Calling all Christians

Thank you, archergirl, for answering this post. You said the following (my coments in parenthesis): I rather expect you aren't exactly alone; I wouldn't call myself a 'Christian' but neither am I a non-believer. (Hmm - really? I don't understand how you can say that, but...okay.) Jude and I had a conversation about this, and I believe that I would actually fall somewhere in the category of a pantheist-humanist. (Since you refer to yourself as a "so-called" pantheistic humanist, I would certainly not be able to add you to any Christian list, as you have stated.) It has more flair than simply 'Christian', which is an awful big umbrella (Not so big as you might suspect, in my opinion. I might even be able to prove that if I could just find a substantial amount of believers here.)under which several incompatible factions seem to stand. (Which incompatible factions? Can you give me an example?) People don't come to your aid or support because you seem to argue your own case pretty well on your own... ;-) Nowt wrong with that. (Well, frankly, I don't think I do argue my case as well as it could be argued if others could add theirs to mind.) Again, thank you for your post.

pepsoid asked: "...Paul... I know such a question is probably going to incite groans a-plenty, but... how do you define "Christian"? In the context of your own personal beliefs, that is." Yes, I must confess, there were some 'groans-a-plenty', but it is probably good that you asked it because the question, it seems, is also on the minds of others. What I mean by Christian is someone who has faith, believing that Jesus is the Christ (messiah - savior) and has accepted His gift (His death, burial and resurrection) as payment for our sins; and that his blood has won us our salvation. A Christian will believe that there is a Heaven and that he will go there when he dies. As for organized religion, Salvation is of the Lord only. The church is not a building or an organization of rule makers or any such thing; it is the congrigation - the people are the church. I don't attend church services myself. I don't, however, despise organized religion, in fact, I think it does a very good and Godly work. I think of it this way as far as the diverities of Christian Churchs go: It seems to me that no one can really complain that "the church" does not fit their 'standards' or 'liking' because if they don't like one denominations they can always attend another. But at the core of all the denominations is believing that Jesus is the Savior. So any of the congrigations that believe this - can be called Christian.

In answer to Neilmc's post: Oh, no doubt. Christians fought for all sorts of leftist causes, and rightly so I would say. The USSR was right-wing. Communism is right-wing – but it is the left that “today” is crying out, in your country and mine, for socialism – at least in part. The “leftist” and the “rightist” lines have switched on many fronts and have blurred on the fronts that have not down right switched. But, of course, I am referring to the political arguments of today among our peoples. Today’s politics. If you really didn’t understand that (but I think you do understand – you just want to argue around the issue and were really not addressing the issue at all) then maybe you should have asked a question rather than bantered on that way. It really was quite silly. You also wrote: "You're sending out a call to "all Christians", but you only really want to find strident evangelicals like yourself with a specific right-wing world view. I don't think you'll find too many here." No. I won't allow you to determine my motives. You don't know any of what you just stated there. That was an accusation without baring. I have stated my reason for this forum in my original post. It so stands - thank you very much.

To pepsoid: You seem to be implying that Christians are not open-minded. That isn’t entirely true. It is true that they are supposed to (as I read Col.3:17), in everything they say and do, let it be as a representative of the Lord Jesus. If you are a believer, you have certain beliefs that work their way out in your thinking and that guide you in your opinions. It’s only natural. Surely, you are not saying that you don’t have your own opinions and that you are not firmly grounded in them. It’s okay for you to be like that, evidently, but not a Christian. If a Christian is firmly grounded, he is said not to be a “free thinker”. Yet, your thinking is not of yourself either. You read certain writings – so do I, you listen to certain politicians – so do I. You even have a belief system that you use to make your points with. So you are a “free thinker”? Maybe to a degree – but not nearly the degree you would like others to believe. Far too many people are arguing your arguments, for you to claim authorship. It is a strange world we live in today. It used to be, if a person lived long enough – he was considered wise, if he read and understood in a great way some subject and stood fast on his knowledge – he was said to be a wise man and bravely stood on his convictions. It used to be that to come to an opinion after study and reason was a good thing – to know - that was good. Not now. Today it’s the guy who doesn’t know anything for sure and proclaims it to the world – he is the one we should all admire and wish to emulate. How absurd. I was once one of them. I changed my mind on things as I learned more and more about the subject. I changed because I was able to admit my mistakes and change. That is why I am the Christian that I am today; not because I learned it in a “church”. Not because I just heard someone say it and so said, “Dah…Oh, okay. If you say so.” I studied pepsoid. My questions where Biblical ones. They were about Christ and salvation and the differences between good and evil. Many of the same questions you have yourself, I would suspect. But, I found the answers that I needed, and learned all I needed to know to be able ask and answer the right questions about daily life. All of them. And it is because of that, that I am a Christian today. Yes – I am dogmatic about the things I believe. I don’t happen to think that is a bad thing, but if you do – I’m sorry. But I have studied, and racked my brain, heart and soul for the answers that I have received. I came to where I am today by hard work and deep thought – and you or anyone else can’t take that away from me. And by the way, I am old enough to have at least the same rights as you - to state my opinion and to argue my point in any public forum that will allow general discussion. Just so you know - LOL

