How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[Immanuel Can]

Pope...

Is a Catholic, not a Christian.

So anyone who believes in Jesus Christ but does not interpret the Bible as you do is not Christian.

Anybody who does not obey what Christ said is not a Christian.

Take that definition as far as you like.

I also answered what good is.

You said it's whatever pleases Bahman.

That definition is no good for anybody else. Nobody else is in charge of what pleases you. And you can simply change your own mind, if you want, and decide that whatever God does pleases you.

So do that. Or don't. Nobody owes you anything, then.

[Immanuel Can]

So which cult is the real kristian one?

Christianity is following Christ. Those who do that are Christians. Those who do not, and make up their own religions and ways of salvation, are not.

That's just definitional. Take it as far as you like.

[bahman]

Is a Catholic, not a Christian.

So anyone who believes in Jesus Christ but does not interpret the Bible as you do is not Christian.

Anybody who does not obey what Christ said is not a Christian.

Take that definition as far as you like.

But there are many branches of Christianity each thinks that they are right and following Jesus.

[Immanuel Can]

So anyone who believes in Jesus Christ but does not interpret the Bible as you do is not Christian.

Anybody who does not obey what Christ said is not a Christian.

Take that definition as far as you like.

But there are many branches of Christianity each thinks that they are right and following Jesus.

Follow Christ.

Then you'll know who's doing it, and who's just talking about doing it.

[Belinda]

So which cult is the real kristian one?

Christianity is following Christ. Those who do that are Christians. Those who do not, and make up their own religions and ways of salvation, are not.

That's just definitional. Take it as far as you like.

Your answer to Veggy relies too much on interpretation. What is definitive of Xianity is the Resurrection event. You can usually get away with not believing in Virgin Birth or miracles but they will insist the Resurrection event is pivotal.

[Immanuel Can]

So which cult is the real kristian one?

Christianity is following Christ. Those who do that are Christians. Those who do not, and make up their own religions and ways of salvation, are not.

That's just definitional. Take it as far as you like.

Your answer to Veggy relies too much on interpretation.

Not really, you'll find.

Jesus Christ was pretty clear on what He said. When you find somebody whose interpretation is too exotic, you can be guaranteed they're not trying to follow Him. But somebody who even uses common sense, and just gets literal -- even if overliteral, mistaking parables for literalities, say -- with what He said, will surely fall within the zone of what can legitimately called "Christians."

It's a broad pool. But it's not infinitely broad. It's constrained by the actual teaching of Christ.

What is definitive of Xianity is the Resurrection event.

This is certainly true. But one must do more than accept it in theory. One must embrace it as truth, and take its implications to heart for oneself. There is no such thing as an impersonal, merely cultural, or collective "Christianity" that is in any way truly Christian. It's all about one's relationship with Christ Himself. Absent that, there is no Christianity.

As for the Catholic hierarchy, they have long ago decided that the word of the popes is to supersede even the explicit words of Christ. For that reason, they have been called "Papists" instead of "Christians"; because any knowledgeable Catholic official will tell you that for them, the popes ARE the voice of God, when they speak ex cathedra. So nothing Christ ever said is definitive for the Catholic hierarchy.

Still, within the denominational field of the Catholics, one will still find some that love Christ, have put their faith in Him, and prefer Him to the popes and clergy. And those are true Christians, even if they happen to call themselves "Catholics."

Like I say, it's an inclusive pool. But not infinitely so.

[bahman]

Anybody who does not obey what Christ said is not a Christian.

Take that definition as far as you like.

But there are many branches of Christianity each thinks that they are right and following Jesus.

Follow Christ.

Then you'll know who's doing it, and who's just talking about doing it.

My point is that if the door for many interpretations was not open then there was only one Christianity.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

It's a broad pool. But it's not infinitely broad. It's constrained by the actual teaching of Christ.

What Jesus actually said is uncertain. Scholars have been working on that very question. Please see The Jesus Seminar.

[Immanuel Can]

But there are many branches of Christianity each thinks that they are right and following Jesus.

Follow Christ.

Then you'll know who's doing it, and who's just talking about doing it.

My point is that if the door for many interpretations was not open then there was only one Christianity.

There is one genuine Christianity, in spite of some variation of understanting on minor themes. You will find that the "many interpretations" are actually not so "many," when you eliminate from your count those who do not regard what Christ clearly and explicitly taught.

But you have to have read it in order to know how clear it actually is.

[Harbal]

There is one genuine Christianity,

And no true Scotsman would practice any other kind, presumably.

[Immanuel Can]

There is one genuine Christianity,

And no true Scotsman would practice any other kind, presumably.

No, it's not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

There are criteria for certain things. (If there are not, then there is also no definition at all.)

A "Scotsman" must be born in Scotland. He must be male (to be a "man"). Those things are criterial.

Must he live there all his life? Must he wear a kilt? Must he eat haggis? Those are debatable. But "born in Scotland" is criterial. So is "male." No true Scotsman can be a true Scots-man without those things.

Similarly, "Christian" is criterial. The very word gives the chief criterion: it means, "follower of Christ." So that gives us a basis for judgment: to what extent does this person "follow Christ"? And the details of that are worked out in what Christ Himself did and said.

[Harbal]

Similarly, "Christian" is criterial. The very word gives the chief criterion: it means, "follower of Christ." So that gives us a basis for judgment: to what extent does this person "follow Christ"? And the details of that are worked out in what Christ Himself did and said.

So if two people interpret the "teachings" and actions of Christ -as set out in the Bible- differently, who is the arbiter of which is the true Christian.

[Immanuel Can]

Similarly, "Christian" is criterial. The very word gives the chief criterion: it means, "follower of Christ." So that gives us a basis for judgment: to what extent does this person "follow Christ"? And the details of that are worked out in what Christ Himself did and said.

So if two people interpret the "teachings" and actions of Christ -as set out in the Bible- differently, who is the arbiter of which is the true Christian.

That becomes clear in specifics. So let's take one.

Jesus said, "You must be born again," and "Unless a person is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." (Jn.3)

So we can ask: can a person who believes that he does NOT need to be "born again" be a "Christian"?

[Harbal]

So we can ask: can a person who believes that he does NOT need to be "born again" be a "Christian"?

What exactly did he mean by "born again"?

[Immanuel Can]

So we can ask: can a person who believes that he does NOT need to be "born again" be a "Christian"?

What exactly did he mean by "born again"?

That's exactly what Nicodemus asked Him, when He said it.

An alternate translation of the Aramaic is "born from above."

Jesus explained, "That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Thus, what Christ is teaching here is that a person needs a spiritual 'rebirth' in which God actually constitutes him as a new person...meaning, with a new relationship to God and a new nature given to him in actuality, by God Himself.

In other words, there is no way a man will ever save himself. Good works will not do it. It will be by trusting in the One God has provided to do that. And it will be by way of a spiritual reconstitution of the person.

That's straightforward enough. And there's actually little debate about what He said there. The debate is over whether or not we, as hearers, will agree with Christ on that point.