This is how Christians seem to relate to the other world. The Jews are our ancestors and brothers, the Muslims are distant cousins with strange beliefs, but welcome, the atheists, we pray for their awakening. The Methodists? Good Lord, no!

Jaibones on August 26, 2007 at 5:29 PM

Yea, kind of reminds me of a self-deprecating joke we have here in California, (nondenominational christian here)”The Christian Army…The only army on earth that kills its own wounded…before they even get wounded…”

doriangrey on August 26, 2007 at 6:12 PM

LOL–how true!

How I wish we Christians would accept each other: “In fundamentals, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity.”

C.S. Lewis (one of my top 10 favorite writers, and BTW a former atheist and Anglican Christian) says [I'm totally paraphrasing] “those Christians who are the most committed to Christ and the most orthodox within their own denomination, are in fact closer to one another than those who are at the fringes of their denomination, willing to trade a false ‘unity’ for fidelity to their conscience.” (Blast it, I can’t locate the quote just now – anyone have it handy?)

Fear not, fellow Christians. It is for us to be faithful to Christ first, committed to that expression of fidelity within the denomination, or non-denomination, we are persuaded He wants us in, and to pray for our unity. Discussion and apologetics are wonderful, and needed, but it’s not our job to change our fellow Christians. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job, not ours, to bring about the eventual unity for which Christ prayed and which therefore WILL come to pass. And I suspect there will be some surprises on all sides when this happens. :)

Yea, kind of reminds me of a self-deprecating joke we have here in California, (nondenominational christian here)”The Christian Army…The only army on earth that kills its own wounded…before they even get wounded…”

inviolet on August 26, 2007 at 4:20 PM

I think some of us non-denominational Christians take slight offense to the proclamations of “God’s One True Church” ™ on occasion. Not me, though.

I repeated a joke I heard recently to my brothers in a local church men’s group, and it went something like this:

A young Italian man is worrying; he’s invited his girlfriend home to dinner with his extended family. She African-American, and he’s worried that his Grandmother will be upset because she’s not Italian. Grandma assures him he should bring her.

But the day comes, and his grandmother is gracious and loving and treats her like a daughter.

Some months later, he has a new girlfriend – a Jewish girl – and the scenario plays out again, the same way. Not to worry, Grandma treats her like a daughter and they all laugh and have a wonderful meal.

It’s a year later, and the young man is proudly announcing to his family that he has a new girlfriend – a beautiful Italian girl! – and he wants to have her home for dinner. He tells Grandma about her, and she looks closely at him, unsmiling — “what part of Italy?” she demands.

This is how Christians seem to relate to the other world. The Jews are our ancestors and brothers, the Muslims are distant cousins with strange beliefs, but welcome, the atheists, we pray for their awakening. The Methodists? Good Lord, no!

Amen to that. And I do, often. Jesus wants us all to be one; it’s one of the last things He prayed for before He was crucified (John 17:20-21).

MANY non-denominational Christians have said I’m not Christian because I’m Catholic.

Yes, it is really sad and frustrating but it does happen and happens quite often. I read a lot of “voodoo” level denigration of Catholics and the Catholic Church online, written by allegedly “non-denominational Christians…”

Yes, it’s really sad and frustrating. We should all pray for one another, and often.

In fact, as a Catholic Christian myself, I usually get it the other way around. Not all, but MANY non-denominational Christians have said I’m not Christian because I’m Catholic. Just sayin’.

inviolet on August 26, 2007 at 4:20 PM

That is really sad and frustrating. I’m sorry that happens.

ThackerAgency on August 25, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Uh-uh. No Catholic who knows anything about their faith would say that. All ‘Protestants’ (I always call them ‘non-Catholic Christians’ for the very reasons listed by the non-Catholic Christians above) and all Evangelicals are Christians, the Catholic Church (and Catholics) say.

In fact, as a Catholic Christian myself, I usually get it the other way around. Not all, but MANY non-denominational Christians have said I’m not Christian because I’m Catholic. Just sayin’.

So, effectively, what it really means when we identify ourselves as Evangelical is that we identify with the catholic (universal) Christian church as defined by the Apostles according to the Gospel.

Lawrence, exactly (^^). Evangelicals spread the Gospel, or, rather, more specifically, share the Good News, the Word of God.

