In order to be a Christian, must one

[rusty fender]

believe and profess that everything Jesus said and did, as recorded in "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke," and "John,"(King James Version)is infallible? In other words, when Jesus overturned the money tables in the temple, as a Christian, must you believe that Jesus' act of destruction was the right thing to do? Or, when Jesus multiplied the fish and bread into many loaves and fish, does a Christian have to believe that Jesus really did this?

[DesertFlower]

1. well as an atheist who was raised catholic

i used to believe all that.

[elleng]

2. I think the only thing one 'must' do is to be baptised.

But what do I know, I'm a 'Jewish agnostic!'

[dmallind]

3. Many opinions here, but belief in inerrant Bible is only for about half of Xians

and some of them MAY be kind enough to concede that you can still be Christian and not be an inerrantist.

It seems the definition varies:

When talking about number of Christians = anyone born to Christian parents plus converts are Christians

When talking about people who have done good things = anybody who is not on consistent and certified record as saying "I am an atheist dammit" is a Christian

When talking about criminals or undesirable behavior = nobody who has ever done any of these could be a Christian

[Iggo]

25. 'Inerrantist'? Please tell me that's a real thing. (n/t)

[JackintheGreen]

4. Not even on the face of it

My wife's family is Catholic and even her mother believes in the literal transubstantiation of the bread and wine (though I believe that the literal belief was officially done away wife by the 2nd Vatican Council in the 60s), while I was raised Presbyterian and we understand all that to be metaphorical. My mother, who is a pastor, is driven bonkers by biblical literalists of the ilk you portray. But we're all Christians. The only problem is -were we practicing and faith-ridden - one of us would be going to hell after death, I think. I mean, either the wine turns to blood or it doesn't.

As I see it, the ONLY thing you need to believe in order to be classified as a Christian (and let's not get into heresy here) is that Jesus is the son of God, born of Mary the Virgin Mother, and crucified for our sins. That's the core of it, the thing that made it different from Judaism. The rest is just a great pissing contest.

[Goblinmonger]

6. Literal transubstantiation did not go away with Vatican II

To be Catholic you must receive communion at least once a year. To receive communion you must believe that it is literally the body and blood of christ. That is why Catholics request that non-Catholic Christians not take communion in a Catholic church.

[dmallind]

7. pretty sure the resurrection is a biggy too - and V2 in no way ended literal transubstantiation

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

[patrice]

9. Re the resurrection: the literal fact, as the Jesus Seminar has been known to observe, is that the

tomb was empty. That's indeterminent, 50:50. Whatever happened no one saw it.

And you are right about V2. They didn't end literal transubstantiation, they grounded it in our flesh & blood, just like any form of nourishment, and something I have quite a bit less trouble with relative to what I was taught about the Mystical Body of Christ as a child. Vatican II told people that they are The Church and the clergy are our servants. Too bad so many have forgotten that and too bad so many have forgotten that the word Catholic refers to un-limited (universal human) truths, or I might still attend, though I have found I don't need the RC church in order to be churched in the family of man.

[dmallind]

12. Well to believe in the divinity of Jesus and NOT the resurrection is a tad tricky

since it would then hold that it is possible to kill permanently a part of God.

And of course the bits of the NT that have him walking and talking after death would have to be pure BS too. Not a problem for me of course, but for believers that would surely make it tricky to defend the other miraculous events in the NT.

[patrice]

14. That's true. But my attitude toward at least some of those issues is predicated upon

a recognition of the limitations inherent to language.

All of the words that we generate about this stuff should never be mistaken for the phenomenology itself. Words only refer. And when we artificially limit those references exclusively to a relatively new form of apprehension known as rational empiricism, we are further crippling ourselves.

With that caveat: Perceptual archetypes are encoded into us biologically. There's no such thing as a "blank slate". There are inherited tendencies of different types, including perceptions. That coding alone is an enormous very very big fact, even if you just limit it to rationally empiric evolution. Sir James G Frazer documented mythical/religious patterns across cultures & times. And Carl Gustav Jung further articulated that hypothesis, whether one buys into his particular archetypes or not.

Yes, I believe in a resurrected Jesus, but as far back as I can remember, before I met Jung et al, I have always had a problem with the story that he went somewhere else. I just never did trust the idea that if he's alive, he's not here, nor that there's this some other place called "heaven" and another one called "hell". The whole thing just started breaking down for me when I started thinking about things that were supposed to be universally and eternally true BUT only in different separate "places" and times.

