All I know is..

I stated what a 'true Christian' is.

I don't hold enough qualities to qualify me as an athiest, nor enough to count me as a thiest.

So, not truly sure where you'd place 'me'.

I used to think about belief as only a discrete value.

On, or off.

However the more I dig into fuzzy logic, the more I believe that beliefs are mostly based on fuzzy logic.

Sure some are on/off, but it seems all the hard questions that tend to make people think . . . "well heck I am not sure what I believe", are on for certain reasons, and off for other reasons and the totality is somewhere in the middle.

..well that helped me figure it out.

xD lol

Personally I see myself as an agnostic atheist.

Which means I do not hold a belief in god, I also do not hold a positive belief that god does not exist.

Basically no evidence exists which requires a god, I only believe in things which has positive evidence, therefor I do not believe in god.

Most of the time when I get into discussions it all comes down to what a person wants to call god.

I have very little to complain about for pantheists, it comes down to definitions, and we just dont agree on word usage, all other facets of reality we agree on. I think science often gets put into this category of you cant figure out this truth with science, but I disagree if the thing in question is a god interacting with the universe.

The Deist god is truly agnostic in terms of non-interaction. If it exists it no longer interacts and thus cannot be seen to exist but might exist.

Theist gods however are supposed to be involved in the universe, they set examples, and have desires and wants. They might provide you with free will but they want you to do things their way and interact at times in order make a positive or negative example.

Its my belief that a Theists god can be scrutinized with science, at least we should be able to see the affect this god has on the normal natural workings of the universe. Like the ripples on a pond vs the object that created the ripples. My problem with these kinds of gods is that if we find that the mechanisms for the reality respond universally the same as they would without a god being involved then we are left with no god, a trickster Theist god, a Deist god, or Pantheist god with no way to sort out which.

If the trickster Theist god likes to change things and then make it seem natural he could and you would only find the evidence he wanted you to find to hide his connection to reality.

I really dont know if thinking about this from this broad categorical level helps or not, but I sure find it interesting!

Your explanation was correct,Sin_and_Sorrow.

no problem,,, no worries,,,

easy breezy,,,,with love

..thanks. :)

I think these two posts about sum up this thread. What is a true Christian, someone who puts effort into understand the Bible and believes Jesus is your savior and all that.

I hear it quite often that those of faith who put in the effort often see those that dont as too casual, or not "true".

I think it begs the question however what gods expects out of you, and this ultimate is what makes up a given denomination, what the leaders of that group think god expects of you.

To me that is very interesting and worthy of discussion.

I am an atheist who has read the bible about a half dozen times, and then probably more if you add up all the various references.

My motivation for reading it the first time was pure, and innocent without any preconceived notions going in (or at least as few as you can have at 12 and having been raised as a causal Baptist (Churchian)

The other times it was really just to get used to the language to help prepare for theater roles, and then MUCH later I read it a time or two when trying to understand my own place in spirituality, and a couple of times after having decided I am an agnostic atheist and just wanting to understand some verses being used to support others beliefs.

So many different motivations . . . so little time!

I don't call myself a "Christian".
As the term has a different meaning in modern day than was originally intended.
It was intended to mean...."Follower of Christ".
I do Believe in Jesus, I do believe He is My Lord.
I ALSO believe in following His Word.
This doesn't mean the Bible in general.
It means...The Word's of Jesus.
I don't know if I am right, I don't know if I am wrong.
I DON'T presume to tell ANYONE that what I believe is Truth.
Nor do I Allow anyone else to tell me their belief is Truth.
My Lord tells me to treat others as I would like to be treated
So......
I respect their right to believe as they do, and simply hope they will respect mine.
I see no need to defend my beliefs........nor to require anyone to defend their own.
It would just be nice to see discussion, without debate, without hate, without anyone feeling they HAVE to convince anyone of anything!!!
For a......
Change!!!!!!

Billy...

there is a DIFFERENCE between having just religion.... versus

having relationship.


Now..Not all who say they are christian , have an actual

relationship with God YET (a christian is one who now has

relationship established back with God ,Which comes

only thru salvation....or in other words, believing and

accepting Jesus as Saviour into one's heart).


But Many who call themelves christian, still only have just

religion.


However..

that doesn't mean that won't eventually change...as

God at just the right time ,will eventually lead them into

relationship also(IF they are hearing the Word of God

preached, that is).......


In other words....

