Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > What is the minimum requirment to be considered "Christian"?

What is the minimum requirment to be considered "Christian"?
Thread Tools
paully dub
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Paris, NY, Rome, etc
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:24 PM
 
Yet another religion thread, I know. But it came up in conversation. Anyway, is there really an underlying belief that unites all the so-called christian churches?

For example the belief that Jesus Christ was born of the Immaculate Conception, that he was indeed the son of God, that he died for our sins and that he was ressurected afterwards. And finally that he'll return once more to put an end to this grace period of sin we're all living in and judge us and so forth.

Is that too much, not enough? Just curious...

Adopt-A-Yankee
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:41 PM
 
I've been thinking about this recently too, as I'm a Christian non-theist (along with people like Thomas Jefferson and John Spong ).

The immaculate conception is definitely not common to all Christians (remember that's about the birth of Mary, not Jesus). I believe that's uniquely Roman Catholic. I'd say the core Christian belief is that Jesus was executed as a sacrifice of God, and that if you believe that, your own sins will be pardoned. Or something like that. It doesn't really make any sense to me.

But in the end, you're a Christian if you call yourself a Christian. IMO Christianity SHOULD be about the teachings/saying of Jesus, not some stuff that others came up with in order to figure out why he was executed.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:47 PM
 
The most basic way to put it would be "following the teachings of Jesus".

However, following the teachings of Jesus has many implications. For example, whether or not one believes Jesus to be an aspect of God (i.e. the Trinity), Jesus showed much respect and reverence for "his Father", and following Jesus' teachings would seem to imply showing that same sort of respect and reverence.

But what does that mean? It throws other wrinkles into the mix: for example, while the Old Testament certainly has use in showing what it means to respect "the Father" by showing what kind of being he is, how many of the old laws could actually be considered to be in force? All of them? None of them? Something in between? Even if the rules are not "in force", per se, should they still be considered as a part of respecting the Father?

This sort of thing may help explain why Christianity seems chaotic at times: even the simplest, most basic tenet has many side effects, and quite a few questions raised by this have gone unanswered.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 01:00 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
The most basic way to put it would be "following the teachings of Jesus".
Unfortunately, I really don't think the core Christian belief has anything to do with that. Look at the Nicene or Apostle's creed - neither of them say anything about Jesus' teachings. They don't even say anything about his life at all. It's just "we believe he was born, died, and was resurrected." WWJD is nowhere to be seen. Christianity, very early on, was about belief in the sacrifice/resurrection, and what Jesus actually said or did was secondary if even relevant at all. It's rather strange.
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 01:06 PM
 
Belief in Jesus as the Son of God. Remember, the Muslims believe he was a prophet.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
paully dub  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Paris, NY, Rome, etc
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 01:14 PM
 
I'm looking for the difference of being a Christian and a Good Christian.

For example, one who believes in Christ as the son of God, but who knowingly sins and believes one day he's going to pay and end up in hell or something of the kind. That person considers himself Christian, yet refuses to "follow the teachings of Christ". But he believes that by not following them, he is a bad, sinful, person. He may even revel in that concept, which is rather fundamental to Christianity.

Adopt-A-Yankee
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 01:16 PM
 
To be a Christian, you have to agree with the Nicene, or at the very least the Apostle's creed. This was established by the early church fathers as the "yardstick" by which people who claim to be Christians can be compared.

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm

Since I don't agree with the creeds, I'm not Christian, and I'm ok with that. You can believe in Jesus without being Christian.

Now, there is such a thing as being culturally Christian, but not actually being part of the faith. A person has been raised in the church, celebrates the holidays, follows some of the general precepts, etc.. but doesn't really believe. Then, in a cultural sense, that person is Christian. However, in a spiritual or religious sense, they aren't.


Spong?!? Ugh. Sad excuse for a cleric if there ever was one. He makes Arius look like Francis of Assisi. Shows how far the Episcopal church has declined if they had a person such as him as a bishop (and no, I'm NOT talking about his homosexuality).

Also, Jefferson wasn't a non-theist, he was a mason (and deist) and a rosicrucian.

http://www.amorc.org.au/mastery.php?action=8&page=2

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/me...ian2-9750.html
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
paully dub  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Paris, NY, Rome, etc
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 01:29 PM
 
Both creeds mention one holy, catholic church, as well as other details not shared by all the Christian churches (that undoubtedly came about after the publication of this creed) and indeed not all chruches affirm it.

Rather, I was wondering if it was possible to separate the essence of Christianity from the various Christian Churches.

Adopt-A-Yankee
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 01:34 PM
 
Originally posted by paully dub:
Both creeds mention one holy, catholic church, as well as other details not shared by all the Christian churches (that undoubtedly came about after the publication of this creed) and indeed not all chruches affirm it.

Rather, I was wondering if it was possible to separate the essence of Christianity from the various Christian Churches.
Catholic in that context simply means universal. It's not referring to the Roman Catholic, or any specific Catholic church.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 02:07 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
To be a Christian, you have to agree with the Nicene, or at the very least the Apostle's creed. This was established by the early church fathers as the "yardstick" by which people who claim to be Christians can be compared.