More simply put, there's a variety of meanings that can be imputed to the word "resurrection". That's the way that language is and we make judgements about those meanings more or less consciously (rather large issue, that) all of the time, so I wonder why we get so selectively selective about that process in some situations and not others.

[patrice]

8. Pissing contest!! Right on! & The original word that became "virgin" actually translates to

"young woman".

[JackintheGreen]

13. And I won't dispute that

Nor take issue with the V2 schooling I just got (though I'm happy to be corrected...and sad that Catholics still believe in that particular kind of magic), but the whole "virgin" thing did become doctrinaire. There's an awful lot in the bible that would upset modern American christians if more accurate translations were read.

[patrice]

15. I was always pretty uncomfortable with that word "virgin". I was a red-blooded healthy carnal

American girl, not out of control or anything (after-all I was raised by MIDWESTERN Liberals), but every time I heard that word, I had a problem with what they were saying about me and about people I care about.

One of the great American Buddhists of the '60s, Alan Watts, used to say that the objective of any TRUE church would be to make itself obsolete. In re Christianity, I am hoping that we have reached that point.

[thereismore]

5. The evangelical view is yes. The liberal Christian view is no.

Liberal Christians know that a lot of the Bible content is myth, but they still believe that there is a core message there somewhere.

[TygrBright]

10. No. I think (MY OPINION) the only thing one needs to do to be a Christian...

...is to examine the works and words of Christ during his lifetime, and say "I want to be like that."

But that is (again) my opinion.

In my case, it started there. And then went on to the detailed study of the Bible in as much Hebrew and Greek as I could learn, as well as numerous exigetical texts and readings from commentators and philosophers (Christian and non-Christians writing about Christianity) to refine the concept of what "being like that" is. And trying to live that way on a daily basis.

YMMV. Saying you are a Christian may be all that is needed, to some people. I would not presume to say that's incorrect.

helpfully,
Bright

[patrice]

11. No. The Jesus Seminar still very definitely identifies themselves as Christian. nt

[Tikki]

16. Say you are one and then you don't have to do......

anything else.


Tikki

[Rainbowreflect]

17. Interesting, my minister just had a sermon on fishes and loaves.

She spoke of if we believed it was a story of an actual supernatural type miracle or a more human miracle of many people sharing with each other. I personally try to be what I consider Christian, as in try to follow Christ teaching. But I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

[humblebum]

18. Really there is only one thing:

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." Acts 16:31

[Deep13]

22. Begs the question, though.

Just what does that mean? In which version of JC must one believe? If one starts discounting this story or that story as implausible, what is the basis for supposing one is believing in the "real" JC and not one he made up by picking and choosing?

[Thats my opinion]

19. I'd be interested if:

Mr Fender believes what he wrote because he is a conservative Christian,
or does not consider himself a Christian and wants to poke fun at how rigid "Christians" are.

If the former is true then he has made an honest attempt to define fundamentalism.

If the latter is true it is always interesting to have someone far outside the tradition define what the tradition really holds, for the purpose of ridicule.

[trotsky]

20. Alternately, someone from "far outside the tradition"...

can provide observations and insight that could never occur to someone raised within it.

[Deep13]

21. Not necessarily, but...

...once you start discounting the miracles you have to ask yourself in what way Jesus was divine? Also, once you start doubting the scriptural authority on which the whole mythology is based, you have to ask yourself just what reason you have to trust the rest of it.

[Leontius]

23. The Nicene Creed is the essential doctrine of Christian faith.

It is the spring from which all other Christian theology must flow.

[rusty fender]

24. Thank you, all, for your input.

I was raised as a Catholic and did buy into all of Catholic doctrine, hook, line, and sinker. I even wore a scapular until I was a teen because I believed that it would get you into heaven even if you died in your sleep.

However, I've been an atheist for about 37 years now and wondered what nonCatholics consider what it is that makes them a Christian. I also wonder if there is such a thing as a secular Christian, one who believes that Jesus was not divine, but like Ghandi, a man who spread words of peace among the people.

I so often hate when Christians express hatred for GLBLT people and those with other faiths; I almost classify myself as anti-Christian because of the haters, yet I admire what Jesus did and stood for, just as I admire Ghandi and MLK,jr.

I'm tired of the hate, the "us against them" we get from Christians, yet their Saviour, their Lord, their numero uno was against so much of what they do.