What is a good Christian?

[Luminesa]

Don't you regularly go to bat for abortion and whatnot?

Katganistan is the epitome of a nominal Catholic. He/she (don’t know, don’t really care) uses the fact that they’re a member of the Church to validate sin. Imagine something like “I’m a Catholic and I think such and such is alright”.

She.

We’re veering a little bit into the territory of personal attacks, and while whether or not a person’s beliefs being Catholic or not is a valuable question, going at the person themselves runs the risk of mod action, so let’s be a little more civil.

[Katganistan]

Nah, I've had obnoxious RC people trying to engage in criticizing my not being Catholic enough for them.... right after arguing who was a better Christian in their prayer group and how DARE that person bring Father his tea, clearly they weren't as worthy as the speaker.

When people are full of hypocrisy and telling you how they are the epitome of good Christian life, it's a big turn-off.

That honestly sounds really petty. Over tea of all things? A prostitute brought Jesus oil and bathed His feet, that’s kind of a silly argument to have.

I had a friend come to me who was trying to learn about Catholicism, she didn’t understand what “Communion” meant, and she had told me the people in her prayer group had looked at her funny. Like...it’s not common knowledge. Being a good example I think also means helping the people who DO want to learn. Shunning them for not understanding is...counterproductive.

We agree on that.
I have zero problem discussing my faith with people who ask about it.
I have a huge problem with people who push after a polite "not interested."

[Joohan]

Because I keep hearing all the anti-theists try and point towards Mr. Rogers as being a good secular Christian, I'll just go ahead and quote him directly.

" I want to be a vehicle for God to spread His message of Love and Peace. "

" The children who watch the show are my congregation and I take my ministry very seriously. "

Mr. Rogers was an evangelist of the deed

I'm on record as saying that if your idea of evangelism is to be more like Mr. Rogers, then you should go ahead and do that. I don't think you will find many people here who object to you being more like Mr. Rogers.

And if that's all evangelism ever was, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.

[i]Do everything that God commanded... just don't mention that you're doing it because God commanded it![/i

There are many different means of evangelism, Mr. Rogers found the way which best suited him, but it was evangelism nonetheless - and nearly everyone acknowledges that it was beautiful! That is the essence of what mission work is - to show the beauty and love of God. Mr. Rogers just found a clever way to carry his sermons out without vapid secularists coming down on him - and they found those gospel truths to be beautiful.

[Katganistan]

Because I keep hearing all the anti-theists try and point towards Mr. Rogers as being a good secular Christian, I'll just go ahead and quote him directly.

" I want to be a vehicle for God to spread His message of Love and Peace. "

" The children who watch the show are my congregation and I take my ministry very seriously. "

Mr. Rogers was an evangelist of the deed

And who's an anti-theist?

[Godular]

Depends on which pope you ask.

Eh, I don't listen to the Pope. Lutheran gang, unite

In AP European History I read a passage written by Martin Luther in which he spoke at some length about what to do with the Jews. Apparently he'd thought they would join up with his budding movement and took their rejection... mayhap a tad personally.

Keep in mind I'm given to understatement for comedic purpose. It was disturbingly graphic.

[Atheris]

Jains haven’t been separate from politics, and have been cooperative and sponsored by Indian kingdoms. I do not know enough to say anymore than that, but I’d assume that Jains aren’t entirely clean.

They also have a very long history, so it seems likely that there have been a few scandals in there somewhere.

Still, let's not make the best the enemy of the good. They're a far more peaceful religion than most religions. And it's not unjust to generalize them as "non-violent."

I've always wondered; are Jainism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism etc. even religions? They're not exactly worshiping a God or two.

Eh, I don't listen to the Pope. Lutheran gang, unite

In AP European History I read a passage written by Martin Luther in which he spoke at some length about what to do with the Jews. Apparently he'd thought they would join up with his budding movement and took their rejection... mayhap a tad personally.

Keep in mind I'm given to understatement for comedic purpose. It was disturbingly graphic.

Oh, yeah. The Jew book. Most modern Protestant churches have de-canonized it, for good reason.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

Jains haven’t been separate from politics, and have been cooperative and sponsored by Indian kingdoms. I do not know enough to say anymore than that, but I’d assume that Jains aren’t entirely clean.

No, you’re not, you reject the teachings of the Catholic Church and numerous times have shown you have nothing but contempt for the Catholic Religion.