If the religion is actually teaching the Word of God ,and the

Word of God is being preached (and not just man's opinion ),

than that is what will draw man unto salvation(there is power

only in the hearing of God's Word being preached ....there is

no power to save , if one is just hearing just man's opinion

being preached ).


Going to church to hear the Word of God is good...nothing

wrong with the Christian religion at all....


but it is just that not everyone IN church is SAVED YET.


But in the process of getting Christian religion, one

will eventaully be convicted by hearing God's Word..and faith will

come... and one will become saved ( again,only IF they are

hearing the Word of God being preached, and NOT just man's

opinion ).


So therefore,it is SALVATION that makes one a true Christian....

because that person now , no longer just has religion...but

now has relationship with God ...which comes thru salvation.

And that is what a real christian is.


Simply put....a christian is One who is born again.

And hopefully..ALL...especially upon the hearing of God's Word,

will also be born again one day.

Too.

Amen.

..amidst all that blue font..

She summed it up by what I said four pages ago.

>.>

BUT....just because Believers are BORN AGAIN ,

doesn't mean they are PERFECT.


God is the ONE WHO BEGINS and COMPLETES the Perfecting work in us

All... and therefore, it is not US doing it ,but God Working IN

us and THRU us.


ALl Christians are just SAVED ....meaning.... their spirit only is

born again, but their soul and body is not saved

yet ...meaning...ALL christians are still a WoRk in progress.



Some worse than others....just kidding .....


but Thank God that God is no respector of persons..and again....

HE is the ONE Who is Perfecting that good work that HE has

begun in us ALL.

Geez, don't make me puke now..

I never used the word 'perfect' anyway, did I?

Besides.
No one and nothing is perfect.

Perfection is only when someone sees imperfection.. perfectly.

((((((Sin_and_Sorrow))))))

Btw, Your Poetry is ABSOLUTELY AWESOME !!! <<<< lemon herbal tea

Why thank you. :)

Didn't know you read it.

Why not comment it then? :(

I do love comments. :[

By saying that a person does not have a relationship with god, you are making a judgment about that person.

What is it that you use as criteria to base this judgment on?

If you don't want to debate opinions on religion, don't do it. But, we all know full well that these topics usually turn into some sort of debate. So if you don't like it, why join in?

Also, since when is asking questions, or stating opinions that differ from christians mean those other people are bashing christians?

So morningsong how to do you determine a persons closeness to god?

How do you determine which denominations will help you get closer to god?

How is it that you are able to determine that someone still needs to be educated to build there relationship with god?

The criteria are what I am looking for, and trying to understand why there is ~38,000 denominations is why I ask.

If there really was a way to know these things one would assume another person could explain the objective criteria required.

The reality it seems, is that any denomination is just as good as any other at figuring that out. It seems very apparent that feelings and feelings alone are what any given judgement of a persons closeness to god are refereed against, and that religion is really just a social club where like minded people can feel supported in there opinions by something greater than themselves: the concept of god. If a given practice feels wrong to a religious leader its deemed heretical, or maybe just useless without justification beyond scriptural interpretation or gut reactions, given that the prior is subjective based on vague metaphor this makes perfect sense out of ~38,000 denominations.

So when one group says that another group has, "things to learn", or isn't as close to god in there "relationship" what they are really doing is explaining that the other group does not represent themselves, they are different, they do not fit in, and are not accepted based entirely on xenophobic feelings based on rituals or practices not shared in common due to the subjective metaphorical interpretations of the scriptures in question.

Its these differences that make people feel uncomfortable, and its my opinion that when you then take this level of discomfort to mean god disapproves of the other group, or they are not as "close" to god, what really happens is divisions occur which when supported by a reference to the almighty then gain the weight of a super-being in the minds of the followers.

ie, they then become justified in there feelings of xenophobia.

When we are raised with a set of practices they become very familiar and rightly so the person in question will feel very comfortable with those practices.

When something is new, it will not feel as comfortable, and if you add to that a respected leader makes claims that a given practice is wrong, or even worse against the godhead then negative feelings will be supported and reinforced.

It does not take a given advocate for a denomination to call another a fake Christian for the feelings of that group being outsiders to be encouraged.

If you think about it, anytime someone judges that you do not belong to there own internal image of what it means to practice Christianity what they are really thinking is that you are not a true Christian.

If a set of practices can get you closer to god, then not following that set makes you less of a Christian. If not having all of those characteristics seen as correct then makes you fake when compared to the real deal. This is inevitable.