Does a Christian have to believe that Jesus resurrected?

[Vincent]

Once again, my knowledge of the Bible is weak.

Easter is coming up for our decorative egg ethusiasts. Is it possible to believe that Jesus was sent by God, but have doubts about his resurrection? Can you just believe he died for your sins.

I think there was an apostle (names escape me) who didn't believe that Jesus resurrected. That apostle was lucky, b/c he saw Jesus after knowing that Jesus was crucified. Imagine if he never saw Jesus, then he would have lived his life doubting Jesus's resurrection.

I mean, in my Noah post, I was looking for a reasonable explanation of a possible flood. I have a tough time believing that some guy built a boat that literally contained every animal in the world. I'm thinking how can he get all the koala bears & buffalo?

So I don't see how a Chrisitian convinces an atheist that a man died, then resurrected? If anything, I see this as a very difficult obstacle for anyone who would consider adopting Christianity.

I'm not someone who presumes that being a Christian (or Muslim, Buddist, Jew, etc) means that he is braindead when it comes to thinking in a rational manner about their religion, and I hope there are some of those people here that can explain this one. Are there any Christians who have doubts about a physical resurrection? Could this be some sort of metaphor, such as the apostles deciding that they will carry on Jesus's message and that way he will live on?

[guesswest]

There are people who fall into this category, and likewise christian literalists who don't view them as 'real' christians. There's no objective yardstick as to the validity of any belief system reflecting 'legitimate' christianity (or any other religion). To that end it's all self-reporting, if someone says they're christian they are - there are 'christians' out there who believe jesus was a mushroom.

[Vincent]

I understand, but I mean Easter is a pretty big deal. I figured a very very high majority of Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, and at the very least, a near equal amount believe that he resurrected. Am I wrong?

Edit: So basically I'm thinking, not believing Jesus is the son of God means you're not a Christian. It would be likewise for those who don't believe he resurrected, right?

[MidGe]

I am not a christian, but you question doesn't seem to make sense. Everyone who thinks him/herself a christian is a christian. None of them has any valid authority over all the other ones, or is responsible for setting the standard, altough most may think so and still be of different opinions. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[guesswest]

That's a good question - I really don't know. I suspect you're right generally speaking, but I suspect the number of people who don't might be a bit more significant than you're crediting. And probably a great many of those who do profess to believe this kinda half don't and are just on autopilot.

I'd imagine for many it's more a celebration of their religion than it is a celebration of literal events. I go to church on christmas eve with my family most years despite being an agnostic - I just like it, all the families there, excited kids etc. I think there's probably a lot of christians fall into this category.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a christian, but you question doesn't seem to make sense. Everyone who thinks him/herself a christian is a christian. None of them has any valid authority over all the other ones, or is responsible for setting the standard, altough most may think so and still be of different opinions. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I going to start calling myself a christian. I don't believe in god, or that if god exists that Jesus was god, or that original sin and asking for forgiveness nonsense but I'm a lot more christian than many who claim to believe that stuff.

Lets reclaim christianity for the christian.

chez

[pilliwinks]

While accepting that some will always claim black is white, I think most people accept that there are a few basic beliefs that characterise Christians.

One is that Jesus is in some way God (exact interpretations vary), the other is that he died sacrificially and was raised. The latter is generally accepted to imply the former. Consequently, I would agree that resurrection is a big issue. In many denominations Easter is a more important celebration than Christmas, for what it's worth.

Certainly Paul felt that if you don't accept the resurrection, the rest falls in a heap. It's easy to see why when you read Jesus' claims and predictions. He said he was God and that he would be raised. If that didn't happen, he would appear to be badly misguided.

To answer your original question, yes many Christians have struggled with the resurrection over the years, for all sorts of reasons. Several groups have felt that it is inconceivable that God could die, and so claim that he surivived the crucifixion, despite Jesus' assertions to the contrary. Others have gone for the 'he was a great prophet' approach and deny the resurrection, despite Jesus' assertions to the contrary.

The people who were actually there seem to have had trouble accepting the resurrection - clearly it was a confusing and frightening time for all involved. Many of them went on to willingly die specifically for attesting to the resurrection, though, so it seems that something happened to convince them.

Atheists will doubtless suggest a triumph of desperate hope over reason, but I have always found that hard to swallow. If I were in the apostles' position I would try to persuade everyone that Jesus never claimed he would be raised, then champion him as a holy martyr. But it seems they didn't do that. Instead they decided to champion the rather odd cause of an undead absent leader. I have trouble understanding why they would do that unless they genuinely believed it to be true.