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm

Since I don't agree with the creeds, I'm not Christian, and I'm ok with that. You can believe in Jesus without being Christian.

Now, there is such a thing as being culturally Christian, but not actually being part of the faith. A person has been raised in the church, celebrates the holidays, follows some of the general precepts, etc.. but doesn't really believe. Then, in a cultural sense, that person is Christian. However, in a spiritual or religious sense, they aren't.
It seems to me that one has a choice, to be either a non-Christian, or a Christian heretic. And since heresy doesn't have the consequences that it once did, it's fine with me.
Spong?!? Ugh. Sad excuse for a cleric if there ever was one. He makes Arius look like Francis of Assisi. Shows how far the Episcopal church has declined if they had a person such as him as a bishop (and no, I'm NOT talking about his homosexuality).
Spong isn't gay. But he is one of the most outspoken critics of the American politically conservative, literalist Christianity of recent years.
Also, Jefferson wasn't a non-theist, he was a mason (and deist) and a rosicrucian.
I used the term non-theist to contrast his deism with theism. My impression is that the rosicrucians claim just about everyone of historical merit in their membership.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 02:18 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
It seems to me that one has a choice, to be either a non-Christian, or a Christian heretic. And since heresy doesn't have the consequences that it once did, it's fine with me.
I suppose that makes me a heretic too, then. OK; I have no problem with that.
I used the term non-theist to contrast his deism with theism.
The thing is, deism is by definition theist, at least to a point. A deist believes that (for any of a wide variety of reasons) God created the universe but no longer takes an active hand in running it. This is as opposed to deterministic theism, which holds that God is actively controlling every process in the cosmos, or at least the most significant ones, all of the time.

Of course, then there's the case of a person who believes that God is dead, not in Neitzche's sense but actually, literally dead. Does that count as theist or not, given that it entails a belief that God did exist but doesn't anymore?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 02:29 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
It seems to me that one has a choice, to be either a non-Christian, or a Christian heretic. And since heresy doesn't have the consequences that it once did, it's fine with me.
Spong isn't gay. But he is one of the most outspoken critics of the American politically conservative, literalist Christianity of recent years. I used the term non-theist to contrast his deism with theism. My impression is that the rosicrucians claim just about everyone of historical merit in their membership.
Spong NOT gay? I met he and his mate (seemed like a nice enough fellow) at a clergy conference in Boston. Interesting. Doesn't matter to me, I don't care if he's gay or not. It's his ridiculous views on Christology that I'm critical of.


I understand the criticism regarding the Rosicrucians, they tend to be a bit "grabby" with regards to historical persons. But, in this instance, they are correct. He does discuss it in some of his private correspondence.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...64844?v=glance
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 02:30 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
The thing is, deism is by definition theist, at least to a point. A deist believes that (for any of a wide variety of reasons) God created the universe but no longer takes an active hand in running it. This is as opposed to deterministic theism, which holds that God is actively controlling every process in the cosmos, or at least the most significant ones, all of the time.
Maybe theism can be thought of as having two definitions, a more general definition meaning any belief in God, and a more specific one referring to a belief in a human-like, interventionist God, in contrast to deism, pantheism, and other types of God beliefs.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 02:39 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Spong NOT gay? I met he and his mate (seemed like a nice enough fellow) at a clergy conference in Boston. Interesting. Doesn't matter to me, I don't care if he's gay or not. It's his ridiculous views on Christology that I'm critical of.
Well maybe you should tell his wife about this mate of his. He got married before his ordination, and after his first wife died, he (controversially) got married again. Here's an official biography.

I understand the criticism regarding the Rosicrucians, they tend to be a bit "grabby" with regards to historical persons. But, in this instance, they are correct. He does discuss it in some of his private correspondence.
I just never really though of rosicrucianism as even a real group; they just seem like one of those "let's pretend" groups. But I haven't looked into it, so maybe I'm wrong.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 03:01 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Well maybe you should tell his wife about this mate of his. He got married before his ordination, and after his first wife died, he (controversially) got married again. Here's an official biography.

I just never really though of rosicrucianism as even a real group; they just seem like one of those "let's pretend" groups. But I haven't looked into it, so maybe I'm wrong.
Doesn't matter to me what he tells his wife, it's his life.

I used to belong to AMORC, long ago. Nice people, but their metaphysical teaching lacks substance... they're a bit too, umm, "fluffy" for my taste.

http://www.rosicrucian.org/

Nice site though.

Edit: and they do have a beautiful campus in San Jose. I visited it several years ago, it's very impressive.

http://www.rosicrucian.org/park/index.html
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2004, 07:25 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Catholic in that context simply means universal. It's not referring to the Roman Catholic, or any specific Catholic church.
Actually, no that is incorrect.

The clause was there to separate those who are apart of the universial Church, that is the Church in communion with Rome and heretics. Communion with the Roman see was considered the defining aspect of a 'Catholic' even at the very beginnings of the Church.
In vino veritas.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2004, 10:34 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
Actually, no that is incorrect.

