siti
Well-Known Member
Sonny, you are making my argument for me...anyway, here's what I have said so far in summary in case I didn't express it very clearly...Look, we're all in this together. We have only one world with life. And, we have written codes describing what a Christian is and isn't. Of course, there are Codes for every walk of life, Archaeology, Geology, Geography, History, etc. None of us would think a second about following those rules but we seem to think everybody is a Christian who says they are. No! Having that warm, fuzzy feeling isn't from God, even if it has cool whip and a cherry on top. There are real and dangerous false churches out there deceiving and destroying lives. As I said, I can 'say' I am the King/Queen of England. But am I? How do we know if I am or not? There are codes (rules, guidelines, standards) that are clear-cut and fool-proof. The same applies to Christianity. Just bc we like people from a false group doesn't make them or it right or Christian. We have to apply the standard no matter how hard or offensive it may be. If we speak against some group it is (again) bc they taught, printed and published their beliefs for us to read. We (me) aren't the bad guys for simply repeating their beliefs. They are for teaching them. How I wish that thinking would permeate our 'everyone is right or deserves a trophy' culture. It just isn't true...or right.
1. Anybody can call themselves "Christian" - (one reason why - since you asked earlier - I would not use that label personally - in that sense it is meaningless (which I think is what you are also saying) - however, neither I nor you either could or should try to dissuade or prevent others from using it if that seems right to them
2. All that said, from my point of view, if someone really wants to be a "Christian" this means they are identifying as a follower of "Christ" and putting on themselves the obligation to live and teach according to the example and teachings of "Christ" - aren't they?
3. So, if a Church wants to call itself "Christian" then - I think, but they and you are more than welcome to disagree and call it "Christian" anyway - it should be teaching what "Christ" (reportedly) taught - with me so far?
4. "Christ" (reportedly) taught* that the two greatest commandments are to "Love God" (and John reportedly and quite reasonably said we can't say we love God and hate our brother - i.e. fellow humans) and the "Love one's neighbour" (Matthew 22:36-40; 1 John 4:20); he said that we should "do unto others as we would have them do unto ourselves" (Matthew 7:12); he said that following or not following this "commandment" would be the basis of judgement (Matthew 7:13-24) and he expanded on what this commandment and judgement meant (Matthew 25:31-46). Since these are the greatest commandments according to "Christ" and vitally important in terms of the prospect of "the life to come" that he also taught about, in my humble (and almost certainly irrelevant opinion) any Church that does not put these teachings - namely the doing of good to others - at the top of their list (as "Christ" so clearly did) is not following his teaching and therefore (in reality and regardless of what they might choose to be nominally) not Christian by definition**.
*According to the accepted canon of scripture - there is no independent confirmation anywhere that anyone called "Jesus" and supposed to be the "Christ" ever actually said or did these things of course.
** I haven't found one that is yet.