That's not to say it is easy for us to believe. On the contrary, the witnesses struggled, and we find it even harder. But having said that, I manage to believe dozens of things that have never been satisfactorily proven to me (such as the existance of Pluto). I accept them on hearsay because I can't think why anyone would perpetuate that kind of hoax in the face of scrutiny. Likewise for the resurrection.

[guesswest]

I accept the someone who, say, worships the prophet Mohammed and prays at a mosque everyday, but calls themselves a christian, is probably not a christian (but almost certainly a nut). Which is to say there probably are some very loose principles which characterize and define christians outside of self-reporting. But I don't think they're anything like that well formed. I'd contend there are a great many christians who don't interpret the bible that literally, who believe the resurrection story is largely allegorical - or even irrelevant.

And as for what jesus and/or his disciples asserted - we have massively fragmented evidence as to what was said or claimed, generally written a few generations subsequent to those events. I don't think we really have much idea what they said at all and so I wouldn't like to infer much context or meaning from those reports.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone who thinks him/herself a christian is a christian.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is most certainly not true.

[ QUOTE ]
None of them has any valid authority over all the other ones, or is responsible for setting the standard, altough most may think so and still be of different opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if any one group does have that kind of authority, it's the Catholic Church. There is validity in their direct lineage from the orgianl apostles. (Even if they were very misguided for some - much? - of that time.) But I think the group as a whole (Christians) has much more authority in determining who's "Christian" than the individual.

FWIW, I'm a protestant.

[pstripling]

Check out the book "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Excellent work done by an atheist who went searching to disprove the validity of Jesus. He wound up accepting Jesus because he learned that there is more proof that He really did exist, that He really did die and rise from the dead than that George Washington walked the face of the earth. Its written very well and is interesting reading.

[New001]

I'm not a Christian, so please correct me if/where I'm wrong here.

If someone is going to believe that Jesus is the son of God, then why would he believe that there was no resurrection? Is it because they don't believe that God is capable of doing that? Or something else? It seems to me that if someone is going to take the existance of God as a given, then there's no barrier to believing in a resurrection of his son.

[chrisnice]

More evidence for Jesues being resurrected than George Washington existing? You must have some Stephen Colbert type balls to make that statement.

[thekiller]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking how can he get all the koala bears & buffalo?


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you intellectually challenged?

[Copernicus]

Yeah maybe Strobels claim is that there is "NO more" evidence that GW existed than Christs resurrection, since no one alive today was around to witness either one. Besides, sleeping in so many places makes GW's legacy more profound than a David Copperfield-like "resurrection" trick.

[AceofSpades]

If the christian God is real, then real christians will be the ones that go to heaven and those go to hell aren't christians regardless of what they claim.

If the christian God isn't real then christian is just a term for people that fall on a wide spectrum
of belief in the truth of the bible. Depending on who you ask, people differ on the point of the spectrum where an unbelief in the bible as truth, OR belief in certain doctrines which may or may not be supported by the bible, is the cutoff for christian/nonchristian.

[Vincent]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you intellectually challenged?

[/ QUOTE ]
I ain't God. Yes.

[LadyWrestler]

Re: "Does a Christian have to believe that Jesus resurrected?"

Yes.

[AJFenix]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out the book "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Excellent work done by an atheist who went searching to disprove the validity of Jesus. He wound up accepting Jesus because he learned that there is more proof that He really did exist, that He really did die and rise from the dead than that George Washington walked the face of the earth. Its written very well and is interesting reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I read this book, will I become a believer? Any atheists on this forum that have read it?

[KeysrSoze]

I doubt it. His case to me seemed to be "Look, theres a bunch of people who believe, there's a couple mentions of his name by ancient historians, heres some history that the bible says happened and I agree with (but many don't, like the slaughter of the innocents for instance), so it must be true." You can make the same case about Thor or Beowulf.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it. His case to me seemed to be "Look, theres a bunch of people who believe, there's a couple mentions of his name by ancient historians, heres some history that the bible says happened and I agree with (but many don't, like the slaughter of the innocents for instance), so it must be true." You can make the same case about Thor or Beowulf.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you sure you can make this case about Thor?

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
If I read this book, will I become a believer?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose the only way to find out is to try it. I'm currently reading it and I'd recommend it to anyone, although I'm a Christian.

As far as any atheists having read it, even if God audibly spoke his Word to the whole world at 9 PM tonight, those who hate Him would still grasp at any straw to discredit it.