")... but you don't speak of a moral dimension to Christianity. Is there, do you feel, a specific moral code that a Christian should abide by (in order to be able to call himself "Christian")?" Pepsoid - read my post. Reading is a good thing - you can learn things. That's a good boy.

pepsoid: Your definition of the spiritual/divine side of Christianity seems pretty clear (some vague questions come to mind re the specificities of such concepts as "messiah/saviour," "salvation," "Heaven," etc; (Do these things really come to your mind pepsoid? I don’t believe you are being genuine.) but until I've got such questions clear in my own head, I won't trouble you with them! (thanks) Is there, do you feel, a specific moral code that a Christian should abide by (in order to be able to call himself "Christian")? (Your question is a very clever one. The answer is a faulty one, a trap. A believer is one who believes in Christ as his Savior. A man can call himself anything he wants, but if he believes this – he is a Christian. There is no need for you to try to complicate it by adding anything to it.)

Well pepsoid - you will have to want something more than that, I think. If you want to cling to your own understanding - then you will create your own truth and then you can, I suppose, go around telling everyone that you are a proud free thinker. Or you can ask your questions and look in the Bible for them and then see how they fit as far as truth is concerned. If you think it is ‘true’, then I would suggest you go with it. If not – find truth somewhere else. The truth can be tested - it isn't blind faith that is required. There is more to it than other non-believers say. But so many people want to hold on to their “own thinking” and thereby fail to learn from certain sources. You seem to be afraid of the scriptures. I could be wrong, but many people are. But all you need do, to get the answers you want, is go to the Bible and look for them. I don’t mind answering your questions. But this forum may not be the place to do that. You said: I was questioning your beliefs, asking you to clarify what you believe, because I am interested in them and I would like to work out what I personally believe about Christianity. (Good - I didn't understand that - sorry. All I seem to get here is attack... so I reacted wrongly.) I feel there are some deep and valuable truths in the life and teachings of Christ. (That is a good start - but it is far greater than that.)Like I said, though, I do feel his message has been corrupted and confused since he lived his mortal existence. (Why would you believe that? Who told you that God is not able to keep his word from corruption? It hasn't been changed - not in any great way - not so that the message is not clear.) I would like to sift through the confusion and get to the real truth and what I believe to be true, because I don't want to be put off and have my own mind closed by the version(s) of Christianity I have been fed, subjected to and exposed myself to in the 34 years of my own mortal existence so far. (Reading this part tells me that you really are confussed. There is only confussion because you listen to the voices around you telling you one thing, mine - and another voice telling you another thing - thiers, and yet another voice telling you some different still. You are being tossed around like a wayward ship at sea. If you want to know if Christianity is truth - go to the source. That is what I did. I learned from the source. When I was confused by something I didn’t understand in the Bible – I went to another believer and asked them, and another and another until I got all the facts and made up my own mind. I didn’t go to non-believers to ask my questions. What good would that do? If I wanted to know their opinion about something – I’d ask them – but you can be sure it wasn’t anything about Christianity. What would they know about the faith? Get it? Read the Bible – don’t try to find out about Christianity. Try to learn the truth of salvation and about God and Jesus and you will know what a Christian is.

Mark says - (I reply) You went to the sorce? (yes) Which sorce would that be exactly? (the Bible) Was it the Bible? (yes)Which Bible? (many of them - I compared the different translations and still do - but mainly KJV) What translation was it? Do you know how many textural alterations have been made to it since it was created? (Do you?) Are you sure that it was exactly as it has always been? (Yes. But maybe you could educate me. You might like to tell me where it is wrong and where it is right. I will wait for your very educational reply. Please, enlighten me.)