The point is that Protestant is a term that means all Christians not Catholic

It is in the Bible that Christians are to be ‘fishers of men’ regardless of what any individual Church claims to say. The Bible says that Jesus won’t return until the Gospel is proclaimed in the four corners of the Earth, and everyone is given the opportunity to hear and accept Jesus.

So the idea that you are a Christian, you are not a Catholic, and you are ‘not Protestant’ is impossible. There are no non-Catholic Christians who are not Protestant.

ThackerAgency, what you wrote there (^^) is exactly right.

Christians are defined by belief in the Divinity (and human birth and life of Christ while also Divine, as also his death and resurrection and through belief in Him, welcome to eternal life) of Jesus Christ. After that, there are denominations and conditions and also other beliefs that modify one’s situation and faith, but, the primary defining belief by which one is a Christian or not is belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and Him as Lamb of God, sacrifice for the sins of Man through his life and death and resurrection.

To be an Evangelist, is to Evangelize. Saint Paul was an Evangelist, an Evangelical, as were most if not all the Disciples in the New Testament. Certainly Saint Peter was. I just learned yesterday that even King Louis of France (or, Saint Louis) was an Evangelical Christian (also a Catholic).

Evangilizing is an action. Christianity and Catholicism (and Protestantism) are not actions, per se, but are beliefs, beliefs all as to the Holy Divinity of Jesus Christ as God’s only son who was born a man, lived a man, was resurrected as Divine and lives today as God’s only son, our Savior — the rest that separate the divisions among Christians are various beliefs other than that primary one, which is the defining belief that defines a Christian).

For example, Bishop Fulton Sheen (a Catholic Bishop) was most certainly an Evangelical. But he was a Catholic. A Catholic who evangelized.

Among sects among Christians, there are some Protestants who call themselves “Evangelicals” as a denomination. But MOST Christians use the term, “Evangelical” to describe a behavior, an act of evangelizing before men.

Now I’ll go read the rest of the comments here…

I have received my share of nasty denigrations on the internet from others — calling me affiliated with various ethnic-supremacy and/or racial-supremacy groups (none of which I am). I’ve never even visited nor do I read any websites that are so affiliated; thus, my opinions are my own and are not affiliated with groups, anti-this or anti-that, other than I’m not keen on many Liberal demands (and, therefore, like I said, I’m a Conservative), due to (mostly) my own moral and theological beliefs.

Anyway, after being called various You’reANazi/You’reAFascist/You’reAStoneMountainManiac/whatevers, I went over to one of the most often named sites that is used by most Liberals to denigrate Conservatives as to most things socio-political, and, what did I find there, but, Ron Paul supporters. A LOT of Ron Paul supporters. Fund raisers for Paul. Propogandaists for Paul. You name it, they’re there.

So, after hearing a lot of the denigrations and nasties from Nameless Anonymous on the internet as to me and my type of Conservative (who are not supporting Ron Paul), by Paul supporters (who allege to be “conservatives” though they do tend to display a lot of denigration of anyone who doesn’t support Paul), I’ve come to this conclusion: Ron Paul is a Liberal construct.

His supporters are Liberals, they’re trying to re-phrase or re-position (or, “own”) the term and it’s meaning, “Conservative” for counter-purposes.

By “counter-purposes” I mean that they represent politics that aren’t Conservative, beliefs that are not necessarily faith-based so much as they are dogma intense (they quote the Bible a lot and lay claim to that, too, but they don’t appear to live much as to Christian principle, as to how they behave on the internet), they aren’t even enforcement-first as to immigration so much as they are Libertarian Open-Borders people: do away with restrictions and thus, do away with problematic conditions.

I can’t say that applies to all Ron Paul supporters I’ve encountered but the one grain that runs consistently through all that I have is that they all support various 9/11 conspiracies (that blame the U.S. and/or Israel for the terrorist events of 9/11 and also disbelieve that the Pentagon was impacted by a jet plane), and, they all seem oddly anti-everyone else, as if all of America was their enemy (but Bush certainly is their enemy, what with the worst cases of BDS I’ve ever seen being among Paul supporters), and, they ALL consistently use the very same language (terms, expressions) as can be found on any given day or night on places such as DU and HuffPo.