I suppose they'd say that works both ways, but I'd suggest keeping an open mind, exploring all the evidence (including this book), and deciding for yourself.

If you think it's garbage, come back and tell us why you think it's garbage. Maybe you'll convince me.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as any atheists having read it, even if God audibly spoke his Word to the whole world at 9 PM tonight, those who hate Him would still grasp at any straw to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is going off on a tangent a bit, but I disagree with this. Some of us might "hate" what people do in the name of God, but how can an atheist hate something that he doesn't believe exists? I think most atheists would agree that if they saw/heard/observed concrete proof of the existence of God (your example of God speaking to us at 9 PM would qualify, I think), they would not "grasp at straws to discredit it." There might be skepticism at first, but barring an other reasonable explanation, virtually all atheists would accept it.

Most of us who don't believe in your God don't do so because we hate him, and I imagine it's a tiny minority that does.

[PoBoy321]

I've skimmed through this thread, and while I'm not wholly familiar with Protestantism (I'm Catholic), I believe that you can technically call yourself a "Christian" and basically believe whatever you want (and just consider yourself non-denominational or whatever). However, to consider yourself a Catholic, there are DEFINITELY some things that you must believe in (not the least of which is the resurrection of Christ) and I believe that the same holds true for most Protestant groups.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
If I read this book, will I become a believer? Any atheists on this forum that have read it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the book, but I've read several reviews of Strobel's work as well as rebuttals of those reviews. Like just about every other book on the subject it's a powerful book if you already believe, and virtually meaningless if you don't.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
virtually meaningless if you don't.


[/ QUOTE ]

My sentiments exactly, after I read it.

[chezlaw]

Hi Pilliwinks

Nice post but there's a completely different way of looking at it.

If jesus was the son of a god then it doesn't follow that its important, for a christian, to believe that he was the son of god.

I would argue that its of no importance. Its a long time since I read the bible but I recall never thinking much of paul - I doubt he was a christian.

What most people believe isn't important either. The only thing that matters to being a christian or not is what christ would have to say.

So-called christans like to think its claiming belief that counts, well thats nice and easy for them but I claim that being a christian is about being not believing.

So if christ was judging the beauty contest who would qualify as more christian?

A) someone who claims to believe but advocates actions that would kill large numbers of innocent people.

B) someone who doesn't believe but would reject such actions as obscene because its er um how can I put it err ... unchristian.

chez

[guesswest]

chez - There's a problem with that. The christ you're setting up as the judge here is the interpretation of christ x kind of christian being judged already believes existed and y kind of christian doesn't. If y kind of christian credited that christ as legitimate they'd probably be x kind of christian to start with. Most of these competing christian beliefs stem from different understandings as to who christ was, what he said etc - so you can't use some kind of singular interpretation of christ as a stamp of authority.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez - There's a problem with that. The christ you're setting up as the judge here is the interpretation of christ x kind of christian being judged already believes existed and y kind of christian doesn't. If y kind of christian credited that christ as legitimate they'd probably be x kind of christian to start with. Most of these competing christian beliefs stem from different understandings as to who christ was, what he said etc - so you can't use some kind of singular interpretation of
christ as a stamp of authority.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, nor can anybody. So anyone who lives by their interpretation of christ can call themselves christian.

Just because large organised religons, many of which I belive christ would abhore, have set themselves up as 'christian' doesn't mean they are correct. Its not a vote.

chez

[guesswest]

Oh ok, I thought you were going somewhere else with that.

I'd say they're correct in labeling themselves 'christian', or at least should be free to. Not just because of the problem of identifying any real definition of the term (since all the differentiating characteristics refer to aspects of the belief systems themselves). But also because the word is mutually defining and like all words, fluid.

But certainly they may well be incorrect in terms of their interpretations of christs teachings and beliefs. And being powerful or having large congregations has no bearing on that.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh ok, I thought you were going somewhere else with that.

I'd say they're correct in labeling themselves 'christian', or at least should be free to. Not just because of the problem of identifying any real definition of the term (since all the differentiating characteristics refer to aspects of the belief systems themselves). But also because the word is mutually defining and like all words, fluid.

But certainly they may well be incorrect in terms of their interpretations of christs teachings and beliefs. And being powerful or having large congregations has no bearing on that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going two ways /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Firstly is to agree with Midge that everyone can equally reasonably call themselves christian if they see fit.

