What is a good Christian?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Felrik, who also answered your question.

His example wasn't using Carholic tracts and dogma and Saints in that tradition.

I used Catholic Encyclopaedia, the basis of it’s content is in all of those things.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

Felrik, who also answered your question.

His example wasn't using Carholic tracts and dogma and Saints in that tradition.

Both he and I used Catholic everything.

[Sedgistan]

And, to put it quite frankly, you just went off the deep end.

I'm entitled to my own beliefs just like you are. I thank you for proving you are the condescending self-righteous prick I thought you were.

That was totally unnecessary. *** Warned for flaming ***

[Baja California Autonoma]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opin ... ng-to.html

This articulates my argument best.

[VVerkia]

But even within Christianity, the different denominations alone are legion. The odds alone of choosing the right religion, assuming one is in fact right, are incredibly poor.

In any case though, that is your choice, even if I think you may change your mind later. I would hotly contest that there is any proof of christianity, or any religion for that matter, but that would devolve into a threadjack.

I'm sort of considering Eastern Orthodoxy, but as for now I'm Lutheran, and I know the rest of Protestantism, and Catholicism for that matter, is wrong.

The real question for me is who is right? Lutheranism or Orthodoxy? I find a lot of historical and doctrinal support for Orthodoxy being the original Church (I excluded Rome because of their ever evolving doctrine), but I find a lot of Biblical proof of Lutheranism actually being right. It all hinges on the role of Scripture, really.

Sounds like a pretty poor system then.

While I do have sympathy for you, this is why I find faith and religion dangerous. There is no need for you to live with that kind of pain, and, as someone who has only recently come out as Gay, truly being oneself is one of the greatest things imaginable.

If God exists, but is so narrow minded, so prejudiced, and so discriminatory that he cannot accept the universality of love, he is a pretty terrible deity, and one who is not worthy of worship.

Well I mean, if He doesn't exist, I'll die and stay dead, and will be forever at peace. If He does exist, and I believe, I will be at eternal peace. If He does exist, and I don't believe, I will never be at peace again.

Therefore, seeing the choices I have- all I have to lose is a small aspect of my life, and because I am Heteroflexible, I can still fall in love with a woman. But if I do fall in love with another man, I definitely will not be okay.

Just try to understand that. It's like "constitution". 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.”
Also remember what happens almost all the time, when J. teach about something. Pharisees & Sadducees. These was people who was bound to words and laws, that they don't understand what J. spoke to people. I don't think that pattern changed through time.
___
About that kind of choices, i don't thing it's right way to live. For me it's look more like gamble. It's like entrust own life to cards, dices, fortune-tellers, horoscopes etc. It's like some kind of slavery. I think that better way is to dive deep down into own feeling. Be true to own self. Whatever path you go, i cheer for you.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/what-religion-would-jesus-belong-to.html

This articulates my argument best.

What is this supposed to prove? Beyond the utter unfamiliarity with the Scriptures, His Church, His Faith and Christ Himself, that is present within the ‘modern Christian’. This article doesn’t represent some migration back to the ‘moral vision’ of Christ, it seems to elevate a frankly dangerous move towards actual cherry-picking and incoherent philosophies that you so often find in many ‘free thinkers’, with little regard for the Faith and Tradition (both big ‘T’ and little ‘t’) that are essential to the formation of correct moral acts and attitudes.

[Luminesa]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/what-religion-would-jesus-belong-to.html

This articulates my argument best.

Beside the fact that He was Jewish in His lifetime, undeniably so...and then founded the Christian religion...and this article is behind a paywall...no.

[Hakons]

A good Christian submits his will to the Lord and in all things strives to do His will instead. There are traits and actions that spring from this, but that's the root definition.

[Menassa]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/what-religion-would-jesus-belong-to.html

This articulates my argument best.

Beside the fact that He was Jewish in His lifetime, undeniably so...and then founded the Christian religion...and this article is behind a paywall...no.

I see a connection between money changers in the temple and pay walls on the news.

[Arcturus Novus]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/what-religion-would-jesus-belong-to.html

This articulates my argument best.

Jesus would be Jewish. Sure, a lot of religious movements have beliefs that align pretty well with what Jesus preached, but like, he was born, raised, and died as a Jew.

[Hakons]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/what-religion-would-jesus-belong-to.html

This articulates my argument best.

Jesus would be Jewish. Sure, a lot of religious movements have beliefs that align pretty well with what Jesus preached, but like, he was born, raised, and died as a Jew.

Then He was resurrected, ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father, leading the eternal Church. NYT is notoriously bad at reporting on religion, and this article no less ignored that Christ is alive right now and doesn't have to descend from Heaven to choose an "earthly" religion. He already leads, and is therefor part of, a religion.

[Alba and Cymru]

Tell me NSers, what do you think being a good Christian means? What does a good Christian look like to you? I'm not excluding replies of different faiths or lack thereof.