Thus, I conclude, they’re all Liberals. It’s a role-playing game for them, as to them as “conservatives” and Paul as their “Republican” candidate. Role-playing, as in, theatrical behavior to create and indulge staging event.

at least I’m not the only one who doesn’t know what a pastafarian is

Pastafarian – Bald Rastafarian man that relies on un-cooked Ronzoni Tortalini for dreadlocks.

I personally don’t find being conservative to be limiting, but maybe that’s just me. : )

Dont make the mistake of believing that atheists are incapable of falling in love or caring about people or even being offended by injustice. They are human beings who simply do not believe that god exists, not soulless automatons.

doriangrey on August 26, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Amen! All men (and women) are created in God’s imagine (whether they acknowledge it or not). God is justice. Non-believer’s seek justice. It’s God’s imagine in them. God is creative. Non-believer’s are creative. God has emotions… well, you get the idea. Since all people are created in God’s imagine, they are ALL to be given the proper respect. (sometimes we respectfully disagree :-) God loves them the same as everyone else! That’s why He wants them to become His children by accepting His Son!

justing asking why they would want to saddle themselves with limiting behavior while not believing in consequences hereafter.

I would think the answer to that would be incredibly obvious. While a atheist does not believe in God that does not mean they believe that their actions are free of consequences.

Morality is for the atheist an acceptance of reality and the consequences that their actions have on their lives and the lives of those that they care about.

Their lack of belief in god does not mean that they believe they can do anything they want and never suffer any consequences.

On the contrary they often have a stronger sense of justice because their lack of belief in god means that they do not have a safety net. In other words, god isn’t going to come to their rescue, he wont ensure that their children are protected. He wont protect their rights or property.

For the atheist their lack of belief means god isn’t going to settle accounts and make the evil pay for their evil deeds. And if god doesn’t exist to do those things that only leaves them to do it.

Dont make the mistake of believing that atheists are incapable of falling in love or caring about people or even being offended by injustice. They are human beings who simply do not believe that god exists, not soulless automatons.

The idea that the bible has survived two thousand years in the hands of those who are not ordained of God (starting with the death of the last apostle and it’s most egregious attack on the original teachings: The Council at Nicaea) is a stretch and is an underlying cause for the results of this poll.

WoW, csdeven! You took two swipes at historical orthodox Christianity in that statement: one having to do with the scholarly discipline of Textual Criticism (studying the preservation of the NT in its transmission from the original texts), and the other the confessional statements that arose from Nicaea in 325. You comments fascinate me, and I would love to have you explain them in detail. This probably isn’t the place to do it so just email me your thoughts if you want: ckdewitt2@yahoo.com. I will just say this, as a student of textual criticism, the Old and New Testaments are the most accurate ancient writings that the world possesses, in terms of their accuracy to the originals. Of the Papri texts we have the entire gospels at the early third century A.D. This places that copy just over 200 years from the writing of the originals, and in terms of copies to originals, that proximity is unheard of. That proximity happens with several Papri texts:P1, P4, P22, etc. In terms of the entire New Testament we have four complete codices: codex Siniaticus, codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. All date no later than the 400’s A.D. Not only in terms of chronological proximity, but also in geographical proximity the NT stands in a class all its own. Another criteria is number of copies of the NT and parts of the NT we have. This allows scholars to compare back and forth to see where copies differ and determine why the differed. There is a whole classification of transcribal mistakes that account for most of the copying errors. So again please, please, write me why you thought that it is unreasonable to assume that the text of the NT has not been preserved. For, if you can say that the NT hasn’t been preserved, then there is no room to even begin to think that the Odyssey and the Iliad, or Virgil, or Plato, or Aristotle, represent what the original authors wrote.

I hope you’re still out there. If you want grab the book. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism by J. Harold Greenlee.

Atheists could/SHOULD have a lot more fun than Christians, because if we (Christians) are wrong, there’s no point in not partying!

Keith_Z on August 25, 2007 at 7:29 PM

I totally disagree with that statement. You seem to be equating sin with fun, as if all fun is sinful. Baloney. We as Christians should be having plenty of fun, because we are living in the freedom and forgiveness of salvation, rather than under the condemnation of the law of sin and death.

Not only does this type of erroneous assumption give non-believers a distorted picture of what Christianity is all about, it holds Christians back from living in the freedom we’ve been given.