Secondly is that it is possible that you can be christian without believing you are a christian and you can definitely be a non-christian whilst believing yourself to be one.

chez

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh ok, I thought you were going somewhere else with that.

I'd say they're correct in labeling themselves 'christian', or at least should be free to. Not just because of the problem of identifying any real definition of the term (since all the differentiating characteristics refer to aspects of the belief systems themselves). But also because the word is mutually defining and like all words, fluid.

But certainly they may well be incorrect in terms of their interpretations of christs teachings and beliefs. And being powerful or having large congregations has no bearing on that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going two ways /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Firstly is to agree with Midge that everyone can equally reasonably call themselves christian if they see fit.

Secondly is that it is possible that you can be christian without believing you are a christian and you can definitely be a non-christian whilst believing yourself to be one.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this may have come down to semantics - but to pick up on your second point.

I feel like you're using 'christian' as a synonym for 'x social/political/human philosophy' - and that's possibly assigning more meaning to the word than we can. It maybe wouldn't be if we had a clear or agreed upon idea of what exactly christ's teachings were, but we don't. Can you not believe in christ and be a generally good person that christ would like to have a drink with? Almost certainly. But are you then a 'christian'? - I'd say no because the word seems by it's direct structure to imply some kind of allegiance or at least reference to christ. It seems silly to say a person who'd never heard of christ could be a 'christian' - regardless of his personal philosophy. Which on a slightly unrelated note is one of my major greivances with most forms of christianity, this idea that a great many people who'd never even heard of christ were meant to be going to hell regardless of their moral choices.

With regards to calling yourself a christian but not being one. I'm not sure I can get onboard with that either. Again I think implicit in your assertion is that 'christian' is a synonym for something else, which I don't think it is, it just in my mind infers a religious belief with reference to some notion of christ, however accurately that notion might correspond to the actuality.

All this is further complicated by the fact that the meaning of words is not static - 'christian' probably means something considerably different now than it did 2000 years ago.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh ok, I thought you were going somewhere else with that.

I'd say they're correct in labeling themselves 'christian', or at least should be free to. Not just because of the problem of identifying any real definition of the term (since all the differentiating characteristics refer to aspects of the belief systems themselves). But also because the word is mutually defining and like all words, fluid.

But certainly they may well be incorrect in terms of their interpretations of christs teachings and beliefs. And being powerful or having large congregations has no bearing on that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going two ways /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Firstly is to agree with Midge that everyone can equally reasonably call themselves christian if they see fit.

Secondly is that it is possible that you can be christian without believing you are a christian and you can definitely be a non-christian whilst believing yourself to be one.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this may have come down to semantics - but to pick up on your second point.

I feel like you're using 'christian' as a synonym for 'x social/political/human philosophy' - and that's possibly assigning more meaning to the word than we can. It maybe wouldn't be if we had a clear or agreed upon idea of what exactly christ's teachings were, but we don't. Can you not believe in christ and be a generally good person that christ would like to have a drink with? Almost certainly. But are you then a 'christian'? - I'd say no because the word seems by it's direct structure to imply some kind of allegiance or at least reference to christ. It seems silly to say a person who'd never heard of christ could be a 'christian' - regardless of his personal philosophy. Which on a slightly unrelated note is one of my major greivances with most forms of christianity, this idea that a great many people who'd never even heard of christ were meant to be going to hell regardless of their moral choices.

With regards to calling yourself a christian but not being one. I'm not sure I can get onboard with that either. Again I think implicit in your assertion is that 'christian' is a synonym for something else, which I don't think it is, it just in my mind infers a religious belief with reference to some notion of christ, however accurately that notion might correspond to the actuality.

All this is further complicated by the fact that the meaning of words is not static - 'christian' probably means something considerably different now than it did 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
if christ was concerned with how you treat the world and your fellow man rather than what you believe about god then it must be possible to be a christian without realising it, and it must be possible to believe you're christian when you're not.

like someone could be a Thatcherite without having heard of Thatcher simply by having similar political views to Thatcher. Watching political retrospectives as I was the other night (so sorry for the old English reference) people around before Thatcher were referred to as Thatcherite and it made perfect sense.

As for thsoe who claim that people who don't believe in christ will go to hell (including those who never heard of him), well they simply aren't christian or if they are then the god of christianity is not benevolent.

chez

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Pilliwinks

Nice post but there's a completely different way of looking at it.