The clause was there to separate those who are apart of the universial Church, that is the Church in communion with Rome and heretics. Communion with the Roman see was considered the defining aspect of a 'Catholic' even at the very beginnings of the Church.
No, I don't believe it is incorrect, because during the council of Nicea (when the Nicene Creed was established) there was no real concept of "communion with Rome". The Christian church hadn't seperated that far yet, and few in the orthodox community had turned over any authority to Rome at that time. It wasn't until the council of Calcedon that those unfortunate things became a reality, and the Syrians (and most of the oriental churches) were excluded... why? Because they wouldn't recognize the Pope as anything other than the patriarch of his church, though Romans and their cohorts veiled it as a witch hunt for Monophysites (which they still haven't proven is heresy).

Now, I know this flies in the face of the RC perspective, I'm just giving it from the Syrian Church's POV.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2004, 06:04 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, I don't believe it is incorrect, because during the council of Nicea (when the Nicene Creed was established) there was no real concept of "communion with Rome". The Christian church hadn't seperated that far yet, and few in the orthodox community had turned over any authority to Rome at that time. It wasn't until the council of Calcedon that those unfortunate things became a reality, and the Syrians (and most of the oriental churches) were excluded... why? Because they wouldn't recognize the Pope as anything other than the patriarch of his church, though Romans and their cohorts veiled it as a witch hunt for Monophysites (which they still haven't proven is heresy).

Now, I know this flies in the face of the RC perspective, I'm just giving it from the Syrian Church's POV.
A quote from St. Irenaeus (written between 180-199 A.D.) from 'The Detection and Overthrow of the Gnosis Falsely So Called):

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones [the bishops] to whom they were committing the self-same churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach to whom they handed on their authority." (Irenaeus, in W.A. Jurgens, ed., The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1, [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1970), 89

Now a stinker for you MacNStein:

"That tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organised at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Now! That was written sometime between 180-190 A.D.! The idea of the 'primacy of Rome' is very early and defined what Catholicism was. If you want, I can give other quotes from other Church Fathers.
( Last edited by undotwa; Dec 30, 2004 at 06:11 PM. )
In vino veritas.
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2004, 07:58 PM
 
10%?
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2004, 09:01 PM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
A quote from St. Irenaeus (written between 180-199 A.D.) from 'The Detection and Overthrow of the Gnosis Falsely So Called):

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones [the bishops] to whom they were committing the self-same churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach to whom they handed on their authority." (Irenaeus, in W.A. Jurgens, ed., The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1, [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1970), 89

Now a stinker for you MacNStein:

"That tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organised at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, tat is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Now! That was written sometime between 180-190 A.D.! The idea of the 'primacy of Rome' is very early and defined what Catholicism was. If you want, I can give other quotes from other Church Fathers.
I'm not speaking out against Apostolic succession, I'm merely pointing out that the succession of other churches are just as valid... Peter was no more of a disciple than Thomas or James. Just because there's a church in Rome, doesn't mean that the churches founded by the other Apostles are invalid. The arrogance and domineering attitude of the Roman chruch has caused many Orthodox churches to shy away from them, if not shun them outright. The early Eastern Schisms weren't just for jollies.

As for any of the Latin fathers, what would you expect them to say? Would it surprise you that the Syrian and Greek fathers said the opposite?

An excerpt from an article by Anglican Bishop Gregory Hallam:

"In its relations with Rome, Orthodoxy has a far more complex problem. Although there are some hard line Orthodox who would reject Rome out of hand, at the very least, she cannot be ignored. In some areas, (papacy vs. conciliarity, organisational vs. mystical unity), Orthodox have very different and important understandings of the Church than those shared with Roman Catholics. However, we are at one with them on the notion of the Church as one, visible, necessary and dependable body. In this sense the visible Church is never divided. Other Christian bodies may fall away from the Church but these can never harm the visible Church�s intrinsic unity.

How, then can we sustain our own understanding of Orthodoxy as the one True Church against Rome�s identical claim? Well, it is in those areas on which we disagree concerning the Church, that we believe Rome to have compromised its claim to be, (as it once was), the Orthodox Church of the West. So, whether it is the papacy or the filioque, the Immaculate Conception or Augustinian teaching on original sin, Rome�s claim both to her own jurisdiction and her supposed jurisdiction over all other Christian churches are heresies which must be lovingly but firmly resisted. Furthermore, these are heresies which compromise fatally the present exercise of Rome�s former dignity and status as first amongst equals in the Christian world."


Some bridges aren't so easily rebuilt.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 01:05 AM
 
The Church is not needed to be a believing Christian.

You can be stranded on a desert Island, believe that Jesus was your savior, and through him your sins are forgiven. And believe that in your heart, and be motivated to lead a Christian life. What is in your heart, and your motivations are important.

Christianity isn't a membership, but a way of life.

Anyone that tells you that you must belong to a certain denomination to be saved does not get it.
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 01:09 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Anyone that tells you that you must belong to a certain denomination to be saved does not get it.
While not a christian, I give your answer a:

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
Splinter
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: with stupid
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 05:19 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
The Church is not needed to be a believing Christian.