You do not get to decide who is what. I understand there's a sin for that.

No, the Catholic Church does. And according to the Catholic Church, past and present, she has failed to believe all that Catholics believe.

[Antityranicals]

Katganistan is the epitome of a nominal Catholic. He/she (don’t know, don’t really care) uses the fact that they’re a member of the Church to validate sin. Imagine something like “I’m a Catholic and I think such and such is alright”.

Is abortion even against the Bible?

Is launching recreational nuclear weapons at civilians wrong? Just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean a Christian can't have anything to say about it. And given how both launching nuclear weapons and abortion kill innocents, we ought condemn both.

[Katganistan]

The more extreme Jains drink through cheesecloth so as to not accidentally swallow any bugs that might happen by, and gently sweep in front of their footsteps with a broom to avoid stepping on anything.

I doubt that it's possible for anyone to have a childhood that's free of violence. Since kids are assholes. But it's safe to generalize Jains as being non-violent.

Jains haven’t been separate from politics, and have been cooperative and sponsored by Indian kingdoms. I do not know enough to say anymore than that, but I’d assume that Jains aren’t entirely clean.

I am a Catholic, and you can go shit in your hat.

No, you’re not, you reject the teachings of the Catholic Church and numerous times have shown you have nothing but contempt for the Catholic Religion.

Once more, I AM a Catholic, and there is a difference between admitting the wrongs that have been done in the name of the Catholic church and not being one.

And you can still go climb a tree.

[Neutraligon]

Because I keep hearing all the anti-theists try and point towards Mr. Rogers as being a good secular Christian, I'll just go ahead and quote him directly.

" I want to be a vehicle for God to spread His message of Love and Peace. "

" The children who watch the show are my congregation and I take my ministry very seriously. "

Mr. Rogers was an evangelist of the deed

And who's an anti-theist?

Probably talking about me. Doesn't actually reflect my views but then...that is hardly a surprise given how much they already got wrong about me.

[Godular]

You do not get to decide who is what. I understand there's a sin for that.

No, the Catholic Church does.

You do not speak for them.

[Atheris]

Is abortion even against the Bible?

Is launching recreational nuclear weapons at civilians wrong? Just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean a Christian can't have anything to say about it. And given how both launching nuclear weapons and abortion kill innocents, we ought condemn both.

No, I was just wondering if there's anything specific in the Bible about abortion, that's all. You didn't have to try and bait me into arguing about it.

That being said, I'm 100% pro-choice. Fetuses aren't even living creatures until the third trimester, if you ask me.

[Godular]

Is launching recreational nuclear weapons at civilians wrong? Just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean a Christian can't have anything to say about it. And given how both launching nuclear weapons and abortion kill innocents, we ought condemn both.

No, I was just wondering if there's anything specific in the Bible about abortion, that's all. You didn't have to try and bait me into arguing about it.

That being said, I'm 100% pro-choice. Fetuses aren't even living creatures until the third trimester, if you ask me.

*cough*

[Neanderthaland]

I'm on record as saying that if your idea of evangelism is to be more like Mr. Rogers, then you should go ahead and do that. I don't think you will find many people here who object to you being more like Mr. Rogers.

And if that's all evangelism ever was, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.

[i]Do everything that God commanded... just don't mention that you're doing it because God commanded it![/i

Mr. Rogers apparently did mention it. Since you quoted him in his book. But maybe don't nag people about it? Mr. Rogers never did.

There are many different means of evangelism, Mr. Rogers found the way which best suited him, but it was evangelism nonetheless - and nearly everyone acknowledges that it was beautiful! That is the essence of what mission work is - to show the beauty and love of God. Mr. Rogers just found a clever way to carry his sermons out without vapid secularists coming down on him - and they found those gospel truths to be beautiful.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if other people find your "means of evangelism" obnoxious, it's probably not worth doing.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

No, the Catholic Church does.

You do not speak for them.

Fortunately, I can read what they say.

[Neutraligon]

I must admit...watching some of you Christians making declarations about who is a Christian in this thread is rather funny.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They also have a very long history, so it seems likely that there have been a few scandals in there somewhere.

Still, let's not make the best the enemy of the good. They're a far more peaceful religion than most religions. And it's not unjust to generalize them as "non-violent."

I've always wondered; are Jainism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism etc. even religions? They're not exactly worshiping a God or two.