I was raised as a Christian, but I went to several different churches growing up. Some of the churches were traditional, others liberal, and some moderate. Since my teen years I found myself becoming pretty disenfranchised with Christianity as a religion and no longer practice it in the traditional sense. Because of this, I am not really sure of I qualify as a Christian or not, even though I still believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God. I believe that being a good Christian is simply prioritizing your relationship with God and doing good rather than adhering to any religious regulations and dogmas. I guess in my definition that I am a Christian, but I am not sure if I would consider myself one.

One who is quick to forgive, has understanding and compassion for others, turns from sin, yet breaks bread with sinners.

[Menassa]

Tell me NSers, what do you think being a good Christian means? What does a good Christian look like to you? I'm not excluding replies of different faiths or lack thereof.

I was raised as a Christian, but I went to several different churches growing up. Some of the churches were traditional, others liberal, and some moderate. Since my teen years I found myself becoming pretty disenfranchised with Christianity as a religion and no longer practice it in the traditional sense. Because of this, I am not really sure of I qualify as a Christian or not, even though I still believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God. I believe that being a good Christian is simply prioritizing your relationship with God and doing good rather than adhering to any religious regulations and dogmas. I guess in my definition that I am a Christian, but I am not sure if I would consider myself one.

[...] yet breaks bread with sinners.

Without washing their hands.

[Bienenhalde]

Jesus would be Jewish. Sure, a lot of religious movements have beliefs that align pretty well with what Jesus preached, but like, he was born, raised, and died as a Jew.

He was born and lived as a Jew, but then the Jewish religious leaders called him a heretic and a blasphemer and they collaborated with the Romans to put him to death. Not that I would hold modern day Jews who weren't alive back then accountable for Jesus's death, because that would be ridiculously unfair, but what Jesus taught about who he was as God incarnate is pretty manifestly contrary to the dogmas put forth by the Jewish faith to this day.

[Menassa]

Jesus would be Jewish. Sure, a lot of religious movements have beliefs that align pretty well with what Jesus preached, but like, he was born, raised, and died as a Jew.

He was born and lived as a Jew, but then the Jewish religious leaders called him a heretic and a blasphemer and they collaborated with the Romans to put him to death. Not that I would hold modern day Jews who weren't alive back then accountable for Jesus's death, because that would be ridiculously unfair, but what Jesus taught about who he was as God incarnate is pretty manifestly contrary to the dogmas put forth by the Jewish faith to this day.

So you're saying if they hadn't put him to death, he wouldn't have been Jewish? What then, Mithraic?

[Jedi Council]

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.

A few things;

1. You quote a passage wherein the beating of children is endorsed, and you claim it is not evil?

2. So by your contention, a good Christian is, while not "good" in the perfect, Christ-like sense, is generally morally good by their mere association with God? My contention has never meant that "good" means perfect, rather that it merely means moral, ethical et cetera. And I do not believe that just because you subscribe to a certain faith, you automatically are a moral person.

3. You compare non-believer to addicts and thus you should help them see the truth, even if that means forcing them to do so. But then you say they must assent freely? How do you square that?

4. I think the idea of the universality of love is not that controversial. If you disagree with how I have defined it, how do you define love? Because, ad we have seen, all people can feel love, and all people can have love for another being, and anyone who judges people for that love is, in my view, not a moral person.

5. You were the one who mentioned the Ten Commandments, which, as I have said, are not really that great. If there are more laws you believe a good Christian should follow, I'm all ears.

[Menassa]

5. You were the one who mentioned the Ten Commandments, which, as I have said, are not really that great. If there are more laws you believe a good Christian should follow, I'm all ears.

Come now, Sundays off? There aint nothing like it.

[Jedi Council]

5. You were the one who mentioned the Ten Commandments, which, as I have said, are not really that great. If there are more laws you believe a good Christian should follow, I'm all ears.

Come now, Sundays off? There aint nothing like it.

Mondays were the obvious choice for a day of rest, clearly.

[Kannap]

Come now, Sundays off? There aint nothing like it.

Mondays were the obvious choice for a day of rest, clearly.

Mondays are the work of Satan

[Green October Z]

Tell me NSers, what do you think being a good Christian means? What does a good Christian look like to you? I'm not excluding replies of different faiths or lack thereof.

I was raised as a Christian, but I went to several different churches growing up. Some of the churches were traditional, others liberal, and some moderate. Since my teen years I found myself becoming pretty disenfranchised with Christianity as a religion and no longer practice it in the traditional sense. Because of this, I am not really sure of I qualify as a Christian or not, even though I still believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God. I believe that being a good Christian is simply prioritizing your relationship with God and doing good rather than adhering to any religious regulations and dogmas. I guess in my definition that I am a Christian, but I am not sure if I would consider myself one.

