What Makes a Christian a Christian - Does Anyone Know?

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #760]

In any case it wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume.

IF they call themselves "Christian" THEN it is safe to say that they will presume exactly that.

All of them or just Some?

Q: All of them or just Some?

This is a question which appears to have no answer which can be agreed to.

QFD: Does that make the question itself, rhetorical?

Rhetorical = Along the lines of - "a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer."

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to nobspeople in post #19]

KISS: keep it simple stupid, as they say. That's all that need to happen here.

So would you find this wording to be better then?

What makes a Christian a Christian - does anyone know?

Christ knows.

A person is a Christian if they are anointed with holy spirit (Christ is the One who does this choosing and anointing, making a person a Christian; see all supporting scriptures in original post). A Christian is also a disciple of Christ.


So a Christian is:

a) a person who has been anointed with holy spirit... AND...
b) a person who is a disciple of Christ (one who follows and listens to Christ).



Peace again to you.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #19]

As for speaking specifically about TAM, I'm done with that - let's stick to the topic.

I thought we were sticking to the topic. We want to know what makes a Christian a Christian. Perhaps egotistical expression is one of those things?

Or, perhaps not?

How are we to know? That is the subject of this thread.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" — 2 Corinthians 5:17
Maybe this?
Or this:
Jesus said, "Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." — John 13:34-35
?

Does ego have a place in christianity? Doesn't seem humble at all. But, as christianity is, today, a selfish religion, maybe the ego fits right in?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to tam in post #13]

Christ is the One who knows.

Does NOTHING to answer the question.

I think Tam is saying that if someone claims to be a Christian without following the tenets of Christianity, they will, ultimately, be sorted out. This is of little value here on earth, I agree, except where the teachings are particularly clear. There are at least some instances of that. At first I thought the first instance I thought of was actually wrong, but no: It's clear to me. Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone. In other words, I don't have the right to punish anybody.

Now, arguably, if none of it is true, and nobody will be sorted out, the question itself is nonsense to begin with. The answer is purely definitional and it doesn't matter one whit whether the "true" Christians are the JWs, the Mormons, or the Southern Baptists. None is truer than the other if there's no spiritual consequence of acting falsely.

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #22]

While I was editing my post with further comment, you posted...my bad. [link to edited post]

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #13]

Christ is the One who knows.

Does NOTHING to answer the question.

I think Tam is saying that if someone claims to be a Christian without following the tenets of Christianity, they will, ultimately, be sorted out. This is of little value here on earth, I agree, except where the teachings are particularly clear. There are at least some instances of that. At first I thought the first instance I thought of was actually wrong, but no: It's clear to me. Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone. In other words, I don't have the right to punish anybody.

Now, arguably, if none of it is true, and nobody will be sorted out, the question itself is nonsense to begin with. The answer is purely definitional and it doesn't matter one whit whether the "true" Christians are the JWs, the Mormons, or the Southern Baptists. None is truer than the other if there's no spiritual consequence of acting falsely.

While that is a question, it is not the actual question for debate.

Is the question "All of them or just Some?" , rhetorical?

You comments appear to show that because there is no way to tell, then the question is indeed rhetorical.
The answer to the question would then be something along the lines of "it doesn't matter".

[tam]

Peace to you William, and thank you for your defense of my motivations here.

[Replying to William in post #20]

The Statement: "In any case it wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume."

The response: "IF they call themselves "Christian" THEN it is safe to say that they will presume exactly that.
[If I am not mistaken, Tam calls herself a Christian and believes that there was some rebellion against God.]
The further response: Q: "All of them or just Some?"

I'm not entirely sure of the context of the quotes in the OP. I clicked and took note of what TCG had said:

I think it is worth noting that Dan Barker was a Christian preacher and composer for 19 years. What we have is one who knows Christianity from the inside out. If I recall correctly, it was the contradictions found in the Bible that led to his deconversion. In any case it wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume.

That sounds to me like tcg was saying that Dan Barker's 'deconversion from Christianity' wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume.

So as for me, I would not presume that the 'deconversion' of Dan Barker was some rebellion against God.


**

If you are just speaking in general that there is/has been/will be rebellion against God, then yes, I believe that.



Peace again.

[Purple Knight]

You comments appear to show that because there is no way to tell, then the question is indeed rhetorical.
The answer to the question would then be something along the lines of "it doesn't matter".

Even neo-Nazis fight about who's really following Hitler. As much as I'd like all banners to belong to their true bannermen, in the real world trying to return them only ends in a senseless scrum and having the banners ripped to pieces because we're horribly senseless and flawed creatures that disagree by our nature.

If there was a simple way to resolve the disagreement, we wouldn't need the banners or bannermen to begin with.

[William]

You comments appear to show that because there is no way to tell, then the question is indeed rhetorical.
The answer to the question would then be something along the lines of "it doesn't matter".

Even neo-Nazis fight about who's really following Hitler. As much as I'd like all banners to belong to their true bannermen, in the real world trying to return them only ends in a senseless scrum and having the banners ripped to pieces because we're horribly senseless and flawed creatures that disagree by our nature.

If there was a simple way to resolve the disagreement, we wouldn't need the banners or bannermen to begin with.

If we can agree together then, that this is why wars exist, Christians are therefore contributing to warfare, which in turn harkens back to the belief that "some rebellion against God" is happening which explains Christian involvement in the warfare.

The evidence hereabouts supports this, in that debate is warfare. The question is, did biblical Jesus encourage the pursuit of peace [as Tam likes to consistently bless people with ] by kitting his followers with notions of warfare, or is that a Christian thing which was added later?

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #26]

Peace to you William, and thank you for your defense of my motivations here.

No problem Tam. I do appreciate the argument nobspeople makes as to things that appear to be egocentric - as I have wondered that myself and see it as a verbal challenge which has to be expressed in any debate setting where opportunity allows.

In our own sometimes stormy interaction with one another, you and I have express reason for doubt about each other. I still have not seen any clear evidence that you are suffering from egotistical problems unrelated to The Christ...I know it is possible but that does not mean it is actually the case...I continue to observe and be observed...

That sounds to me like tcg was saying that Dan Barker's 'deconversion from Christianity' wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume.

Yes - it is what tcg said which sparked another thought in my mind which was unrelated to most of tcgs comment in the other thread, which is why I created this thread, so as not to disrupt the other.

If you are just speaking in general that there is/has been/will be rebellion against God, then yes, I believe that.

Yes - that is what I thought you believed.

Everyone I have ever met who calls themselves a Christian appears to believe the same thing as you.

[Purple Knight]

If we can agree together then, that this is why wars exist, Christians are therefore contributing to warfare,

I'm not sure if I can agree on that. In order to not cause any wars, the second someone else claims, "I am the true Purple Knight, you are false, defy me and suffer," I would have to roll over and change my name just because they threaten force. I don't think I have to do that. As silly as it is, I think I can at least defend myself if I think I'm in the right.

And honestly if I tell the windbag no, it's my name, you draw your sword and I draw mine, he's going to walk away and continue calling himself the "real" Purple Knight.

Better still if he lets it be known he was a windbag from the outset and never really had a sword.

And this is usually what modern Christians do. They allow the split. Nobody uses any force. To be fair though, perhaps they ought to, since allowing every split has diluted the term to, as this thread has shown, the point of meaninglessness.