Buddhism and Daoism are explicitly theistic and while Jainism lacks a central deity it still has a concept of godliness, just one that's unique. Confucianism is more of a philosophical system, imo.

[The Alma Mater]

Is abortion even against the Bible?

Is launching recreational nuclear weapons at civilians wrong? Just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean a Christian can't have anything to say about it.

Causing a woman to miscarry however is in the Bible. It is an offence for which the husband can demand some monetary compensation, if he so desires. It is optional.

Depending on ones translation of the Bible ofc. It is amazing how much they can differ depending on the political beliefs of the translator or his employer *cough* KJV *cough*.

[Godular]

You do not speak for them.

Fortunately, I can read what they say.

And we can also read what was said before, note all kinds of internal conflicts, lol mightily at anybody claiming to know the will of God, yadda yadda yadda...

[Atheris]

No, I was just wondering if there's anything specific in the Bible about abortion, that's all. You didn't have to try and bait me into arguing about it.

That being said, I'm 100% pro-choice. Fetuses aren't even living creatures until the third trimester, if you ask me.

*cough*

I'm curious as to why you linked this.

[Katganistan]

Don't you regularly go to bat for abortion and whatnot?

Katganistan is the epitome of a nominal Catholic. He/she (don’t know, don’t really care) uses the fact that they’re a member of the Church to validate sin. Imagine something like “I’m a Catholic and I think such and such is alright”.

And yet I am not the topic of this thread, so kindly don't make it about me.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

Jains haven’t been separate from politics, and have been cooperative and sponsored by Indian kingdoms. I do not know enough to say anymore than that, but I’d assume that Jains aren’t entirely clean.

No, you’re not, you reject the teachings of the Catholic Church and numerous times have shown you have nothing but contempt for the Catholic Religion.

Once more, I AM a Catholic, and there is a difference between admitting the wrongs that have been done in the name of the Catholic church and not being one.

And you can still go climb a tree.

You do not admit wrongdoings, of the Catholic Church in the past! That not why you’re being criticised, you’re not a Catholic because you do not believe the teachings of the Church.

[The Free Joy State]

You cannot speak for all Christians. There are many Churches that interpret things differently.

For example, following Psalm 137.9 would not be good, although it would be following the "whim of God". I don't consider Exodus 22:18 something that should be followed. Although that is also the "whim of God". Many Christians would disagree with Proverbs 23:13-14, yet it is the "whim of God".


You're right. There need not be overlap.

Someone who beats their child (which a couple of verses in the Bible seem to encourage), or abuses their spouse (which is actually tacitly permitted in some denominations), slurs his LGBT+ neighbour and his neighbours of other religions, is not what can be considered a good person from a moral standpoint. Yet there are examples of Christians who do this kind of thing ( my mind goes to IFB pastor, Steven Anderson, who has previously wished... harm... on those he doesn't like), and yet go to Church, know the Bible word-for-word, pray daily, stick rigidly to the Ten Commandments.

It is very possible for a person to be good at following the basics of their religious denomination and not good in the moral, ethical sense.

The two are not the same.

No, but this confused mess that you present to us is the reason why we have the Church. What recourse, then, do we have? Well, I am Catholic and Joohan is Orthodox, we should therefore appeal to the Fathers and Teachers of the Church.

1. Psalm 137:9 — The Catholic Douay Rheims reads, ‘The Lord will repay for me: thy mercy, O Lord, endureth for ever: O despise not the work of thy hands.’. But I assume you actually mean this verse in Protestant Bibles (it is 136:9 in the Douay Rheims), ‘Blessed shall he be who takes your little one and a dashes them against the rock!’ Firstly, this is not God, but King David the Prophet, though the Psalms are inspired. We will forego the spiritual dimension because it isn’t relevant to your contention. God does fulfil this prayer through Cyrus the Great and Darius, that destroy Babylon that held captive the Jews. ‘Thy nakedness shall be discovered, and thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and no man shall resist me.’ (Isaiah 47:3) And, ‘There is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord.’ (Isaiah 48:22) (Really Isaiah 47-50). We revisit Job, ‘the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.’ (Job 1:21) You have not provided why God has done evil here? Rather, he punished Babylon and set free the Jews.
2. Exodus 22:18 — This reads, ‘Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.’ More commonly translated as ‘Thou shalt not suffer the witch to live.’ St. Thomas Aquinas (which I think Joohan won’t mind in this case) writes in Chapter 147 of Of God and His Creatures,