If jesus was the son of a god then it doesn't follow that its important, for a christian, to believe that he was the son of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, it doesn't necessarily follow. However Jesus seems to have gone to some trouble to demonstrate that he was, and all the records we have of what he said suggest that that he felt that accepting his divinity was pretty important. Crucial even.

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that its of no importance. Its a long time since I read the bible but I recall never thinking much of paul - I doubt he was a christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I think I wouldn't have liked Paul as a person either. Tough call to doubt his christianity though. If he fails, there are few who pass.

[ QUOTE ]
What most people believe isn't important either. The only thing that matters to being a christian or not is what christ would have to say.

So-called christans like to think its claiming belief that counts, well thats nice and easy for them but I claim that being a christian is about being not believing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very biblical opinion, which which I agree wholeheartedly, though I would say 'about being, not claiming to beleive'. Jesus certainly emphasises 'by their fruits you will know them'.

[ QUOTE ]
So if christ was judging the beauty contest who would qualify as more christian?

A) someone who claims to believe but advocates actions that would kill large numbers of innocent people.

B) someone who doesn't believe but would reject such actions as obscene because its er um how can I put it err ... unchristian.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about C) Neither.

A is clearly out according to Mt 7:21, and B, although splendidly ethical and commendable, puts you in the same position as a bunch of guys who lived in Jesus' time, who made every effort to be ethical and followed all the 'rules' for right living. They were the Pharisees and teachers of the law, and they came in for a lot of stick in the NT. Ethical spotlessness and a love of God apparently have very little in common. Jesus spent much more time with the prostitutes and con-men, who at least knew that their lives sucked and needed a makeover.

Of course, if you mean you would reject 'unchristian' actions because you believe that somehow Jesus was onto something real, then whether you can swallow the resurrection or not, you would appear to be closer to the fold than A.

From my experience, most, if not all Christians, doubt the key tenets of the faith from time to time, up to and including the very existance of God. Much as alcoholics can fall off the wagon. We are told that there are rewards for those that keep strugging on though.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
B, although splendidly ethical and commendable, puts you in the same position as a bunch of guys who lived in Jesus' time, who made every effort to be ethical and followed all the 'rules' for right living. They were the Pharisees and teachers of the law, and they came in for a lot of stick in the NT.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure they did get some stick, freethinking decent people are a disaster for organised religon. What stick did they get directly from jesus?

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, it doesn't necessarily follow. However Jesus seems to have gone to some trouble to demonstrate that he was, and all the records we have of what he said suggest that that he felt that accepting his divinity was pretty important. Crucial even.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe because for some its very hard, impossible even, to be a good person without belief in god. Doesn't follow that the belief was the important bit.

chez

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]

if christ was concerned with how you treat the world and your fellow man rather than what you believe about god then it must be possible to be a christian without realising it, and it must be possible to believe you're christian when you're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but that's a big 'if' - it certainly can't be taken as a given.

[ QUOTE ]
like someone could be a Thatcherite without having heard of Thatcher simply by having similar political views to Thatcher. Watching political retrospectives as I was the other night (so sorry for the old English reference) people around before Thatcher were referred to as Thatcherite and it made perfect sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I'm not saying it's completely unintelligible to refer to something as christian because of certain social and political characteristics. We have vague associations with the idea, but I don't think they're sufficiently clear or well known that we can use the word in this way philosophically - certainly not to restrict the word to this meaning.

[ QUOTE ]
As for thsoe who claim that people who don't believe in christ will go to hell (including those who never heard of him), well they simply aren't christian or if they are then the god of christianity is not benevolent.

[/ QUOTE ]

A great many people interpret christianity this way. I don't have sufficient knowledge of christ's teaching to say if they're right or wrong.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
if christ was concerned with how you treat the world and your fellow man rather than what you believe about god then it must be possible to be a christian without realising it, and it must be possible to believe you're christian when you're not.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, but that's a big 'if' - it certainly can't be taken as a given.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not taking it as a given. I'm just saying that if its the case then its possible to be a christian without believing ...

and as it is possibly the case then it follows that its possible you can be a christian without believing and be a non-christian when you belief you are one.

chez

[guesswest]

Okay, that's a well argued case. I think you might have convinced me that it's possible to be a christian in some meaningful sense of the word without believing in christ (or at least without knowledge of christ) - because you've established that some part of the meaning of 'christian' refers to the social/political element of the belief structures themselves.

