(January 5, 2018 at 11:59 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(January 3, 2018 at 8:13 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I don't mean someone who claims to be a Christian and can't tell you what that means. I mean someone who lives exactly like the NT says they should live.

I wouldn't know.  I don't know if the NT can rightly be interpreted as recommending a way to live, and neither do I care.

Thanks for your not-caring missive. 

---

(January 5, 2018 at 11:55 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 3, 2018 at 8:13 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I don't mean someone who claims to be a Christian and can't tell you what that means. I mean someone who lives exactly like the NT says they should live.

Christian is a title we received once we are judged. Meaning in this life there are only followers of Christ.

---

That said the "christian model" you refer to in the bible is of one steeped in sin who is a slave to evil yet continually seeks redemption and salvation, and receives it from God because he is a follower of Christ.

You morons have confused righteous acts with sanctified living. Meaning according to the bible we do not have to live "the perfect christian life" rather the oppsite we are "christians/followers of Christ because we can not live up to that model, and through Christ we are santified so we do not have to be perfect people. We can come as we are and find salvation, rather than trying to be this moral model that does not exist.

Okay, I'll put you in the "cafeteria christian" column. T/Y

(January 5, 2018 at 11:54 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(January 5, 2018 at 11:11 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Thats exactly my point though. They are specifically NOT cafeteria christian, because christianity itself is not based in a word for word literal interpretation of the bible. If you think it is, you have a very very poor understanding of Christianity.

OR you just don't like the idea. 

Um ok

(January 5, 2018 at 9:18 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Christian simply means that you believe Jesus is the son of God who lived as a human among us and died and resurrected for us.

... anything beyond that just depends on denomination.

As for the New Testament stuff, very very few Christian denominations follow a completely literal interpretation of every single thing in the bible. Even New Testament. Christianity is not based on a word for word literal interpretation of every single thing written in the bible.

The Fundamentalists disagree with you.  I was raised that every "jot and tiddle" was literal and if you doubted that you were sent to pray at length for your Satanic unbelief.
However, I do play for Catholic Mass.  And yes, I find Catholic non-literal treatment of the book refreshing.  They are a lot less likely to bash a person over the head with "the BIBLE says" than most.  However, I was raised with the belief that the Bible IS the ultimate authority.  So rejecting any part of it as authority, for me, rejects all of it.  If you can say "this part is inspired but that part is historical fable" - - it seems like a slippery slope into the usual "this part means whatever I want it to mean at this moment".  

Which takes us back to the reason there are so many different interpretations and so many different impressions of what a Christian life is.

(January 5, 2018 at 12:18 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(January 5, 2018 at 9:18 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Christian simply means that you believe Jesus is the son of God who lived as a human among us and died and resurrected for us.

... anything beyond that just depends on denomination.

As for the New Testament stuff, very very few Christian denominations follow a completely literal interpretation of every single thing in the bible. Even New Testament. Christianity is not based on a word for word literal interpretation of every single thing written in the bible.

The Fundamentalists disagree with you.  I was raised that every "jot and tiddle" was literal and if you doubted that you were sent to pray at length for your Satanic unbelief.
However, I do play for Catholic Mass.  And yes, I find Catholic non-literal treatment of the book refreshing.  They are a lot less likely to bash a person over the head with "the BIBLE says" than most.  However, I was raised with the belief that the Bible IS the ultimate authority.  So rejecting any part of it as authority, for me, rejects all of it.  If you can say "this part is inspired but that part is historical fable" - - it seems like a slippery slope into the usual "this part means whatever I want it to mean at this moment".  

Which takes us back to the reason there are so many different interpretations and so many different impressions of what a Christian life is.

It was interesting to hear from Khem that the earliest xtian theologies were allegorical and that the Catholics were the first to insist on literalism.  Not that I can vouchsafe that factoid, but it did surprise me to read it since I think of Catholicism as being more allegorically inclined that the protestant crap we are constantly exposed to around 'Murica.

I don't care enough to research it myself, but I'm more than happy to hear both sides from anyone who thinks otherwise.

I'm not sure what Khem was referring to, but if it's true it was a long time ago. Catholics for the most part take an allegorical approach, and we specifically don't regard the bible as the ultimate authority.

(January 5, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not sure what Khem was referring to, but if it's true it was a long time ago. Catholics for the most part take an allegorical approach, and we specifically don't regard the bible as the ultimate authority.

How many christians do you speak for?

I could see theists viewing the OP's question as unfair. If anyone really were a devout Christian, we'd have no way of knowing because you aren't supposed to go around advertising it.


However, using the same criterion we can establish that there are many, many so-called Christians who do not fit the bill.

(January 5, 2018 at 2:20 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I could see theists viewing the OP's question as unfair. If anyone really were a devout Christian, we'd have no way of knowing because you aren't supposed to go around advertising it.


However, using the same criterion we can establish that there are many, many so-called Christians who do not fit the bill.

All of them, so far.

(January 5, 2018 at 2:20 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I could see theists viewing the OP's question as unfair. If anyone really were a devout Christian, we'd have no way of knowing because you aren't supposed to go around advertising it.


However, using the same criterion we can establish that there are many, many so-called Christians who do not fit the bill.

I have a problem with this. It's not a rigid definition. Religion and spirituality are on a continuum and there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone's different. Defining whether someone is a "true Christian" is not the slightest bit helpful. The Bible is clearly a book of interpretation that not all groups agree on. What others believe is not my business. I have a serious problem with religious people telling me what I should think and believe, and how I should lead my life. On the other side of the coin, I find it hypocritical and not useful at all when atheists tell Christians about what they believe in.

(January 5, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not sure what Khem was referring to, but if it's true it was a long time ago.

OFC it was a long time ago, it was the initial formation of the RCC. They haven't stopped since. Apostolic succession hinged upon a flesh and blood christ with flesh and blood disciples....and the christ myth hinged upon a literal fall by a literal adam and eve. The literal ex nihilo doctrine is..similarly, non-negotiable.

Quote:Catholics for the most part take an allegorical approach, and we specifically don't regard the bible as the ultimate authority.

We know.  Catholics have moved on from literalism.  Nevertheless, the RCC insists upon it as a matter of infallible doctrine as demonstrated, because the faith is absolutely and unequivocally self-constrained within the boundaries of that literalism.

Stating that these are events in a real history, described in figurative language, is stating that they are literal events with flowery poetry attached. This is made explicit, in catechism, also as demonstrated. A person cannot sit there and tell us about god making the universe out of nothing, about god making the first two meaningfully human humans..their literal fall, and the literal redemption offered by a literal christ with literal apostles from which the legitimacy of their church proceeds...and simultaneously claim that they are or that their religion is "open" to allegory without..in a definite and self-described sense, expressing the deterioration of authority in belief of the very same church.

There may be no True Christian™...but there is a True Catholicism™.