to live our lives for His glory. Probably one of my biggest gripes about my fellow Christians is how we view politics and government. There are too many Christians who believe that if they get Congress to pass a law then America will be changed. I'm a bigger believer that the way to cause change is not to reduce the supply, but to reduce the demand.

Finally, I wish all Christians would live lives of love, hope and faith and would be willing to step out of their comfort zones and make Christ known as the treasure which is worth selling everything you own to obtain it.

So, long ramble, but I think a Christian is a conglomeration of all of those perceptions.

Well said!

[sachmo71]

I'm just glad Christians are no longer lion food.

[Blackadar]

Here's the question I'd like to see answered.

Is a Christian, on average, better than someone who's not?

[Franklinnoble]

I'm just glad Christians are no longer lion food.

Yeah, the lions have switched to a diet that is lower in trans-fatty acids.

[rkmsuf]

This would fit the definition

http://www.webcom.com/collectr/ce/images/cpslaterc.jpg

[sachmo71]

Here's the question I'd like to see answered.

Is a Christian, on average, better than someone who's not?


If you are talking about hard drinkin', probably not.
But in hanging out in groups, they are the tops.

[Bubba Wheels]

Here's the question I'd like to see answered.

Is a Christian, on average, better than someone who's not?

In and of himself, no. However, a true practicing Christian who has been born-again is operating under the Will of God with the full assisstance of the Holy Spirit, and as such cannot help but lead a more exemplary life than someone with a fallen nature not following God.

This is the whole point of living for Christ in this life, to lead others to Him through outward works. In the same way the Jews of the Old Testament were to be the light of the living God unto the rest of the world in leading them to Him (and failing miserably, as many Christians probably do.)

[Cap Ologist]

Depends on how you define better. I'd have to say that Christians aren't better than others. Christians are people with messed up lives, broken dreams and hopes for a better life, much like everybody else. The distinction between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians have hope that God is in control, that He's working all things together for their good so that through out their lifetime they are being made to be more like who Christ is.

[revrew]

Between Bubba's and Cap's answer, I vote for Cap.

And you do have to define what you mean by "better." You mean more moral? Well, then, you have to define whose morality. God's or yours. But even then, Cap's answer is still close to the meat of it.

The thing to understand is that Christianity is a transformative relationship. In other words, growing more like Christ as we follow him and are indwelt by his spirit is a process. The other thing to figure is that--if Christ's experience in winning converts is any kind of norm--you might expect that "good" folks won't typically convert to Christianity because life is pretty well put together for them. You would expect a lot of people converting to Christianity who are hurt, poor, bitter, angry, messed up (I would have fit that definition), as Jesus said of himself, "It isn't the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." It takes time for ANY convert to grow, learn, be transformed. And if newer Christians are often from the dregs of society, one would NOT expect Christians to behave "better" than non-Christians, but almost the opposite. (Then you have all the preacher-types who convince people being a Christian doesn't require any commitment or growth. These have created whole generations of "baby Christians," people who may have been Christians for 30 years, but act like they've only grown for about 30 seconds).

So "better" is a difficult term to use, and you certainly can't use it with ALL Christians. I would say this, though:

"The heart of a man is measured in humility. Give me a man willing to be taught over a man proud of his lessons learned any day. And if that humble man is learning at the feet of a teacher like Christ, then truly I have found a worthwhile companion."

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, lots of semantics at play here. I'll just say that my statement is based on God's plan to make the world a better place THRU people doing His will on earth. So those doing His will are obviously pleasing God, those who don't are obviously not. "No one is righteous, no not one, for ALL have fallen short."

[Cap Ologist]

Is God's plan really to make the world a better place though? Not trying to start an argument, but I think that God's plan is more about building His heavenly kingdom. Scripture tells us that at some point, there will be a new heaven and new earth, and while I'm by no means an expert on prophecy or Revelation, it seems the goal of God's work is to redeem people and bring them into His eternal presence.

I'm not debating that doing the will of God is pleasing or not to Him, I think it's obvious that it is, but I don't think the end of God's design is for an improved earth based on man's accomplishments. Again, we may just be off on semantics and how we are defining things.

[Bubba Wheels]

Is God's plan really to make the world a better place though? Not trying to start an argument, but I think that God's plan is more about building His heavenly kingdom. Scripture tells us that at some point, there will be a new heaven and new earth, and while I'm by no means an expert on prophecy or Revelation, it seems the goal of God's work is to redeem people and bring them into His eternal presence.

I'm not debating that doing the will of God is pleasing or not to Him, I think it's obvious that it is, but I don't think the end of God's design is for an improved earth based on man's accomplishments. Again, we may just be off on semantics and how we are defining things.

Well, I think that what we may be running into here is the defining the word 'better', from both man's view and God's view. As you already know, not the same thing "My ways are not your ways, and My thoughts are not your thoughts." So your point is well taken.

[Kevin]

I wish the answer was #4. Unfortunately for almost all religions, the original ideals have been hijacked to further goals of individuals or nation states. They really don't give a rats ass about higher ideals.

Probably the same analogy can be attributed to every signifiant religion in the world. I find that religion for the past 800 or so years has existed primarily to keep the poor from revolting against the power brokers. The reason there are so many religions is that the leaders needed a separate god from their enemiies in order to inspire their slaves and peasants to sacrifice themselves to the greater glory of a god, and even more to the greater riches of the ruler.

That's not to say there aren't lots of true and good followers of those original ideals. It's just when religion becomes organized, then power and corruption get in the way. That's just the sinning nature of humans, I guess.

[WSUCougar]

Personally, I think one of the great tragedies of Christianity is that it has been twisted and warped by religion(s) from its original intent. So often, people are given the impression that being a Christian is some kind of “us vs. them” scenario. This is in large part due to religions attacking other religions, beliefs, lifestyles, etc., throughout history. It’s the “holier than thou” aspect that turns so many people away.

Bottom line in my opinion is that we all start out “unsaved.” I’m not talking about baptism or anything similar in terms of religious rites. I’m talking about a conscious decision, or perhaps more accurately the lack of a decision, to follow the way of the Lord. We are all sinners, and nothing changes that. No one is better than anyone else in that sense. To do nothing, to continue to live out your life in that state, is to die. That’s the default action.

The hard part is making that commitment to be a Christian in the true sense of the word. Not to follow a religion, not to be “better” than anyone else, and not for any other reason than to save yourself. That’s what I think God wants, and that gift is right there for the taking. And all the religious clap-trap that gets in the way of that straightforward message is a tragedy.