But I remain unconvinced on the notion you say follows - that you can identify yourself as a christian but not really be one. Because that side of the coin requires not just accepting the social/political as an element of 'christian' - but requires accepting it as the exclusive meaning. Does that make sense?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But I remain unconvinced on the notion you say follows - that you can identify yourself as a christian but not really be one. Because that side of the coin requires not just accepting the social/political as an element of 'christian' - but requires accepting it as the exclusive meaning. Does that make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its the other side of the 'if'.

If christ does make certain demands of a christian such as believing in god or not killing people then anyone who fails the criteria is not a christian even if they believe they are.

or it might be a continuum with degrees of christianness.

chez

[guesswest]

I don't think it's a balanced equation.

One of the identifying characteristics of 'christian' being social and moral philosophy is not that same as 'all' defining characteristics of 'christian' being social and moral philosophy. I think you're making the word 'christian' equivalent with a word like 'platonic' or 'kantian' or something like that. I'd suggest that 'christian' has a great many additional meanings, because christ was much more than a theorist.

Edit: terrible english.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's a balanced equation.

One of the identifying characteristics of 'christian' being social and moral philosophy is not that same as 'all' defining characteristics of 'christian' being social and moral philosophy. I think you're equivocating a word like 'christian' with a word like 'platonic' or 'kantian' or something like that. I'd suggest that 'christian' has a great many additional meanings, because christ was much more than a theorist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure what you mean.

If christ was the son of god, returns to pronounce judgement (or when we die) then if he says we are not christian then thats the end of matter, isn't it? or are we to argue that he is mistaken and we are christian even if he says we missed the point.

chez

[guesswest]

Well yes, if that happened and he was indeed the son of god, assuming he wasn't lying, whatever he said would be right. I don't have him on speed dial to find out if that's the case though.

What I'm saying is that 'christian' is a word with many inferences. It speaks to the social and political philosophies of christ (which is a very fuzzy area with the info we have), it talks about religious worship of christ as the son of god, it talks about organized religion, a great many things.

I accept that one possible interpretation of 'christian' is that it refers to the philosophies of christ, which is why I concede that my initial statement that someone could fail to believe in christ and still be in some meaningful way 'christian' - is probably wrong. Because such a person could adhere to those 'christian' principles.

But for someone who claimed to be christian to in fact not to be christian in a meaningful way they would have to adhere to NONE of them - ie they'd have to not worship christ, not belong to a religious institution that gave christ central reference etc. He's a religious icon, so it's not equivalent to a word like 'aristotelian' where we're just talking about the views espoused by the particular individual.

Apologies for the crappy grammar and generally sucky prose - beer festival here today.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But for someone who claimed to be christian to in fact not to be christian in a meaningful way they would have to adhere to NONE of them - ie they'd have to not worship christ, not belong to a religious institution that gave christ central reference etc. He's a religious icon, so it's not equivalent to a word like 'aristotelian' where we're just talking about the views espoused by the particular individual.

[/ QUOTE ]
I accept that but I grounded my definition of christian on what christ would set as the criteria. So it may be binary (you're in or out) or it may be a continuum.

This may or may nor be hypothetical.

chez

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
B, although splendidly ethical and commendable, puts you in the same position as a bunch of guys who lived in Jesus' time, who made every effort to be ethical and followed all the 'rules' for right living. They were the Pharisees and teachers of the law, and they came in for a lot of stick in the NT.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure they did get some stick, freethinking decent people are a disaster for organised religon. What stick did they get directly from jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he used a lot of ad hominem I'm afraid. Of course this may be legitimate if you are God. The bottom line was, they behaved in public as if they were righteous, but inside were 'full of hypocrisy and iniquity'. His point was that following the 'rules' while not loving God or your neighbour is a futile exercise in legalism, doomed to failure and judgement for that failure.

I agree, and he seems to have agreed that it is tough to be a good person person without belief in god. Some accuse believers of needing a crutch. On the contrary, Jesus suggests that well-meaning non-believers are trying to fly without wings.

As to whether God smiles on those who train to jump really high, I confess uncertainty, which is rare for me /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, he used a lot of ad hominem I'm afraid. Of course this may be legitimate if you are God. The bottom line was, they behaved in public as if they were righteous, but inside were 'full of hypocrisy and iniquity'. His point was that following the 'rules' while not loving God or your neighbour is a futile exercise in legalism, doomed to failure and judgement for that failure.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think his point and mine are the same which is why I call myself christian. As i've banged on about several times in morality threads there are two reasons to behave in a moral manner.

One is the 'legalism' reason - I dont mug you because I dont want to be mugged and we create a system of law and order to discourage mugging. My view, like christ's is that if this is the reason you don't mug somebody then its pretty flimsy and likely doomed to failure.