Hereby is excluded the error of those who say that corporal punishments are unlawful, and quote in support of their error such texts as, Thou shalt not kill (Exod. xx, 13): Let both grow until the harvest (Matt. xiii, 30). But these are frivolous allegations. For the same law which says, Thou shalt not kill, adds afterwards: Thou shalt not suffer poisoners (maleficos, φαρμακούς) to live (Exod. xxii, 18)

And in the Apostolic Constitutions, Book Seven, p. 466, The Prohibition of Conjuring, Murder of Infants, Perjury, and False Witness,

Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for He says, « Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. » (Exodus 22:18) Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for « everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed. »

What do we know from all this? That ‘witches’ are evil-doers, poisoners (metaphorically and literally), wicked people that make pacts with Satan and demons (See: Catholic Encyclopedia: Witchcraft). Why, then, shouldn’t lawful authority put these people to death if it is God’s whim, who can say that it is evil?
3. Proverbs 23:13-14 — This translates as, ‘Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell.’ Rather straightforward, discipline your child. It is written by St. Clement of Alexandria in The Instructor,

In fine, the system He pursues to inspire fear is the source of salvation. And it is the prerogative of goodness to save: “The mercy of the Lord is on all flesh, while He reproves, corrects, and teaches as a shepherd His flock. He pities those who receive His instruction, and those who eagerly seek union with Him.” And with such guidance He guarded the six hundred thousand footmen that were brought together in the hardness of heart in which they were found; scourging, pitying, striking, healing, in compassion and discipline: “For according to the greatness of His mercy, so is His rebuke.” For it is indeed noble not to sin; but it is good also for the sinner to repent; just as it is best to be always in good health, but well to recover from disease. So He commands by Solomon: “Strike thou thy son with the rod, that thou mayest deliver his soul from death.” And again: “Abstain not from chastising thy son, but correct him with the rod; for he will not die.”

And in the Apostolic Constitutiond, Book IV, Sec. II — On Domestic and Social Life,

Ye fathers, educate your children in the Lord, bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and teach them such trades as are agreeable and suitable to the word, lest they by such opportunity become extravagant, and continue without punishment from their parents, and so get relaxation before their time, and go astray from that which is good. Wherefore be not afraid to reprove them, and to teach them wisdom with severity. For your corrections will not kill them, but rather preserve them. As Solomon says somewhere in the book of Wisdom: “Chasten thy son, and he will refresh thee; so wilt thou have good hope of him. Thou verily shalt smite him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from death.” And again, says the same Solomon thus, “He that spareth his rod, hateth his son;” and afterwards, “Beat his sides whilst he is an infant, lest he be hardened and disobey thee.”2960 He, therefore, that neglects to admonish and instruct his own son, hates his own child. Do you therefore teach your children the word of the Lord. Bring them under with cutting stripes, and make them subject from their infancy, teaching them the Holy Scriptures, which are Christian and divine, and delivering to them every sacred writing, “not giving them such liberty that they get the mastery,” and act against your opinion, not permitting them to club together for a treat with their equals. For so they will be turned to disorderly courses, and will fall into fornication; and if this happen by the carelessness of their parents, those that begat them will be guilty of their souls. For if the offending children get into the company of debauched persons by the negligence of those that begat them, they will not be punished alone by themselves; but their parents also will be condemned on their account. For this cause endeavour, at the time when they are of an age fit for marriage, to join them in wedlock, and settle them together, lest in the heat and fervour of their age their course of life become dissolute, and you be required to give an account by the Lord God in the day of judgment.

None of these things are evil, not one. One of them isn’t even God commanding anyone to dash ‘them against a rock!’ Babylon, however, was destroyed to free the Jews from captivity and their enemies yoke. Killing people of all ages, male or female, was common in ancient warfare. As a sidenote, nowhere in the Bible can I find it endorsing ‘abuse’ of a man’s wife, I don’t care if some random denomination misinterprets scripture nor for Steven Anderson.

So, essentially in your conception, a good Christian is one that;

1. Loves God.

2. Loves their neighbour.

3. Keeps the Ten Commandments.

4. Treat other Christians well.

5. Imitate the Saints.

Correct me if I have misrepresented you there, or if there is more you would like to add.

