Are you a "Christian"?

Something to think about - if you are basing your agnostic position on what you have seen some people do in some religious organizations, I can assure you that there will always be corruption as long as people are involved because we are all sinners. However, after reading the bible and studying some of the leadership characteristics of people like Jesus, David, Nehemiah, and others, I found that there are common values and characteristics of faith that can only come from God, and effectively made me a better leader. For instance, when I realized and believed that all authority comes form Him, this really made me want to do the right thing in every situation - not just for my fellow man, but ultimately for Him!

I've heard it said before: "I'd rather live my life with God and die to find out I was wrong, rather than to live my life without God only to die and find out I was wrong!"

SPC(P) Jay Heenan I agree on your contex of not trying to convert non-belivers beucase i also believe everyone has a right to there own belief. I hope that if someone comes to Christ because of me it is not because i told them you have to to go to heaven. It is because they saw how i live my life and how happy it makes me.

PO2 Corey Ferretti - you are exactly right - to add some clarity, the holy spirit brings people to Christ. Jesus did say (and do) in John 13:34-35 (NIV)
34 “... Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Jesus demonstrated His love for us - and God preserved the text so we would be able to know how to love for more than 2000 years now and the bible has been widely considered the the best selling book ever, for centuries, - I wonder why?

Hi Capt Gregory Prickett,

Thanks for your reply!

I'm familiar with Pascal's Wager and have read thru the WIKI article - and I agree with the viewpoint that from a cynical perspective, it's pointless - however, in fact, I prefaced that quote with "I've heard it said before:" - you misquoted me as actually saying that.

I do believe in the most sincere way in the God who inspired the bible - and certainly not "just because I would be better off too than not too" - but that's just me.

Now, as far as the history of other documents, I have to admit that I am not a historian, but I do know that the Tanakh is primarily a subset of old testament books and a little quick research on the Confucianism works said these date back to 3rd/4th century, BC - and parts of the old testament date back to 4, 5 even 6 century - BC. The Vedas are among the oldest ancient texts for sure - 1700-1100 BC - so - I wasn't too far off technically, but I stand corrected on that point. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

In my mind, I wasn't comparing the bible to other ancient texts anyway, I was comparing it to modern books written by men and women and attempting to draw the point that these books will not be around 2000 years from now, but I imagine the bible will be.

I'll make sure to make that point more clear next time.

And this is why I dislike to get into the "definition" arguement of who is a "true ______." Oceans of blood has been shed (and is being shed) trying to decide who the "true followers" are. You'd think by now that we would have moved past this kind of stuff.

Your statement "He fulfilled Christ's desire to have an Apostolic faith" really confuses me. From everything I've ever read on the subject, Jesus had no intention of creating another Faith, he just wanted his people to become better Jews! I know this slaps some Christians in the proverbial face but, can you show me something that says otherwise?

I have no problem with what Jesus was teaching. I was born and raised a Catholic so, believe I might know a little about Christianity. I always had questions that never seemed to have correct answers. When I would ask the Nuns, Priests, or Monsignors, I would get vague answers with the inevitable "God has a plan and ours is not to question it" type of answer. So, seeing many contradictions and no answers from the Bible and other 'church approved' documents/histories, I finally delved into what is called the Apocrypha, the "non-church approved" documentation. What an eye opener that was! I highly recommend it for anyone who seeks more knowledge than what is just contained in the Bible.

It is in that search for more knowledge that I believe I finally found what Christ wanted. Not a new church or religion but, an improvement in the Jewish faith! After all, Christ celebrated Passover, observed the dietary restrictions of Moses, expelled the money lenders and stalls from the Temple. These are not the acts of someone creating a new religion, these are the acts of one wanting to improve and purify what is already existing.

It was his disciples that created the new religion, the new church. Actually, 3 large religion/churches were created by them, plus a few smaller ones. The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic Churches were the largest. Then there was the Council of Nicaea in approx 325 AD where the birth of the New Testament took place and the deification of Jesus, voted upon by the bishops present (by default, the Apocrypha, or books not used in the New Testament, was created as well).

All this knowledge is great and I urge anyone who believes to pursue it. God gave us the brains to pursue knowledge, it seems such a waste not to.

So, in answer to your question; "Does Roman Catholicism fall within your definition of "Christian?"", I truly believe it does. From everything I've read, there is no way it cannot! As for what "Christian" means, that's another whole book all by itself. One in which you seem to have a good start on. At least you realize that the Catholic faith was a creation of the disciples, not of Jesus!

Sgt Andrew Kenney, I disagree with you on your assessment that Jesus didn't want to create a new religion. That He only wanted to improve Judaism. You said, "From everything I've ever read on the subject, Jesus had no intention of creating another Faith, he just wanted his people to become better Jews! I know this slaps some Christians in the proverbial face but, can you show me something that says otherwise?"

I can show you the Bible and specific actions by Jesus that contradict your assessment of Jesus' intentions.

Since you mentioned that you were raised Catholic, I'll say that you're missing some of the most fundamental tenets of the Christian, and more specifically Catholic, faith.

You're right that Jesus celebrated Passover for he was a Jew, and he was observant of Mosaic Law. But during that last Passover feast with his disciples, Jesus created a "new and everlasting covenant." From Mark, "While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."

Then after He is risen, Jesus visits the disciples. On the last visitation according to John, "[Jesus] said to them again,l “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

You can't view Christianity as an improvement of Judaism because Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is God made man who sacrificed himself for humanity. Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. God gave his flesh and blood at that last Passover meal. Then after He rises, he tells His disciples "...I send you."