The other reason for not mugging someone is because we care about other people. This is the mark of a christian.

Jesus being a bit sharky on evolution and the advantage of cooperative may have mistakenly believed that the source of his unusually strong feelings of care towards others stemed from god, or maybe he was god. Personally I don't believe he was god and I don't really care if he was - it makes no difference to me either way (it doesn't even matter if jesus never existed). It still seems as if in the ways that matter I am a christian and someone who goes around mugging isn't (even if they believe), nor is someone who only doesn't mug people because his scared of being mugged back, the law or god.

chez

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, and he seems to have agreed that it is tough to be a good person person without belief in god.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isnt any more difficult than it is for a person in sound health and bodily function to walk. You can have a well developed moral and ethical foundation that makes "Being a good person" second nature, without a crutch.

[ QUOTE ]
The other reason for not mugging someone is because we care about other people. This is the mark of some christians and many non-christians


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[chezlaw]

The other reason for not mugging someone is because we care about other people. This is the mark of some christians and many non-christians



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



FYP
not a good fix. In contect maybe a good fix should have been to change 'christians' to 'christian' /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

chez

[bigbrother36]

Ok, after having read half this thread I say let's rephrase the OP's question to one that might actually get himn the answer OP is looking for, un less, of course, OP is just trolling.

Try this: What are the fundamental tenets of Christianity?

[bigbrother36]

[ QUOTE ]
So if christ was judging the beauty contest who would qualify as more christian?

A) someone who claims to believe but advocates actions that would kill large numbers of innocent people.

B) someone who doesn't believe but would reject such actions as obscene because its er um how can I put it err ... unchristian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. See my above post. Although I do see, and agree with, the point you are trying to make.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Try this: What are the fundamental tenets of Christianity?

[/ QUOTE ]

As has been said, it depends on which christian you ask.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try this: What are the fundamental tenets of Christianity?

[/ QUOTE ]

As has been said, it depends on which christian you ask.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would go further - I think it depends on who you ask. Christian is a name and I think who it applies to is not solely the domain of christians.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian is a name and I think who it applies to is not solely the domain of christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I didn't capitalize "christian" intentionally so that it would not get confused with the name. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

What I mean is that the essential tenets of Christianity doesnt depend on which christian (uncapitalised) you ask but on which person you ask. I would think a satanist (if they existed) would have an opinion also. Pointless post really - I was just agreeing with you I guess.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try this: What are the fundamental tenets of Christianity?

[/ QUOTE ]

As has been said, it depends on which christian you ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only Christ would have the definitive answer...maybe if he sees his shadow on Easter Sunday?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if christ was judging the beauty contest who would qualify as more christian?

A) someone who claims to believe but advocates actions that would kill large numbers of innocent people.

B) someone who doesn't believe but would reject such actions as obscene because its er um how can I put it err ... unchristian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. See my above post. Although I do see, and agree with, the point you are trying to make.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure its possible to see and agree with my point and then be sure the answer is neither /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Unless by chrstianity yoou mean the mainstream organised religons. They could give answers but my point is that they don't neccesarily (or likely imo) speak for christ.

chez

[TomBrooks]

The resurrection of Jesus is mythological, Dude. It is a metaphor for the "killing" (which really means subjugation) of the mind so that one can "resurrect" and experience his true God-like self. Jesus is a hero who shows us the way to enlightenment.

Does a Christian have to believe that? Well nobody, Christian or other, "has" to believe anything they don't want to. The Scriptures are there to describe the path to self realization and provide guidance to those who want it. If someone wants to try to figure out how to do it on their own they can, although that would obviously require a lot of unnecessary extra effort.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
The resurrection of Jesus is mythological, Dude. It is a metaphor for the "killing" (which really means subjugation) of the mind so that one can "resurrect" and experience his true God-like self. Jesus is a hero who shows us the way to enlightenment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, did I miss the smiley at the end of that?

I think there must be many people who would gladly be christians if there were no requirement for faith. Unfortunately that's a bit like saying there are loads of people who would gladly be guitar heroes if there were no requirement for talent.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...requirement for faith...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only one view, of many possible christian views.

Unlike playing guitar, surrendering reason to faith doesn't require any talent. In fact the less talent, probably the more likely. Although I do know of a few intelligent christians.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...requirement for faith...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only one view, of many possible christian views.