Christianity isn't a membership, but a way of life.
What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your mouth. Yiddish proverb
     
paully dub  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Paris, NY, Rome, etc
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 06:23 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
The Church is not needed to be a believing Christian.

You can be stranded on a desert Island, believe that Jesus was your savior, and through him your sins are forgiven. And believe that in your heart, and be motivated to lead a Christian life. What is in your heart, and your motivations are important.

Christianity isn't a membership, but a way of life.

Anyone that tells you that you must belong to a certain denomination to be saved does not get it.
While this discussion has indeed been fascinating and infformative, I was actually looking more for something along these lines.

So that said, there are many different kinds of Christians, what do they all have in common? One man's Christian being another man's heretic, are there any core beliefs to Christianity, and its "way of life"? Obviously following the teachings of Jesus Christ is rather vague and open to lots of different interpretations. The Apostles wanted to found a church. So belonging to a church would seem to be part of the equation, and there are certain ritual aspects, such as prayer, baptism, confession and forgiveness which seem to be rather common. And then there are the concepts of original sin, being born again, ardently awaiting the imminent second coming and so on which don't seem to be so common.

And indeed how does one seperate what's fundamentally Christian from what is Jewish, or indeed taken from other, later European cultures?

Adopt-A-Yankee
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 10:13 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
The Church is not needed to be a believing Christian.

You can be stranded on a desert Island, believe that Jesus was your savior, and through him your sins are forgiven. And believe that in your heart, and be motivated to lead a Christian life. What is in your heart, and your motivations are important.

Christianity isn't a membership, but a way of life.

Anyone that tells you that you must belong to a certain denomination to be saved does not get it.
While I agree with your post, I believe being "saved" and being Christian aren't always one in the same. People have run fast and loose with the title, and the best way to distinguish is the method established by the early church.

Honestly Zimph, as a Christian, read the Nicene or Apostle's creed and see if there's anything you disagree with. Humor me.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 10:33 AM
 
I believe the Bible is at the core of Christianity. You can say; "well, some people claim to be Christian, yet do not believe the Bible is accurate." To them I'd say, what 'Christ' are you following? What do you know of him and how do you know it? To be Christian, you have to consider yourself 'of Christ' and in wanting to be Christ-like. This includes believing he was borne of a virgin mother, crucified, died and was buried, then rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures, offering the Holy Spirit and salvation to all who seek him. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. By those things you might know one. Outside of those things, you might know someone who claims to believe in Christ "just in case" it's true and/or someone who is using Christianity for personal gain or agenda.

In short, you do not need to be Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist or otherwise to be a Christian. You have to believe in Christ, his sacrifice, that He is God, and that through him you can have eternal life. When these things are realized fully, life-change can occur and your works will be done with joy. Not through coercion, manipulated scripture, and good intentions gone bad. They will know you by your fruits. They will know you as Christian.
ebuddy
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 05:13 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Honestly Zimph, as a Christian, read the Nicene or Apostle's creed and see if there's anything you disagree with. Humor me.
The Trinity.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 05:18 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
The Trinity.
Really? Interesting.

Do you consider yourself Christian? If so, what role do you ascribe to Jesus?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 10:07 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
I'm not speaking out against Apostolic succession, I'm merely pointing out that the succession of other churches are just as valid... Peter was no more of a disciple than Thomas or James. Just because there's a church in Rome, doesn't mean that the churches founded by the other Apostles are invalid. The arrogance and domineering attitude of the Roman chruch has caused many Orthodox churches to shy away from them, if not shun them outright. The early Eastern Schisms weren't just for jollies.
The apostolic succession of other churches (granted that there has been no break in continuity in the belief of the sacramental nature of ordination) from other apostles is valid.

As for any of the Latin fathers, what would you expect them to say? Would it surprise you that the Syrian and Greek fathers said the opposite?
Well guess what, they didn't!

The Eastern churches did originally accept the authority of Rome. At the Council of Chalcedon the bishops exclaimed "It is Peter who says this through Leo. This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles."

Here are some quotes from Eusebius about Peter:

"That powerful and great one of the Apostles, who, on account of his excellence, was the leader of all the rest" (Hist. Eccl. lib. ii c. 14)

"The very head of the Apostles" (Com. in Ps. lxviii. 9, tom v. p 737)
"Set above all the rest" Demonstrat. Evang. liv. iii c. 7.

Here are some quotes from Aphraates (Father of the Syrian Church)

"David.... the chief of he kinds of Israel, confessed his iniquity and was forgiven; Simon, too, the chief of the disciples... when he repented... ourLord received him and made him the foundation, and called him Cephas, the edifice of His Church)

"Moses brought out water from the rock for his people, and Jesus sent Simon Cephas to carry his doctrine among the peoples" (notice the analogy? see Matthew 16 and the environment in which Peter was given the keys)

"David handed over the kingdom to Solomon, and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the keys to Simon, and ascended and returned to Him who sent Him."