Jesus created a new covenant with humanity, by literally shedding his body and blood and sharing it with his disciples and the world. That is the Eucharist. The fruit of the vine and the work of human hands literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus through the power of God and the mystery of faith.

The disciples could not have created a new religion any more than they could have walked on water or changed water to wine or fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish. It was not within their power to do so. They could only fulfill their mandate that was given to them by God.

Peter was touched by God to build his church. According to the Gospel of Matthew, "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus gave man the keys to his Church on earth and instructed Peter to build that Church. That responsibility, of the Pope, is passed on through an Apostolic process and is sanctioned by God.

Now I will agree that any good scholar will research the books that have not been included as part of the New Testament, but that doesn't mean that Bible isn't the Truth in regard to Judeo-Christianity.

As religion is a matter of faith and, people can easily have different levels of faith, I can see what we each believe is slightly different. Since I only got in on this to express an opinion, I'm not going to enter into any type of debate over what part or parts of Christianity, or belief in Christ, are right or wrong. I have too much respect for your level of faith to do that. So, let's just say we disagree on a few points.

Being raised Catholic, I was introduced to the stories, passages, and mysteries of the New Testament from an early age. As I mentioned earlier, there were always questions I couldn't get complete answers on. Even now, with the books outside of the bible I've read, there are still unanswered questions but, a few less than before. Yet, I'm still a believer in God, the almighty and, I try to follow the teachings of Christ, even if not the belief in him that I was brought up to have. Does that make me any less a Christian? Who can honestly say he knows? Such is the mystery of faith.

The tipping point for me was when I first became aware of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. I discovered that "Christianity", at this time, was a very wide and diverse system of belief and knowledge. This was causing instability and fracturing in the early Catholic Church. The Council was called to basically establish the canon and a common core of beliefs and practices for the Church (dogma). The collection of Bishops and senior clergy debated on and voted on the books to make up the New Testament. The Roman based Church, somehow being the strongest and most influential at the time, had a heavy hand in the formation of the New Testament so, it's not surprising that many of the books have stories leaning toward the Catholic faith (established by Peter and Paul) as the foundation/authority on the Christian faith.

In actuality, there were 5 disciples that have made the foundation of what we call Christendom. Peter and Paul, of course, established the Roman Church. Peter also established the church in what is now Southern Turkey/Northern Syria, Andrew, in the area now know as Istanbul, Mark in Egypt and James in Jerusalem. As time went by and the Church grew, Rome, being the largest city/metropolitan center in the Roman empire was given an un-official role as first among equals. So, it's debatable that what Peter and Paul established became what it is by divine right. Also, it seems that if it was divine right, we wouldn't have the schisms within Christendom we experience today.

Not only that, history has revealed to us that many Popes were not the best "Representatives of God on Earth" that they were suppose to be. Like many men, some fell to the evils of wealth, power, and influence. Even today, all one has to do is look toward the news to find evidence of corruption and cancer in the Catholic Church. After all, we are only human and, last I checked, so is most of the clergy, including the Pope.

So, while I may do my best to follow in Christ's footsteps, I don't take the stories in the New Testament as literally as I once did. The message and teachings he left us were good and are worth following in ones life. That, for me, is as close to a Christian as one really needs to be. If one were to follow these teachings their entire life, without ever knowing the source, would that still condemn them at the time of Judgement? I think not. Again, this is all only my opinion.

I like your response - thank you!

AMEN! Too bad not all "Christians" think this way!

Agreed. Thinking this way is easy to say, but very difficult to do. Its a life long process.
You can sum up in one word, what the term Christian means; it means, "TO LOVE"! You try to be like Jesus Christ; "He loved everyone". God Bless Mark

Being a follower does not mean your a Christian. Now, being a follower and obeying Gods word, now that's a totally different story! Just making comment doug.

About the only thing I can say to that is that if you are not obeying, you really aren't following. In contemporary America, as this post illustrates, there are many people who identify as a Christian without having even the vaguest idea what that means. Many inherit the title from their parents, as if their upbringing somehow secures their place in eternity.

No, I tend to disagree with you. The only real Christians are those who follow Gods commands, but that alone does not make one a Christian.

It's too bad that a "Christian" is not the same as a disciple. :-) The world would be a much better place if it was.

Amen - certainly our Savior came to save us - first and foremost - but He also wanted us to know and understand God a bit more - and if you want to know God - the best you can do is to know Jesus. And once you start to know him, you will not want to be a label, you'll want to be His follower (whatever you want to call that) and you will genuinely care for others - just as HE did!

Thanks and I agree that labels can impact us either positively or negatively. Jesus, in fact, did NOT use the word "Christian" to define His followers - He used the word disciples - and being a disciple is pretty well defined in the bible. The word "Christian" was used to describe followers of Jesus (or "The Way") in a derogatory way by those who were against the movement. One more quick point - while "most religions have a basic theme" might be true, and if the "theme" can be described as "we all fall short of standards (the laws) and/or we all need a path to salvation (or somewhere other than here on earth)" then Christianity is different in two primary ways -
1. Our faith is not rooted in a book or something someone said, our faith is rooted in HISTORY of actual events that happened - and were recorded by people (many different people) who witnessed it first hand - Jesus died on a Roman cross and rose from the dead.
2. No other religion has a path to salvation in heaven simply by placing your faith (or trust) in point number 1 - and - this GIFT (from God) is available to ALL people - regardless of race, religion, age, sexual orientation or whatever - it's open to everyone!