May 3, 2012 -- 11:39AM, Joe68 wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 4:06PM, Ironhold wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 11:46AM, Joe68 wrote:

An atheist can give to the poor. Does that make him a Christian?

A pagan can obey her parents. Does that make her Christian?

What about the Christian who doesn't do those things?

I think that might be what Jesus was growing concerned with.

Christianity has always been about orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

You missed my point, and so I shall rephrase the question.

Which is better: a good pagan or a bad Christian?

May 4, 2012 -- 1:13AM, Joe68 wrote:

What do you mean by “better”?  Do you mean more commendable? Making more contributions to society? I don’t even know if it is possible to quantify who is “better” in those matters. Or do you mean their eternal destinies? Or something else? 

What do you mean by “bad Christian”? Do you mean a Christian who sins? But all Christians sin. Do you mean somebody who merely “says” they are a “christian” but do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. But that would mean that they are not really a Christian. Or something else? I can’t intelligently address your question until you define it better

I'll use hypothetical characters from a series I'm writing so as to not bias anything.

#1 - On the surface, Rev. Bubba Dick might seem to be another generic Southern Evangelical fundamentalist: sermon every Sunday, activities throughout the week, strong calling to preach the word as he understands it, et cetra. His congregation loves him, and he does his best to love them back.

However, Dick is both shockingly ignorant and shockingly hateful. Not only does he believe that other faiths are incorrect, he believes that a few are so heinously blasphemous that direct action must be taken against them in order for "Christianity" to triumph. This led to him and some of his more loyal followers smuggling guns to a religious protest targeting a "heretical" Christian group. Three guesses what happened next, but suffice to say that the Reverend is now behind bars.

#2 - On the surface, Lehi "Duke" Hollister is straight from a "Good Christian's" nightmares. A tall, somewhat imposing figure, Duke is a devout Mormon who has a reputation among the local mainline Christian churches for being nigh unbeatable when it comes to apologetic works. Not only does he go and dissect critical works at length, his knowledge of all things Christian actually puts him on par with some of the local ministers. Suffice to say that more than a few would-be "defenders of the faith" are completely rattled by the time they disengage from him, and a few even leave their congregations to become Mormon.

Thing is, Duke - who is independently wealthy - routinely uses his money, wits, and size for the betterment of others. He's literally dropped thousands of dollars at a time on assorted charitable endevors, and is famous for liberally stocking the local food bank with assorted canned and jarred foodstuffs of his own making. His scholarly papers are causing quite the stir among several fields of academia. He, his inner circle, and the biker gangs they've made treaties with have all but eradicated the more serious crimes in the city, as due to incidents over the past few years - including his single-handedly taking down Dick & his gun-toting friends despite their having shot him several times - they're all more feared by criminals than the local police force.

In this case, who has lived a more Christian lifestyle: the minister who had the "right" beliefs but used them to justify a terrible decision, or the "heretical" Mormon who so freely gives of himself - up to and including putting his life on the line - for others?

May 5, 2012 -- 10:02AM, Joe68 wrote:

I suppose you ask these questions because you hope to show that Mormons live better “Christian” lives than real Christians.  Even if the were true, which I know for a fact is incorrect since I know of many Christians who live exemplarily lives – as do many LDS. But that is only half of the equation.  The LDS unfortunately follow non-Biblical doctrines which lead them to a non-Biblical Jesus and a non-Biblical gospel all in service to a non-Biblical god. What good does living a “Christian lifestyle” without the Biblical Jesus Christ ultimately do for anyone?   

You didn't answer my question.

Joe; WWA, with the warning Christians are given in the NT about false Christs and false gospels it is difficult to understand your view that we must accept anyone and every one who says “I’m a Christian” –

That’s because I’m not worrying whether they are saved or not. I see you as a nice Christian man, you try to follow Christ the best you know how to. I disagree with you but your salvation is between you and the Lord.

I do tend to draw the line on accepting Christ as deity or not. There are some who claim to be followers of Jesus but they do not accept him as the Son of God. To me that is not Christian, it’s like belonging to a club or something.

Joe; An atheist can give to the poor. Does that make him a Christian? A pagan can obey her parents. Does that make her Christian?

What you are asking is are they saved? Because the atheist feeds the poor is he saved? You are equating again the word Christian to being saved, only saved people can call themselves Christian.

Yet you agree there are many who accept all your points of doctrine and on the outside appear to be Christian but they are not save for they lack that personal relationship. So they can’t really be Christian by your definition can they?

There are Muslims and under the umbrella of Muslims there are many different sects. There are Hindus and under the Hindu umbrella there are many different sects. The same is true of Christianity, it’s a large umbrella with many different denominations. Some Christians are saved and some are not.

Paul answered your question;
Rom 2 (Barclay)

“…When the heathen who do not possess any law do by natural instinct what the law demands, although they possess no law, they are their own law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts. On the day when God judges the secrets of men through Jesus Christ …their conscience will agree with the verdict and their own inmost thoughts will accuse them, or even sometimes excuse them..”

May 6, 2012 -- 2:08AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

The faith Jesus taught in the gospels was never salvation-centric but love-centric. Salvation was preached only as a secondary teaching -- as a carrot for the weaker minds in order that they too learn to love others even if only for self-preservation. Much of the most raucous forms of Christianity today is palpably self-centric (read: salvation-centric). It seems more concerned with what God can give me, and how to sell that self-serving gift to others. It is concerned with God serving us. By contrast, the faith exemplified by Jesus in the gospels is concerned with serving God by serving others. Some would of course regard saving others by clamorous evangelizing as "serving others", rather than unconditional acts of kindness and goodness to others without any strings attached. I personally believe that the Great Commission was never meant to be the Great Commercial.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:35)

Yes, even the atheist or Hindu aid worker that helps the poor, loves his enemies and wants to be a peacemaker is more Christian than the "Christian" who breeds hatred, bias and division in the world by chronically compartmentalizing the God-favoured from the God-forsaken. Joel Osteen clearly carries the torch of grace better than some other Christians. And they begrudge him for his gracious views by appeal to certain oft-repeated but seriously misquoted Bible verses. God is not a theological nit-picker. He looks at the purity of our hearts.

I may disagree with the Mormons on much of their theological doctrine, but I think in practice they are often far better Christians than most. That's what counts in God's sight even more than theological accuracy. And while I'm at it, the salvation-cultists (who confidently declare they're true Christians while the rest ain't) aren't theologically accurate either if we were to nit-pick on what the NT actually says.

When the missionary E. Stanley Jones met with Gandhi he asked him, "Mr. Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?" Gandhi replied, "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

The faith Jesus taught in the gospels is neither salvation centric nor love centric. It is Christ centric.

The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-8). Which is why Paul says he was determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2) Paul is not excluding or diminishing the value of love or any other areas of doctrine. He is simply stating what the foundation is.

The gospel brings news primarily, rather than instruction. If Jesus is not risen from the dead, then as Paul says then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain (1 Cor 15:14). Christianity does not work without the risen Christ.

The way Christians treat the poor, care for their cities, treat orphans and widows is a good indication whether the Christian or the Church takes seriously the Gospel one professes. The Gospel is not just words one professes. The Gospel is words one professes accompanied by action that demonstrates a heart- transformation has been wrought by the Holy Spirit resulting in the display of the fruits of the Spirit, godliness and service to the King of Kings, for His glory alone.

The gospel is the news that Jesus Christ’s life and death and resurrection in history has achieved our salvation. And salvation is not simply a ticket to heaven but the ability to live a life of love in the here and now.