Comments on: Which Do You Believe?

By: Zach

Zach — Mon, 29 May 2006 04:02:20 +0000

Spike - This is true. The only difference with Christianity is that it is a label for a core belief system. If it was simply another word that had some baggage, I wouldn’t hesitate to keep the term; however, since it is applied to such a large part of what I believe, sometimes I have a hard time justifying the misuse over the years. These comments were made when I was quite frustrated with the whole system, hence the reason for the extremity of what I wrote.

Thanks for your visit and your comment!

By: Spike

Spike — Sun, 28 May 2006 19:03:46 +0000

“Christian” is no more “Christ-follower” than “reptilian” is “reptile-follower” or “New Orleanian” is New Orleans-follower”. I think “Christian” is Christ-LIKE” and/or “FROM-Christ”, which, I think cannot be applied to most religions, even some actions undertaken in the same name.

Abraham Lincoln asked, “if you call a goat’s tail, “a leg”, how many legs will a goat have? “Four”, he said. “Just because you call a goat’s tail a leg, doesn’t make it one.” You, me, themselves or others may some/all reliegions Christian– that is not the determining factor. Are they from-Christ and/or like-Christ? Beats me.

Shall we abandon all words that get burdened with the baggage of tradition, misuse, error? If so, I sense our vocabularies getting smaller and smaller. As a lover of words and their ability to express our thoughts and feelings, I think I shall “not go gently into that good night”. I fight for things that have value. Words, all of them, “Christian” included, have value as enabling better expression, and they are all worth the trouble of reclaiming when abused.

By: Zach

Zach — Wed, 10 May 2006 15:32:19 +0000

I agree, though I think I disagree with the usage of the term Christianity. It’s just had so much baggage attached to it with tradition, I don’t think it’s worth the term to go through the pains of attempting to reclaim it.

Thanks for your comments!

By: isaiah

isaiah — Tue, 09 May 2006 13:11:26 +0000

“‘Christ-followers’ can belong to just about any religion I think.”

Yes. The more I learn of other religions, especially eastern, the more clear Christianity become to me….the more clear I see Jesus.

Jesus also said, “Deny thyself.” Another universal spiritual principle.

By: Zach

Zach — Tue, 09 May 2006 00:53:23 +0000

Love God and love others. Take care of widows and orphans. This was Jesus’ description of true religion in general. Christianity technically wasn’t really founded until after Jesus died, so I consider his teachings to concern a more general practice, and I would say that this would be the definition of “Christ-followers” but not of the Christian religion. I would not call what Christianity today (at least the average version practiced by the Christian population) a true religion (it is a religion, but not a “true religion” as Jesus defined it.)

“Christ-followers” can belong to just about any religion I think.

By: isaiah

isaiah — Tue, 09 May 2006 00:34:56 +0000

What did Jesus say it meant to be a Christian?

By: Zach

Zach — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:10:51 +0000

I’m not sure. If one did not believe any of the statements he or she would definitely not be a Christian in the classical sense, but could be if the person totally redefined for themselves what Christianity meant. But in that case it would be one person’s redefinition (or a few people’s) against millions of peoples fundamentalist beliefs.

I guess this brings up the question of what does the term Christian mean. I personally steer away from labelling myself as Christian (even though in many regards I am) because I would rather not label myself as such than attempt to rebrand a term that has had case after case of misuse.

By: isaiah

isaiah — Mon, 08 May 2006 17:08:53 +0000

Interesting-

Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe any of the statements?