"Simon Cephas the foundation of the Church...James and John firm pillars of the Church"

Some quotes from St Ephraem the Syrian, deacon of the Church of Edessa (350 - 370 A.D.)

"Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is the life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of My treasures. I have given you the keys of My kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures!"

Now for some quotes from Orthodox patriarchs!

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516 A.D.)

'Declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that such a step, [b]without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope, was impossible." (Macedonius, Patr. Grae. 108:360a)

St John Chrysostom:

"The apostles do not see their own affairs, but those of others, all together and each separately. Peter, the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ; for he says 'Peter, lovest thou me more than these?; I speak his praises that you may learn that he loves Christ, for the care of the slaves is the greatest proof of love to the Lord. It is not I who say these things, but the beloved Lord. 'If thou lovest me, ' he says, 'feed my sheep.' Let us see whether he has the primacy of a shepherd.' John Chrysostom, Homily on 2 Timothy 3.1

'Peter so washed away that denial as to be even made the first Apostle, and to have the whole world committed to him." (i. Orat. viii n.3)

'And should any one say, 'Why then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?:' this is my answer: that He appointed this man (Peter) not teacher of that throne, but of the habitable globe." (Ib. Hom. lxxxviii.)

Edict of Emperor Theodosius:

"We will that all people who are governed by our clemency should practise the same religion as the divine Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans, as the religion proclaimed by him up to this time declares it; and which it is clear the Pontiff Damasus follows, and Peter, the Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity-that is &c. Those who follow this law we order to take the name of Catholic Christians." [by the way, that emphasises my original point that only those who follow the see of Rome can call themselves Catholics] (Theodosian Code 16.1.22 cunctos populos)

From the Council of Chalcedon:

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through his present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodo faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus) of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties."

some anglican...
It is more complicated than what he says. Many orthodox do believe that Rome has a special level of authority just not as much as they claim. You would have to be crazy to suggest that historically even in the orthodox world the Roman See didn't have some special authority.
In vino veritas.
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 10:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
The Church is not needed to be a believing Christian.

You can be stranded on a desert Island, believe that Jesus was your savior, and through him your sins are forgiven. And believe that in your heart, and be motivated to lead a Christian life. What is in your heart, and your motivations are important.

Christianity isn't a membership, but a way of life.

Anyone that tells you that you must belong to a certain denomination to be saved does not get it.
Why on earth did Jesus establish the Church? What was the point then? What was the point in instituting the sacraments?
In vino veritas.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 10:35 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
I believe the Bible is at the core of Christianity. You can say; "well, some people claim to be Christian, yet do not believe the Bible is accurate." To them I'd say, what 'Christ' are you following? What do you know of him and how do you know it?
You don't know. Saying the Bible is the literal and historically accurate truth is nice, because it gives you the feeling that you know for sure, but you don't. You do your best, you use the history that you have, you use your common sense and reason, and you muddle through. People are people, they make mistakes, their memories are fallible, they change things to suit their agendas, and they even make stuff up. It's no different than anything else in our experiences.
To be Christian, you have to consider yourself 'of Christ' and in wanting to be Christ-like. This includes believing he was borne of a virgin mother, crucified, died and was buried, then rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures, offering the Holy Spirit and salvation to all who seek him. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. By those things you might know one. Outside of those things, you might know someone who claims to believe in Christ "just in case" it's true and/or someone who is using Christianity for personal gain or agenda.

In short, you do not need to be Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist or otherwise to be a Christian. You have to believe in Christ, his sacrifice, that He is God, and that through him you can have eternal life. When these things are realized fully, life-change can occur and your works will be done with joy. Not through coercion, manipulated scripture, and good intentions gone bad. They will know you by your fruits. They will know you as Christian.
Why do you weird out so much when you talk religion? "They will know you by your fruits. They will know you as Christian." Speak like a person, not a quilt.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2005, 12:45 PM
 
You don't know. Saying the Bible is the literal and historically accurate truth is nice, because it gives you the feeling that you know for sure, but you don't.
I suppose not. I can disagree and disbelieve anything no matter how verified and infallible it may be.
You do your best, you use the history that you have, you use your common sense and reason, and you muddle through. People are people, they make mistakes, their memories are fallible,
How is this point relevant? Their memories are fallible? So, if I asked you what you had for breakfast today, i couldn't count on an accurate answer from you? If I asked you where the 9/11 tragedy occurred and some of what Bush said immediately following; I couldn't count on you for accurate, verifiable answers?
they change things to suit their agendas, and they even make stuff up. It's no different than anything else in our experiences.
I agree. People have bastardized Scripture not in it's inception, or even in most of it's translations (as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls), but in it's isolated interpretations today, not unlike the bastardization of Jefferson's separation clause for example. Doesn't mean the text was poorly written, inaccurate, or fallible, but man will do with things what man will do to serve himself. In that, you're right.
Why do you weird out so much when you talk religion? "They will know you by your fruits. They will know you as Christian." Speak like a person, not a quilt.
You might know there are contributors to this forum from all walks of life, including people not from the U.S. or people not particularly well-versed in the English language. When I'm discussing Christian tenets and more specifically Biblical principles, I use Biblical language and/or "buzz-phrases" to make the point, then I'll quickly summarize in single statements to help drive a point home. It may seem weird to you at the same time making more sense to someone else.