I couldn't begin to tell you where any translation of the Bible was 'wrong' or 'right'. (I thought so, but we should, of course, throw the Bible out, because it can't be trusted. Oh we can keep other books from that time and earlier, histories, philosophies, just not the Bible because it just might not be exactly as the original.) I was suggesting that there may be differences though, between editions, translations and versions. Are all of them the direct word of god? (No - only the Bible I read is the right one.) Ducking questions by directing back at the person who poses them doesn't strengthen your argument particularly. (What argument?) (It is interesting though that the book of Ruth is one of those dead sea scrolls. It was a complete work dating back to the days of the writers. Possibly an original. It proved that the book of Ruth that is in our Bible today is correct to this dead sea scroll. The integrity of the text was upheld. You might say, "But that doesn't prove that all the books in the Bible are correct?" To this I would say, "You are right. It doesn't prove that all the rest of the books are correct, but it sure does lend to that argument in a big way. There are very many ways of knowing that the Bible is the truth. It isn't as you try to make it out to be; that we can not know God's Word is true.)

No. It is not a matter of interpretation. That is an old argument - and oh, so tiring. Some people interpret some passages of scripture differently. But that doesn't mean that it is up to what ever interpretation you wish to put on it. It means that only one of those interpretations are correct. It is not so hard to determine the correct interpretation of most scriptures because they are repeated many times (I'm referring to preceps for example) and one can cross reference to discover the truth in most cases. There really is very little argument amoung the differing denominations where it comes to scripture. There is some of course, but most of the differences come in the area of Church Tradition. This is one of the things I mean when I say that Christians don't stop being free thinkers. The Bible often imposes far more questions than the believer thought he was getting into when he started searching scripture. This causes a lot of thought and research to commence, if one is so inclined. It doesn't take long for the interested student to get knee deep in the scriptures very quickly. That is if someone is really seeking the truth. Let me ask you something, Mark. Have you read the scriptures? Do you have a working knowledge of the Bible? I'm just wondering.

Yes, thank you styx.

Ha! If you are talking about me, styx, I must say I've never been described that way before. Not sure I understand it - but pretty sure it's not good. LOL

Thou shalt not kill, in the original text means – Thou shalt not murder. The scriptures also teach that there is a time for peace and a time for war.

And how do you know which one? Does Jesus whisper it in your ear or something? (Yeah, something like that.)

No, I don't suppose you would.

From what little you know, nothing can be considered clear.

Maddan said: I can't help wondering why, in centuries of the bible being examined by very learned folk (Paul: You mean like the great theologian William Tyndale) who knew a lot more than me and I'm assuming, you) about ancient languages. Nobody thought to mention a rather vital mistranslation of a very well known and oft quoted passage until some Texan was asked how he justified the death penalty. You try finding a bible outside of the States that goes with the 'murder' interpretation. Paul replies: You can find it (Exodus 20:13 - You must not murder)written as such in "The Living Bible" for one. The Living Bible, was translated by William Tyndale and was first printed in 1525. The New International Version (NIV) reads... Thou shalt not murder. So does Young's Literal Translation Bible, The Amplified Bible, New American Standard Bible, and Holman Christian Standard Bible. These are the ones I found. So one could hardly say that this is some "new" interpretation I just made up myself for "convenience" (as Jack Cade accuses). I don't know how many other translations read "murder", but the ones I know that read "kill" are: The King James, American Standard Version, Darby Translation and Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. If you know of others, I would be very happy to examine them. If you look at all of what the Bible teaches, you MUST interpret "kill" as "murder". I have no idea how it could logically be interpreted any other way. "IF" you really wish to be logical, that is, and not just obstructive.

Maddan: From the little I know, Jesus himself was quite clearly a pacifist - "Resist not evil. If smitten on one cheek turn the other" and all that. Paul: This is Matthew 5:39. This does not speak of war, but of fighting one person against another. You can't just lift out a verse and use it for your own purposes. This seems to be what you accuse me of. You have to look at it in context. As far as I know, Jesus did not speak personally about war. (I will investigate that further.)

andrewjames said: Christians. Best argument yet for keeping lions in captivity. Paul replies: Ha! I hope not, but with a name like yours, you had better be careful. LOL