However, this comes to the question I was asking earlier. Can a good Christian be a bad person? If we are taking good to mean a religious, rather than a moral, good, and the metric we are using for measuring this is adherence to the tenants you have postulated, then we come to a pretty clear conclusion.

If a good Christian is one who follows these five tenants, then it seems to be that the question is, that yes, a good christian can be a bad person, from a moral perspective.

As I stated, in my mind, a moral person follows the Golden Rule, which is that one should treat others the way they wish to be treated. Masochists aside, this generally allows for a moral and functioning relationship between people.

However, in these five tenants, there is not much in the way of moral teachings.

The Ten Commandments were not particularly visionary, and all largely fall under the Golden Rule. They have glaring blindpots regarding slavery, rape and other crimes but Moses could only fit so much on those tablets right?

Treating other Christian's well is a good idea, but what of other non-Christians? Surely in response to this you will say that it is covered under the love thy neighbour clause.

However, if you truly loved your neighbour, wouldn't you be tolerant of them if they disagreed with you? Wouldn't attempting to force them to conform to your views be wrong, if you really loved them?

If so, then I do not see how either myself, or Blaatschapen, are wrong in our conceptions of a good christian from a moral perspective, which has a direct impact on a good christian from a religious one

By extension, if a good christian can be a bad person, then what is truly the point of devoting oneself to the tenants of the faith if wicked or otherwise unsavoury people can do so as well?

A Good Christian is necessarily a good person, that is a moral person. But what does Mark record? ‘And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.’ (Mark 10:18) No person is perfect, and thus no person is ‘good’. This is what I say, men may be good but only by participation of God's goodness. I’ll just reiterate what Joohan said.

Therefore, a ‘Good Christian’ is someone that follows Goodness itself and is thus virtuous. They may stray, fall away, but if they return pertinent, they will be called Holy. St. Andrew Wouters was a Martyr of Gorkum (1572), he was a notoriously scandalous, horrible priest; a fornicator, but not a heretic. He joined his brother priests in ‘the valley of the shadow of death’, and was subsequently hanged. He proved in his last moments that he could, and was, a Good Christian, clinging to the Lord. This cannot be said of his dissolute life.

As for your reduction, I’m afraid much is left out in your assessment, and your assessment is even wrong (for instance, there are more commandments than the Decalogue, they’re summary, then there is Christ’s Summary of the Law). Your conception of ‘Love’ is deficient and faulty. If you do not have good will to your neighbour, then you truly do not love them. We force the addict to leave his addiction, we do not tolerate it because of a faulty sense of ‘love’. We conform men to Truth, to medicine, that is love. When you lie to a man, you do love him. We also must be conscious by what we mean by ‘force’. No man is allowed to coerce (through violence and other such means) someone to the Faith, they must assent freely.

And you dare call my post a mess.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...

You excuse killing people, if you believe God commands it (let's find it in that mammoth mess of a post):

What do we know from all this? That ‘witches’ are evil-doers, poisoners (metaphorically and literally), wicked people that make pacts with Satan and demons (See: Catholic Encyclopedia: Witchcraft). Why, then, shouldn’t lawful authority put these people to death if it is God’s whim, who can say that it is evil?

The very concept is dangerously expansive (murder anyone considered evil and be considered clean).

You also excuse beating children, an action that has been taken -- with Biblical permission to deadly levels, as with Lydia Schatz.

And -- though you call for people to "assent freely" to conversion, say this can be done by force (although God gave people free-will for a reason).

Beat a child, slay your "evil neighbour", and force your other neighbour to convert against his will (by lying?)...

When you lie to a man, you do love him.

So, lying is permitted -- if by Good Christians^TM -- too?

Certainly, this concept of Good Christianity is much different to the one I was raised with.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Jains haven’t been separate from politics, and have been cooperative and sponsored by Indian kingdoms. I do not know enough to say anymore than that, but I’d assume that Jains aren’t entirely clean.

No, you’re not, you reject the teachings of the Catholic Church and numerous times have shown you have nothing but contempt for the Catholic Religion.

Once more, I AM a Catholic, and there is a difference between admitting the wrongs that have been done in the name of the Catholic church and not being one.

And you can still go climb a tree.

Do we literally have to go through all of the teachings of the Church, asking you if you profess belief in them, just to prove that you’re in error? Lmao

[Godular]

*cough*

I'm curious as to why you linked this.

You mean, aside from the fact that they were veering towards the exact subject of the thread to which I linked?