Maybe you've been called to service as a moderator?
ebuddy
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2005, 08:20 PM
 
Originally posted by paully dub:
Obviously following the teachings of Jesus Christ is rather vague and open to lots of different interpretations.

Not really. The guy was pretty straight forward.

There are people however that will see things the way they want to to justify actions or ideals.

The Apostles wanted to found a church. So belonging to a church would seem to be part of the equation,

Fellowship with other Christians is good. But it a lone wont save your soul.

and there are certain ritual aspects, such as prayer, baptism, confession and forgiveness which seem to be rather common. And then there are the concepts of original sin, being born again, ardently awaiting the imminent second coming and so on which don't seem to be so common.

You think? I've never heard of any Christians that don't believe in the second coming. Or original sin or being born again.

And indeed how does one seperate what's fundamentally Christian from what is Jewish, or indeed taken from other, later European cultures?
I don't think that really matters in the big picture.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2005, 08:22 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
While I agree with your post, I believe being "saved" and being Christian aren't always one in the same. People have run fast and loose with the title, and the best way to distinguish is the method established by the early church.

I don't think titles really matter.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2005, 08:24 PM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
Why on earth did Jesus establish the Church? What was the point then? What was the point in instituting the sacraments?
Tell me undotwa. How did the man next to Jesus when he was on the cross ever get saved without being Catholic.

If you were stranded on a desert island, and had no church to go to, or any fathers to tell your sins to, would you go to hell, even if Jesus was in your heart? And you asked him yourself for forgiveness?

The church is the people.
     
Scientist
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Madison
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2005, 10:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
You think? I've never heard of any Christians that don't believe in the second coming. Or original sin or being born again.
I thought the Catholic church had ditched the idea of original sin...or was at least considering it. That is what my Catholic school teacher said many years ago, at least.
Is it not reasonable to anticipate that our understanding of the human mind would be aided greatly by knowing the purpose for which it was designed?
-George C. Williams
     
JHromadka
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2005, 05:13 AM
 
Originally posted by paully dub:
I'm looking for the difference of being a Christian and a Good Christian.

For example, one who believes in Christ as the son of God, but who knowingly sins and believes one day he's going to pay and end up in hell or something of the kind. That person considers himself Christian, yet refuses to "follow the teachings of Christ". But he believes that by not following them, he is a bad, sinful, person. He may even revel in that concept, which is rather fundamental to Christianity.
Romans 10:9 -- "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. "

If someone "refuses to follow the teachings of Christ" aka sins, they must ask forgiveness from God. Romans 6 specifically covers the "can I sin if I'm saved" question.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2005, 08:39 AM
 
Originally posted by Scientist:
I thought the Catholic church had ditched the idea of original sin...or was at least considering it. That is what my Catholic school teacher said many years ago, at least.
Not that I know of. But then again, I am not Catholic.
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2005, 06:29 AM
 
Originally posted by Scientist:
I thought the Catholic church had ditched the idea of original sin...or was at least considering it. That is what my Catholic school teacher said many years ago, at least.
OK. The Catholic Church doesn't just 'ditch teachings'. Original sin is central to Catholic theology.

Catholic schools aren't renowned for having teachers well versed in religious education.
In vino veritas.
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2005, 06:46 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Tell me undotwa. How did the man next to Jesus when he was on the cross ever get saved without being Catholic. [
Consider the statement: There is no salvation outside of the [Catholic] Church. What it means is not that if you are not a Catholic you are doomed to Hell, rather you have no guarentee of receiving God's grace. The primacy source of grace is through the sacraments, but God's grace is not limited to that.

The dieing thief could well have been a Catholic; as the Apostles were Catholics.


If you were stranded on a desert island, and had no church to go to, or any fathers to tell your sins to, would you go to hell, even if Jesus was in your heart? And you asked him yourself for forgiveness?
As a mere mortal I cannot judge God's will, I am not a prophet. God's grace like I said before is not limited to the ordinary means of the Sacraments of the Church instituted by Jesus Christ. If I was stranded upon an Island, even if I wasn't a Christian, I could very well be saved.

Salvation is not limited to faith, the sacraments, or even the Church. God, as the most just judge, will determine our fate only in the most just manner. It is though undeniable based upon biblical and early ecclessiastical evidence and the tradition of the Eastern and Western churches, of the redeeming qualities of the Sacraments, especially of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the most perfect sacrifice, the Eucharist.


The church is the people.
Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and we are its body. That is undeniable. As partakers in the Sacrifice of Calvary during the Mass, we become part of Christ's body, one with his flesh and become truly the body of the Church as the Church is the physically the body of Jesus Christ.
In vino veritas.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2005, 10:15 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
Consider the statement: There is no salvation outside of the [Catholic] Church.
Did Jesus say that? No, he said there was none outside of him.

What it means is not that if you are not a Catholic you are doomed to Hell, rather you have no guarentee of receiving God's grace. The primacy source of grace is through the sacraments, but God's grace is not limited to that.

