From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: What is a christian?
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:36:37 GMT

In article <1337@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox)  
writes:
> What is a christian?
> 
>      I have been reading many of the postings in this group. I have
> responded to a few. I have read things about homsexuality and the
> bible, and responded. I have read things about the logic of  
christianity.

	Sometimes those last two things don't go together well.

> I think that there is a problem with what christianity really is. It can
> be defined how ever anyone wants it to.

	Bingo!  The inerrist notes the multiplicity of interpretive  
methods, the errist points out the ambiguities.  Of course, this is only a  
problem if one wants to believe that Christianity should be globally well  
defined.

> I will say though that as a
> christian I always thought that it catagorized those people who have
> accepted Jesus as thier LORD and SAVIOR.

	Okay, so as long as we have a clear definition for Lord and  
Savior, then we'll be able to classify.

> The second part is the one
> that most people have no problem dealing with.

	Really?  I bet you'd find "most people" in the world aren't  
Christian.  I note distribution is usa, so maybe you just mean most people  
in the states, which _is_ more Christian-oriented.  The problem is that  
"most people" are fuzzy about the matter.  "Oh, yeah, I believe in God,  
kind of.  I don't go to church much, but I believe in God.  I'm Christian,  
yeah, I grew up that way, so I know that Jesus died for us, and all  
that..."  I would say that "Lord" and "Savior" aren't really  
disassociable, and that such people aren't really accepting him as Savior;  
they are just repeating words that they have heard before.

> Or better yet people
> don't have a problem believing that Jesus existed or does exist, for
> what ever thier reasons. Heck, why is that hard? It is a historical
> fact that Jesus existed.

	Wait.  Be careful, you are about to make a serious error, by  
allowing slippage between different meanings of the same word to take  
place.  I have read early, non-Christian documents that appear to suggest  
that a man referred to as Christ existed.  However, such documents do not  
say much about the man; certainly not that he was the Son of God!  Satan  
would have no doubt that Christ existed, but he would undoubtedly know a  
great deal more than that!  Jesus (the man) as referred to in the  
documents is not "the same" Jesus (Lord and Savior) that Satan and  
Christians know, in that the latter subsumes the former.

> I have only this to say about that. The devil
> himself has no doubt that Jesus existed and is he in heaven? So it seems
> to me that you have to do more than acknowledge Jesus as your savior.

	Woah!  Are you saying that Satan acknowledges Jesus as his Savior?   
Just because he acknowledges him as a Savior (which I imagine you would be  
willing to assert), that doesn't mean that his acknowledges him as _his_.

> You
> have to make him your lord. This is probably very old news some people.
> What I am trying to say here is that NO where is it said that one has
> to believe in Jesus without proof.

	That is true.  If you had to, there wouldn't be anything such as  
faith.  On the other hand, if there was proof, there wouldn't be faith,  
either.  Good thing that we have 1) no proof and 2) free will.

> In fact God has created the bible for just that reason.

	A very nice thought.  Reminds me of "God won't let good people go  
to hell just because they don't believe in Jesus."  Just because  
statements make us feel comfortable doesn't mean that they are true.  I  
don't think that you can support that statement at all; in the first  
place, if you used The Bible itself, then you'd be using circular  
arguments.  (Even if you did, I don't think that you'd be able to find  
support for that statement.  Hint: be careful about references in The  
Bible to Scripture.  When reading that word, think, "When the author wrote  
this, what was he referring to?  What do I claim it refers to?  Do those  
two things match up, and if not, why not?")

> Now one might ask "ok so what does that mean I
> make Jesus my lord."

	This is covered pretty well in the Bible.

> It simply means that you hand control of your life
> to God.

	Sort of.  If your life was a car, you would not be turning over  
the steering wheel; no hands will reach out and grab the wheel.  You are  
still responsible for making sure that you don't crash into the telephone  
poles.  But God has given you a road map, and will provide you with  
directions to get where He wants you to.  But _you_ still have to  
impliment it.

> This is said to be hard for you are giving your life to He that 
> does not speak to you, that you cannot sense with any of the senses,  
that
> you do not even know. I tell you that none of those things are true. God
> does speak to you, you can sense Him, you can Know Him.

	Again, be careful with your definitions.  When someone says that  
they can't hear God speaking to them, that they cannot sense Him, they  
mean in the mundane manner.  It is true that you can't use the mundane  
senses to interact with God, isn't it?  (If I understand you correctly.)   
You take their statements to mean something that they don't intend it to  
mean, then tell them that such statements aren't true.  This tends to  
confuse and alienate the people that ask such questions, and serves no  
useful purpose, as far as I can tell.  Besides, it makes you look  
antagonistic, whether you want to or not.


> It all seems way
> too easy and that is the problem.

	That's for sure!

> We live in a world where nothing is free.
> where you pay a price for all that you have. Well the price has already
> been paid. We only have to pick up what was purchased and enjoy it.

	Except that a lot of Christianity today isn't focused on enjoying  
it, but rather about trying to become superhuman.

> I ask
> you then what is a christian? If a christian was asked by his father to 
> obey his guidelines what would be his response:
> 
> A: I know in my heart the father would not have said this it must be  
wrong

	Don't be silly.  No one, just after being told something from his  
father, would deny his father said it.  If the father was a human, and  
therefore fallible, and the command was rediculous, then the command might  
be questioned, but no one would question an omnipotent Father asking such  
a thing.  The problem is in determining What It Is that the Father is  
asking, precisely.  Your model is very poor; if God simply told us in the  
same manner that a mundane father would, there would be no need for the  
Bible.

> b) There is know proof that God said this to be true.

	I think you mean "no".

> c) I will do my best, for I trust that my father would not lead me  
astray

	Again, this would occationally be questioned when a mundane father  
is involved.  Finally, note that most of the leading isn't done by the  
Father directly, but through a rather old and translated document, and  
quite fallible humans.  Claiming that the Father's message is insured to  
be held true through these fallible measures begs the question as to why  
God doesn't just implant the Truth in us directly when we ask for it.

> "He who has the knowledge of God knows it to be truth, there is know  
believing
>  to it! He is also  open to all opposition for how could what is true be  
false."

	Who are you quoting this from?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  send me some mail! I like mail.....:)

--
David E. Hollingsworth
starpath@bard.mit.edu
NeXTMail: yummy
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc