I wouldn't say a Jesus Follower is a Christian at all. You can follow the moral teachings of Jesus without even believing in God.

Not really. If you believe Jesus, you have to believe in God as Jesus said he was part of the Trinity (Father Son and Holy Spirit), in essence, he was part of God (it's a bit tricky, but in essence the Trinity is three-in-one. Three distinct people while being one person.). You maybe could follow some of the teachings, but they would have little if no authority without belief in Jesus' divinity.

I think your statement is accurate. In my case, I would say that I subscribe to the beliefs of the original Christians in the first couple of centuries C.E./A.D. (however you prefer to mark them).

My problem is with all the baggage attached to the name "Christian" as a result of really horrible things that have been done by people using that name.

I would rather talk about the positive aspects of faith (mine and others) than spend my time being forced to defend myself because of the actions of people claiming to be Christ-followers who have done so much that is diametrically opposed to his words and deeds (and my personal beliefs).

Ahhh...

ok, I get it now.


That's the ideal we subscribe to - the Christianity as it was during the 1st century -, but it has kind of been messed with (Inquisition, anyone?)

I go to a protestant church that is quite close to those ideals, although for logistical reasons we can't hold service in such small groups as the ancient Christians did (or maybe it's better this way, as they were persecuted).

Of course you can.It is just question of ethic source.

Matthew:
Amen! (no pun intended)

People need to concentrate on the great things religion can bring to them, as well as helping others find faith (without getting pushy), and stop name-calling all the other religions, stop the persecution, the religious wars, etc.

Many people say religion is the cause of almost all human suffering. I think that's off base. PEOPLE are the cause of almost all human suffering. We're a selfish lot, and we would have found a way to make people suffer with or without religion. It's just an easy excuse.

Amen

That is actually one of the best ways I've heard that put. Mind if I quote you sometime that argument comes up on another forum?

It will come up, it always does, and sure, quote away

I practice Buddhism, I personally don't have any problems with people that believe in Christianity or any other religion. I grew up in a Catholic home but as I got older I became more of a free-thinker and looked into Buddhism.

That's what I see as a huge problem for Christianity.

As you said, alot of Christians are either claiming to be Christian and are not, or are blindly following a crowd or thinking religion is somehow genetic (which ties in somewhat with the first category I gave). Then there are the people who truly believe. This last group is a group of free thinkers. They've examined God and found that it's right. I usually see that the most in tune Christians are the ones who either grew up in Christianity and then lost their faith, coming back recently, or those who were raised in an aetheist home and came to God.

I think that the most in-tune of ANY religion are the ones who have been forced to think about their religion (or just decided to for one reason or another) and have come to the conclusion of what is best for them. I respect that *real* belief. I have trouble respecting empty beliefs from those who have not really considered their faith.

A state of mind prone to induce irrational behavior, violence, and a reduction in the ability to think. Caused by brain washing in early life this disease could turn out to be fatal for mankind due to its ability to induce hatred and isolation in sub cultures. It would seem to be spreading through the increasing numbers of "faith schools" whereby young minds are infected, often permanently rendering them as instruments of new infection. See behaviors of the leaders of the world which now support the indoctrination centers both in the so called civilized countries as well as in the third world.

On a personnel note its almost a pity that hell dose not exist, because if it did, then I would have great pleasure in seeing GWBush and Blair rot in it.

For those of you interested in futher reading, I recomend Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion", and Daniel C Dennets book, "Breaking the spell".

What is really very scary is the rise of the so called ID (Intelligent Design) attacks on rational thinking and science.

Richard Dawkins is great to read. But I don't think that anyone should evangelize any religion (or lack thereof) as much as he wants people to evangelize atheism. People have a right to believe what they want. If anyone asks me about my religious beliefs I'll tell them, and if they seem willing to debate, I'll try to convince them that I'm right, while letting them try to convince me they're right. With every conversation my thoughts on the matter change. I grow intellectually and morally, and I hope the person discussing with me grows intellectually and morally, and perhaps spiritually. If I've changed some minds, great!

The kind of evangelism that Richard Dawkins pushes is no different from the kind of evangelism Pat Robertson pushes, and both are nothing but a cancer on our intellectual, moral, and spiritual growth.

You make the mistake that not beliving in a theory with no supporting eveidence is equivalent logically to beliving in it. Bertrand Russels teapot argument disposes of that point completely. Basically we can be either rational or irrational, don't try to justify relegion on rational grounds unless you want to play the ID or the anthropamorphic game.

Oh I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. That doesn't mean that discussing it is worthless. In debating things with others, I have yet to change my opinions about the universe, but I always get ways to look at religion that I hadn't gotten before. That doesn't mean I buy it. In fact it usually solidifies my views that I don't buy it.

Still, I don't agree with evangelizing atheism. If people wish to believe a theory with no supporting evidence it's not my business to convince them otherwise unless they express an interest in it.

What I find particularly amusing (or distressing) in conversations about religion/atheism are those people who feel the need to strongly defend their position, vigorously, emotionally, and sometimes violently.

On one side, if God is real and all powerful, he couldn't possibly feel vulnerable or intimidated by people's arguments against him. A being that powerful shouldn't be insecure and his followers shouldn't feel the need to speak vociferously on his behalf--he is big enough to defend himself, if needed.

On the other side, if there is no God, why worry about it? If the poor, deceived believer is going to die and disintegrate into nothingness either way, why not feel secure enough in your beliefs to let them?

I think PT and I are saying the same thing here; people who are secure in their own beliefs don't feel the need to force them on others. They may (and probably do) want to share those beliefs with other people, because the beliefs are something important to them at a very deep level, but they don't get intimidated and feel threatened when someone disagrees.

That's what I like about the New Testament portrayal of Jesus and the most orthodox of Judeo-Christian beliefs about God; the permeating belief that God was so secure in himself that he gave his creation the ability to say, "I choose not to follow you."

I am a firm believer in Jesus Christ.

I've read what others have had to say and i have to agree with whoever had said that "Christian" is not the right word for me. I believe in the Jesus of the book of Revelation from the New Testament.

A lot of people would want to judge what i believe as being, a "fire and brimestone" message. However, if one were to look at the major reformations in American History they would find that this so-called "fire and brimestone" message was the key to cause change in this nation.

So, in a way, i guess you could say that i believe firmly in the doctrine of Charles Finney, "Perfectionism." I am not perfect but i am trying to achieve that goal.

I would agree with you if it was harmless, unfortunatley its not harmless. If there are systems that promote violence and intolerence then we need to stand up against them. The problem with athiests seems to be that they are usually rather an independent lot that think for themselves and don't belong to organized groups. This is the main reason why we are being walked over by thugish well organized groups of fanatics. Its time we stood up for ourselves before its too late. I think we need to look very rationaly at our tiny little planet, with tiny little insects crawling on it, and get an objective idea about just how near we are to disaster, just how big and old the universe is, and get our act together and do something.The problem with relegion is that at the very time we need to see who and what we are, the thought process is blocked by an irrational idea that its all going to be OK because God will look after things, or that all the nice people will somehow fly off up to heaven. Silly isn't it, and potentially fatal.

In that aspect it only applies to Christianity. In Buddhism you have what they call karma or what goes around comes around. If you help people then people will help. It might not be the next day, month or year but eventually it will happen.

Christianity has that to some degree.

Do unto others what you would have them do unto you
If you live by the sword you'll die by the sword

etc


It also says (forget where) that God appreciates every good you do and will reward it, and the inverse.