If the Catholic Church is teaching this, shame on them.

The dieing thief could well have been a Catholic; as the Apostles were Catholics.

No, Catholicism did not exist. They were followers of Christ. They were Christians.

Not all followers of Christ or Christians are Catholic.

And no, the thief was not Catholic and you know it. He didn't believe TILL THAT MINUTE. And it had nothing to do with sacraments.

It's what is in your heart that matters.

And you can't hide that.
     
Danoir
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2005, 03:33 PM
 
The bare mininum for Christian identification is belief in the Incarnation and the Resurrection. Much of what one might pile on top of that is debated (this is not to say I don't believe other things are necessary), but remove one or both of those two things, and whatever you've got left, it's not Christian.

D


"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."

-Saint Augustine
     
JHromadka
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2005, 06:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Danoir:
The bare mininum for Christian identification is belief in the Incarnation and the Resurrection. Much of what one might pile on top of that is debated (this is not to say I don't believe other things are necessary), but remove one or both of those two things, and whatever you've got left, it's not Christian.

"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."

-Saint Augustine
Good quote, and I agree with your point as well. I personally go to a non-denominational Protestant church because I don't think there should be different rules (some don't drink, others don't dance, others dress plainly).
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2005, 07:48 AM
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zimphire:
Did Jesus say that? No, he said there was none outside of him.
[/b]

Jesus Christ is the Church; and if that is so, therefore even you would agree that there is no guarentee of salvation outside of the Church?


If the Catholic Church is teaching this, shame on them.
That is what the Catholic church, and mind you the Orthodox, Oriental and much of the Anglican church teaches. Even from the beginning of Christian times, the sacraments were considered with utmost importance. The Holy Bible was never meant to be the only source of revelation. and was from the earliest times equal in authority to the magisterium of the Church. Even the Bible speaks of the redeeming aspects of drinking Jesus's blood and eating his flesh, and of Baptism as a means of becoming a Christian, the ability of those who received the Holy Spirit at Pentacost to forgive sins etc.

Ask yourself; when did the idea of 'sola scriptura' arise? (With protestantism which was 1500 years after Christ) Did the early Christians believe in sola scriptura? (No they followed the Apostles and their successors and did as they said


No, Catholicism did not exist. They were followers of Christ. They were Christians.

Written by Ignatius of Antioch in A.D. 110

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2)

As you can see the idea of Catholic was very early indeed.


Not all followers of Christ or Christians are Catholic.

And no, the thief was not Catholic and you know it. He didn't believe TILL THAT MINUTE. And it had nothing to do with sacraments.

It's what is in your heart that matters.

And you can't hide that.
Please let not this become heated.

To be honest, we both have very different ideas on what Christianity is. What I think you should do is simply research the place of the church as an institution and as a faith in early Christian times and you'll understand the Catholic Church better. Christianity is not just the Bible, it is more than that. The New Testament is no Law Book, it is a collection of stories (though inspired don't get me wrong!) about our Saviour Jesus Christ and a sample of the epistolae of the early Church. How could our primary teaching authority be simply that?
In vino veritas.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2005, 08:37 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
Consider the statement: There is no salvation outside of the [Catholic] Church. What it means is not that if you are not a Catholic you are doomed to Hell, rather you have no guarentee of receiving God's grace. The primacy source of grace is through the sacraments, but God's grace is not limited to that.

And I am saying that is nonsense. Through Christ we have grace. The Catholic Church is never NEEDED. But it isn't a BAD thing.

The dieing thief could well have been a Catholic; as the Apostles were Catholics.

No, no they were not. They were followers of Christ. Catholicism didn't even exist. They were saved because they followed Christ. Not the Catholic Church.

As a mere mortal I cannot judge God's will, I am not a prophet. God's grace like I said before is not limited to the ordinary means of the Sacraments of the Church instituted by Jesus Christ. If I was stranded upon an Island, even if I wasn't a Christian, I could very well be saved.

You seem to be putting the Catholic Sacraments above Jesus's dying for our sins. If that isn't the case, I apologize. Catholicism is just another form of Christianity. Like it or not. Admit it or not. The Bible doesn't somehow enlighten people more if their name is in the Catholic Church's membership. It's Dogma like that that turns people away.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2005, 10:22 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
...

Please let not this become heated.

...
It already has, which is the reason I dropped out of the conversation.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2005, 10:59 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Really? Interesting.

Do you consider yourself Christian? If so, what role do you ascribe to Jesus?
That's what I get for staying out of this thread for too long; lots of stuff to consider and reply to. But I'll start with this, since it was asked directly of me.

Do I consider myself Christian? Yes. The role I asribe to Jesus can essentially be described in terms of three roles: assistant, emmisary, and sacrifice.