[/ QUOTE ]

So several people keep saying. I'm not sure on what basis, though. There are of course loads of characteristics that various groups would associate with christianity, but to say that faith is optional baffles me. Surely you don't mean that you think Christ thought faith was optional?!

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike playing guitar, surrendering reason to faith doesn't require any talent. In fact the less talent, probably the more likely. Although I do know of a few intelligent christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm interested to see that you think faith is easy. I find it very difficult. Perhaps you've never tried it yourself?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm interested to see that you think faith is easy. I find it very difficult. Perhaps you've never tried it yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]
For some of us its impossible which is why we know it can't be required by a benevolent god.

chez

[pilliwinks]

Ah. How can you tell it's impossible? I don't dispute that you might be correct, but I do wonder how you tell. My main difficulty with faith is not reason, or theoretical problems, just pride in my own self-sufficiency. This is challenging to deal with, in my experience, but not impossible.

There is a long tradition of argument in the church as to what is required by a benevolent god. There is a school of thought that claims that god is not only benevolent but just, and the requirements of justice are the sticking point.

Personally I would argue that it is fairly clear the kind of things god values (including faith). Whether they are required or not, we should strive for them. Indeed whether they are possible or not, we should strive for them.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah. How can you tell it's impossible? I don't dispute that you might be correct, but I do wonder how you tell.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have the best possible evidence that I can't do faith in god. Its the same evidence that you have that you do have faith.

If you're saying that people who think they can have faith cannot and people who think that can't can then that benevolent god is having a laugh - which isn't a bad thing but it means faith isn't important.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I would argue that it is fairly clear the kind of things god values (including faith). Whether they are required or not, we should strive for them. Indeed whether they are possible or not, we should strive for them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't think of any reason why god would value faith though its very clear why organised religon needs it. Do you have a reason for believing god values faith or is it a matter of faith?

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're saying that people who think they can have faith cannot and people who think that can't can then that benevolent god is having a laugh - which isn't a bad thing but it means faith isn't important.

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise an area of puzzlement for me. If we are created in the 'likeness of god' and one of our main features that seems to be lacking in fish and trees is our sense of humour, then I'd expect god to have that attribute also. Theistic christians usually present their god as humourless. That was one of the things I like about other cults god(s), they were more aware of the times that .."... and then the gods laughed".

Of course the answer to the op is No, but that's so obvious it hasn't been fun :-)

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're saying that people who think they can have faith cannot and people who think that can't can then that benevolent god is having a laugh - which isn't a bad thing but it means faith isn't important.

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise an area of puzzlement for me. If we are created in the 'likeness of god' and one of our main features that seems to be lacking in fish and trees is our sense of humour, then I'd expect god to have that attribute also. Theistic christians usually present their god as humourless. That was one of the things I like about other cults god(s), they were more aware of the times that .."... and then the gods laughed".

Of course the answer to the op is No, but that's so obvious it hasn't been fun :-)

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I sure hope that if god exists he has a sense of humour. Sometimes I fear he has my sense of humour.

chez

[siegfriedandroy]

Definitely, there are many genuine Christians who have struggled with serious doubts over the veracity of the resurrection.

Also, there are many who call themselves "Christians" who deny the physical resurrection of Christ. To do so, though, is to deny the very foundation and central tenet of the faith. Without the physical resurrection of Christ, Christianity makes absolutely no sense. If I didnt believe this central and primary doctrine of the faith, I absolutely would not consider myself Christian.

[siegfriedandroy]

Why do you believe the above? (i.e. Christ metaphor teaches us how to "'resurrect' and experience his true God-like self) Where do you get that? It certainly is not Christian in the historical sense of the word.

[siegfriedandroy]

This is a horrible summary of the book.

[siegfriedandroy]

This is blatantly wrong.

[siegfriedandroy]

I agree, but there are grey areas (i.e. people who have never heard of Him, etc).

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you believe the above? (i.e. Christ metaphor teaches us how to "'resurrect' and experience his true God-like self) Where do you get that? It certainly is not Christian in the historical sense of the word.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it makes sense and I've experienced it myself to some degree. It was explained to me originally by Joe Campbell in his PBS aired Power of Myth interview which has been rightfully described in my opinion as one of the greatest interviews ever recorded. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005MEVQ/104-4185610-0153501?v=glance&n=130

[spaceman Bryce]

Im sure someone has said this: Yes, to truly be a christian you must belive this. But many people celebrate the holidays who dont really belive jesus was ressurrected so why does it matter to you whether or not you are truly a christian?