Why pretend to be Christians?

smokingman

I'm not trolling here, just very curious as to why someone would consider themselves Christian when you don't agree with parts of the Bible, which is your Gods word on paper.

I sign an employment contract that says I'm an engineer and that's what I follow - engineering. While there may be bits I don't want to get to know (fluid dynamics etc), I can't disagree with the rules.

If I was to consider myself a Christian, I would have to say to myself, "I agree with the rules".

I know some of the rules in the Bible are of a different age (woman, know your place etc..) but surely if this was an eternal book of Gods word, it would have to be adhered to properly?

Are fundamentalists the only true Christians?

PDN

Being a Christian means living as a follower of Jesus Christ, and trying to live your life according to His teachings.

That is a very separate issue from believing that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God and without error.

For myself, I am both a Christian and a firm believer in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. But I recognise that there are many Christians who sincerely desire to follow Christ, but don't share my views on the Bible.

You do, however, appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the Bible is. The Bible is not primarily a book of rules, although it does contain some rules.

The Bible is a record of God's revelation of Himself to man, and how man has responded to that revelation. It contains history, poetry, proverbs, stories and some rules.

Zombrex

smokingman wrote: »

I'm not trolling here, just very curious as to why someone would consider themselves Christian when you don't agree with parts of the Bible, which is your Gods word on paper.

It is mostly cultural, at least in Ireland. Remember it is only recently (relatively speaking) that common folk Christians were even expected to actually read the Bible. These days it seems little more than a vague notion that there is a god a vague notion that the RCC is an authority to respect (highlighted by the recent anger at the church over the abuse cases) and a desire to get married in a church.

I would genuinely be surprised if 10% of reported Christians in Ireland were actually devout Christians in the sense that they have made an attempt at understanding of the Bible, make religion an important part of their lives and consider themselves to have a personal relationship with God (which seem to be the common attributes on this forum to consider yourself to be an actual Christian)

Sparkyd2002

Is the bible a contract? first I heard. Arent there many different versions of it and even more recently different transalations and interpretations. I consider myself Christian but only in the sense that i aspire to the main Christian values and beliefs. I dont subscribe to the fundamental interpretations of any religion. that said even just commenting on a topic like this can bring down great wrath and furious anger from certain boardsies :-)

Zombrex

Sparkyd2002 wrote: »

Is the bible a contract? first I heard.

I think that is the point :P

antiskeptic

Sparkyd2002 wrote: »

I consider myself Christian but only in the sense that i aspire to the main Christian values and beliefs.

One of those main beliefs is that men are born sinners and that the only way they can be saved from the consequences of their sin and come into a relationship with God is through the finished work of his son, Jesus Christ. Do you share in that main belief?

I dont subscribe to the fundamental interpretations of any religion

What's the difference between a 'fundamental interpretation' and a 'main belief'?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I would genuinely be surprised if 10% of reported Christians in Ireland were actually devout Christians in the sense that they have made an attempt at understanding of the Bible, make religion an important part of their lives and consider themselves to have a personal relationship with God

I'd be genuinely surprised if the number of devout Christians so defined was a significant fraction of that 10%.

It's not a clear decider of anything I know, but where I go to church, perhaps 3% of the population attend a Sunday service of any denomination.

smokingman

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's the difference between a 'fundamental interpretation' and a 'main belief'?

This would be a big question in my eyes.
If you read the Bible and take every word as true, are you a fundamentalist?

Manach

Reasons I'd consider myself a Catholic Christian is in that
<1> I attempt to follow the tenants of the Faith as laid down by the creed. Instead of the analogy of engineering it might be more akin to following the Bunreacht, where members of the common community follow a guiding document of about 50 sections, but the interpretation of the sections fill library shelves if it is meant to be a living document or else strictly adhered to as per its original intent circa-1937.
<2> I get a free secret decoder ring, any day now, any day...

antiskeptic

smokingman wrote: »

This would be a big question in my eyes.
If you read the Bible and take every word as true, are you a fundamentalist?

I'm not sure what you mean by taking every word as 'true'. If it says Jesus turned water into wine then I take that as true. If it says Jesus is a lamb I don't think it's true that he's an actual lamb.

If you don't hold to certain main beliefs, are you a Christian?

smokingman

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you don't hold to certain main beliefs, are you a Christian?

How do you define the main beliefs as opposed to those that can be "disgarded" as metaphor? Is this part of the Popes job or is it all up to individual interpretation?

28064212

Christianity is far too broad a definition to say anyone is wrong to call themselves Christian. Any vague belief that Jesus of Nazareth was an important figure is a sufficient qualification.

However, the churches which fall under the umbrella term of Christianity are much more strict. Calling yourself a member of the Catholic Church when you don't believe much of its doctrine makes no sense. You might as well be a black man calling himself a member of the KKK because he supports their policy on same-sex marriages. It's nonsensical if you disagree with most of the central tenets

antiskeptic

smokingman wrote: »

How do you define the main beliefs as opposed to those that can be "disgarded" as metaphor? Is this part of the Popes job or is it all up to individual interpretation?

It's up to yourself in all cases - whether you interpret yourself or let someone else, like the Pope, do the interpretation for you doesn't alter it being your accepted conclusion.

If someone supposes, for example, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus a metaphor - yet calls themselves a Christian - then there is nothing preventing them doing that.

smokingman

antiskeptic wrote: »

If someone supposes, for example, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus a metaphor - yet calls themselves a Christian - then there is nothing preventing them doing that.

...but would it not be dishonest to call yourself a Christian in that case?

antiskeptic

smokingman wrote: »

...but would it not be dishonest to call yourself a Christian in that case?

I don't see why. Incongruent perhaps but not dishonest.

The most congruent postion demands that you accept he live, died and was resurrected. And that all of what he said is relevant - including for example, the bit about him being the only way sinful men can gain eternal life.

smokingman

antiskeptic wrote: »

And that all of what he said is relevant - including for example, the bit about him being the only way sinful men can gain eternal life.

So what's relevant? Can you ignore the bit where he said to truely follow him, you must get rid of all your wealth? Is Christianity more a pick'n'mix belief?

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

So what's relevant? Can you ignore the bit where he said to truely follow him, you must get rid of all your wealth? Is Christianity more a pick'n'mix belief?

Please quote where He said that everyone who wants to truly follow Him must get rid of all their wealth. You can't accuse people of ignoring something that doesn't actually exist.

28064212

smokingman wrote: »

So what's relevant? Can you ignore the bit where he said to truely follow him, you must get rid of all your wealth? Is Christianity more a pick'n'mix belief?

Yes, of course it is. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be thousands of different churches all calling themselves Christian. Which set of beliefs are you talking about?

You might as well say an atheist must agree with everything Dawkins says. It's just an umbrella term

antiskeptic

smokingman wrote: »

So what's relevant? Can you ignore the bit where he said to truely follow him, you must get rid of all your wealth? Is Christianity more a pick'n'mix belief?

It would appear (from the number of denominations out there) that Christianity does indeed involve a degree of pick and mix when it comes to interpretation.

As ever, it's up to yourself what you think is congruent. That the rest of the world considers it incongruent that a Jesus-is-a-myth believer still call himself a Christian doesn't make it so. I suppose/