One who is quick to forgive, has understanding and compassion for others, turns from sin, yet breaks bread with sinners.

Just like Jesus

[Bienenhalde]

He was born and lived as a Jew, but then the Jewish religious leaders called him a heretic and a blasphemer and they collaborated with the Romans to put him to death. Not that I would hold modern day Jews who weren't alive back then accountable for Jesus's death, because that would be ridiculously unfair, but what Jesus taught about who he was as God incarnate is pretty manifestly contrary to the dogmas put forth by the Jewish faith to this day.

So you're saying if they hadn't put him to death, he wouldn't have been Jewish? What then, Mithraic?

I mean, if the Jewish religious leaders had accepted his teachings, I guess they would have been more like what we know as Christians as opposed our timeline's version of Judaism? But that seems like a pretty out there hypothetical you are proposing.

[Ethel mermania]

Jesus would be Jewish. Sure, a lot of religious movements have beliefs that align pretty well with what Jesus preached, but like, he was born, raised, and died as a Jew.

He was born and lived as a Jew, but then the Jewish religious leaders called him a heretic and a blasphemer and they collaborated with the Romans to put him to death. Not that I would hold modern day Jews who weren't alive back then accountable for Jesus's death, because that would be ridiculously unfair, but what Jesus taught about who he was as God incarnate is pretty manifestly contrary to the dogmas put forth by the Jewish faith to this day.

Not really, his teachings are similar to the later jewish prophets. You people quote Ezekiel and Isaiah all the time.

[Kannap]

LGBT discussion from last night aside, I never really answered.

There needs to be understanding that we all fall short of deserving the love and compassionate we each receive. We're all sinners. We all hurt people, intentionally or not, and we all disappoint, anger, or upset people whether we intend to or not. We've all hurt somebody's feelings. We all are broken people who are navigating this planet together.

I think what makes a good Christian is understanding this to be true and rather than judging anybody else for something you don't like, no matter the reason, you need to have compassion and love for one another. And I admit that I struggle with this just as much as anybody else, and I'm trying to get better.

I've been listening to Nadia Bolz-Weber's The Confessional podcast and so far she's spoken to a woman who was born into the Westboro Baptist Church and was a very active member before leaving, a man who killed a friend because of a stolen suitcase of drugs, a woman who grew up with a crack-addicted mother and who herself imitated this addiction but with food, among others. And what I hear every time are stories from people that, maybe a year ago, maybe a month ago, I'd have avoided those people, I'd have heard their story and steered clear of them, I'd have judged them.

The woman who vehemently protested funerals and exploited national tragedies to condemn LGBT people and the man who killed his best friend because of stolen drugs, what makes these people unforgivable? Absolutely nothing. As difficult as it may be, I need to have compassion and love for them.

In one of Nadia Bolz-Weber's books, I forget which one right now, she mentions that at her church in Denver, they were having a service to remember the victims of the Columbine shooting and they were putting names of the victims on a bulletin board or something and somebody put the names of the shooters on the bulletin board and Nadia's first reaction was to speak against it and ask them to be taken down but somebody reminded her that they were victims too, perhaps not of the shooting but of a world that failed them.

Reading that, I couldn't agree and I thought it foolish to have compassion for the Columbine shooters, but since then I've realized that there was truth to what that person said to Nadia and in reflected, that's the kind of compassion I would love to be able to give at all times, it's just so hard and I often fall so short.

I'm rambling and I'm not sure any of this makes sense because I'm sure I could have worded it better, feel free to demolish it as complete hogwash. But remember that we should strive not to judge or condemn people, but to love and have compassion for people. Because that's what God has done for us. And sure as hell, none of us fucking deserve God's love or compassion. It's given to us selflessly and unconditionally and that's what we should strive to imitate.

[Bienenhalde]

He was born and lived as a Jew, but then the Jewish religious leaders called him a heretic and a blasphemer and they collaborated with the Romans to put him to death. Not that I would hold modern day Jews who weren't alive back then accountable for Jesus's death, because that would be ridiculously unfair, but what Jesus taught about who he was as God incarnate is pretty manifestly contrary to the dogmas put forth by the Jewish faith to this day.

Not really, his teachings are similar to the later jewish prophets. You people quote Ezekiel and Isaiah all the time.

I not saying that similarities don't exist, Ezekiel and Isaiah didn't explicitly state that the Messiah would be God incarnate and therefore they were not condemned as heretics by the Jewish religious leaders.

[Antityranicals]

Not really, his teachings are similar to the later jewish prophets. You people quote Ezekiel and Isaiah all the time.

I not saying that similarities don't exist, Ezekiel and Isaiah didn't explicitly state that the Messiah would be God incarnate and therefore they were not condemned as heretics by the Jewish religious leaders.

Then again, in the time of Ezekiel and Isaiah, there wasn't the same degree of religious bureaucracy...