By "assistant", I speak of Jesus' existence before -and probably after- his human life (whatever name he held during this time). John speaks of "the Word" -a nickname or title used for Jesus in several other places- as the first created being, with whose assistance God created everything else. Did God need an assistant? Probably not, but I wouldn't put a desire for creative feedback -someone off of whom to bounce ideas- past Him. In short, the closest one can get to God without actually being God. Another case where the role of "assistant" comes into play is Jesus himself: a person sent to not only preach the word of God, but to provide the sacrifice of a perfect life to counterbalance the one lost through Adam and Eve. The Word, I believe, was the one who volunteered to do this. Who better, given that it had played a personal role in creating the beings that this person would save?

By "emissary", I speak of Jesus' ministry. Jesus preached the word of God. There really isn't much more to say about this.

By "sacrifice", I speak of -obviously enough- Jesus' sacrifice: a perfect life (insofar as the word "perfect" could be said to apply) to redeem another perfect life. I look at this as a parallel to Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son Isaac. It is commonly said that this was a test of Abraham's faith, but while Abraham was the subject of the test I'm not sure the test was really about him personally. God was testing just what it meant for a father to sacrifice his son, not just for Abraham but eventually for Himself as well. When He saw what it would mean, He stopped Abraham from going through with the sacrifice, because there was no longer a need for Abraham to go through with it; he had done enough.

What do I believe Jesus was, then? A divine being, very close to God -close enough that he had to warn the apostles not to worship him on several occasions, but to turn their worship towards God instead- but not the same as God.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Danoir
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2005, 01:34 PM
 
Millennium,

I hope that someone other than me will be able to respond to your last statement here. I know yours is a position with which I disagree, and thus would hope to dialogue about it a bit, but I don't have the time or knowledge presently to provide the Scripture which I believe would be necessary to offer an adaquate response.

For the moment, I do have one question for you: How can anything be "very close" to God? As I understand it, God is infinite in every way, wholly other than ourselves. How then, could a being be almost infinite, and not still be infinitely other?

D
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2005, 01:55 PM
 
Originally posted by Danoir:
Millennium,

I hope that someone other than me will be able to respond to your last statement here. I know yours is a position with which I disagree, and thus would hope to dialogue about it a bit, but I don't have the time or knowledge presently to provide the Scripture which I believe would be necessary to offer an adaquate response.
Respectful disagreement is a Good Thing, and I honestly thank you for your comments. Although it wasn't my intent to get into an actual debate -I meant only to provide an example of a non-Trinitarian Christian belief, using my own beliefs as the example- I would enjoy a civil debate.
For the moment, I do have one question for you: How can anything be "very close" to God? As I understand it, God is infinite in every way, wholly other than ourselves. How then, could a being be almost infinite, and not still be infinitely other?
You and I agree on the infinite nature of God: a being with no limits except those which are self-imposed (if there are even any of these).

But your argument sounds like Zeno's paradox. Zeno, an ancient Greek philosopher, proposed a hypothetical footrace between Achilles (an ancient Greek mythological hero) and a tortoise. Since Achilles would obviously be faster than a tortoise, he gives it a short distance as a head start. Zeno argued that Achilles could never catch up to the tortoise, however, because he would first have to cover half the distance between himself and the tortoise, and then half the remaining distance, then half of that, then half of that, and so on.

Zeno wasn't actually advocating this line of thinking. He had problems with the idea of infinity, and used this paradox to explain why nothing could be truly infinite. The situation ascribed in Zeno's paradox obviously couldn't happen; in any real-world footrace, most people could easily beat a tortoise. This, according to Zeno, disproved infinity.

But does it? God isn't something that can be described in terms of mathematics, but infinity is. Let's adapt Zeno's puzzle to a math problem: what is 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + 1/128... and so on, into infinity? If you plot this out on a graph, you get a nice-looking curve which always increases. But rather than approaching infinity, it approaches 1. The series is infinitely long, but the endpoint isn't infinity.

I think of God as similar to this: the endpoint of an infinite curve. Jesus, "the Word", or whatever is most appropriate to call him would be the second-to-last point on that curve. But what is that point? It's infinitely close to 1, essentially an 0.99999999999999... carried out to an unbounded infinity, but it's still not quite there.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Danoir
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2005, 03:53 PM
 
Millennium,

First, it has been a while since I took any mathematics, but I recall equating .9999999 to 1 in numerous exercises. Does this have any bearing on your analogy? Another way of looking at it is: Do mathetmatical contructs help us at all in the way we understand Jesus and his relationship to God the Father? Is Jesus ever-increasing, by ever-halved intervals, always approaching but never achieving the same status as His Father? How about, what could a created being offer other created beings in terms of a renewed relationship with their Creator? Wouldn't that have to come from the Creator Himself?

Second, my more pressing interest is "Why?" Why is it that you believe this about Jesus not being God? From what I gather of your previous posts, you root your position in Scripture, which I believe is the way to go in these matters. Therefore:

What Scripture do you turn to in support of your position?
How do you reconcile this with passages with have historically been used to contradict such a notion?
How does this argument fit into the larger context of departing from a historical, orthodox understanding of Christ's nature?
-Follow up: Does God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, allow for contradictory information about Himself to simultaneously be true, or is one mutually exclusive from the other?

D
( Last edited by Danoir; Jan 10, 2005 at 01:01 PM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:26 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,