I was discussing some of the issues from UM with my wife, and I started to wonder about something.

Whenever someone, who claims to be christian, does something evil or immoral, the die hard christians claim that the offender isn't a 'real christian'.

Bring up the crusades, the inquistion, the destruction of the South American cultures by christian missionaries, and the 'true believers' put up a wall of separation from the event by saying the perpetrators weren't really working in the spirit of christ.

But, if a person claims to be christian, walks the walk and talks the talk, then does something that brings public censure and scrutiny, they are branded as false. How can this be?

If, for example, and American brigade in Iraq went on a rampage and slaughtered a village, while wearing American uniforms, with American equipment, waving an American flag, would we be able to say that they weren't "real" Americans?

What is a 'real' christian? Is it the person who stands in front of an abortion clinic harrassing the women who enter?
Or the person who shoots a Doctor that performs abortions?
Is a 'real' christian the person who demeans, degrades, and denies those who live alternate lifestyles the right to marry?
Or is a real christian the person who beats and kills homosexuals?

I'm quite sure that those ""brave"" men, with their faces concealed, who terrorized their black neighbors in the Southern states of the US believed that they were 'good' christians as they burned crosses in front of the homes of their victims.

How are we supposed to tell who the 'real' christians really are?
What makes a real christian, as opposed to a false christian?

Part of what made me bring this up is an event that was recently told to me, partly it was a comment made here by another poster.

A little background, please bear with me

My daughter has epilepsy. Its is pretty much under control with meds, but not completely. We attend functions for the Greater New York Epilepsy foundation, and meet with parents of other afflicted kids.

At the last gathering of parents, a woman told the group that while she was shopping with her 10 year old daughter, the child suffered a seizure. While trying to get the child to the exit, another woman offered her help. After accepting, imagine the poor mothers shock when this 'good samaritan' suddenly, in a loud voice starts telling everyone in earshot that the 'child has a devil in her and only Jesus can help her".

The woman was shocked, hurt, and at a loss as this supposed 'good christian' embarrassed the living hell out of both her daughter and herself.

When relaying this story to a friend of my wife ( a christian), the friends first words were "How horrible! Well, she wasn't a real Christian, we don't do that....."

Sadly, even though we are living in the 21st century, many people still have a 10th century understanding.....

To expand on your wartime analogy, JM - if a company of American troops commited atrocities while waving american flags, the media in America would probably write just that: "Real Americans don't live in the stone-age of barbarism", the article would claim. In the wake of the Cronulla riots in Sydney a few months ago, I read just that phrase: "The idiots who participated in yesterday's atrocious behaviour were not real Australians".

I wonder, if I were to go out and commit an atrocity and then claim it in the name of JMPD1, what would you say? Is this a "real" JMPD1 fan (follower). I know, the imagery is slightly off because no one would actually follow you (that I know of, at least), but let's pretend.

Apart from that - there are two other threads on these forums - "What is a real Christian", and "Christian Extremism". Could you explain how this is different to either of those, or what different discussion you hope to gain from this thread? Thanks.

Regards, PA

Well PA, as to my analogy, it was to illustrate that while we may abhor the actions of our mythical American Brigade of thugs, we would still have to accept that they WERE Americans.

In relation to the real or unreal christians, it seems to me that it is too convenient to disown those who bring bad press to bear on the religion.
Was it Pat Robertson, the American televangelist who got roasted for saying, right after 9/11, that "America deserved what happened for turning away from god"? I might be mistaken on the identity, they all sound alike to me, but the point being that suddenly this 'voice' of the christians, was sidelined, and to an extent marginalized, for saying what he'd been saying for years.

All of a sudden, he wasn't a "real" christian anymore.

Another example might be something like the parishoner who is praised for his works and piety, a leader of his church for years, who is suddenly found out to be a pedophile.

Suddenly, all his supporters drain away muttering "well he isn't a REAL christian. we don't do that....."

The mantra of "well, they're not...." doesn't take away from the fact that these people CLAIM to be real christians. That in their heart and mind they BELIEVE that they are real and sincere.
So I guess my question is: At what point do people stop being real christians?

This is the extreme, maybe .1% of all christians. You don't judge an entire group based on a minute minority. And same goes with the soldiers, if a few actually do commit needless 'wrongs'-- you don't condemn the entire military--99.9% are good and dedicated people, proud to serve their country.

I don’t like to confuse the issue really when it comes to real Christians and fake Christians.

Here are two simple examples.

A real Christian that puts most human beings on this planet to shame.



A fake Christian that makes most human beings look like angels.

Anyone can ware the label Christian, Jewish or Moslem, but the question will always remain, Do they practice what is written in their scriptures and doctrines? Is the fruits they bare consistent with who they claim to be?
Irish

I think they all practice what they perceive the bible to say. I personally think for instance that Mother Teresa would have been a kind and caring person with or without the bible, she was naturally a godly and good person and it was in her heart to want to help others. To me she is/was more spiritually advanced than most people who come to the earth.

People like Pat Robertson see what they want to see in the bible for there own reasons of ego, and craving for power over others. Pat would have been a hateful bigot with or without the bible. He has no desire to help anyone, only to cause intolerance and hatred.

There could not be two more classic examples of two people on opposite ends of the scale than of Robertson and Mother Teresa.

To me they are both representations of fundementalists.
I cannot accept fundementalism as being good, even if some of their actions are good.

In my view, "real" and "unreal" probably aren't the best words to use. "Tolerant" and "ignorant" are probably the best two, and most common, definitions of Christians.
This stems from my belief that to actually be a true Christian is nigh unto impossible, much like a Buddhist achieving Nirvana in the first ten minutes of a lifetime.
Tolerant Christians focus on the "God is Love" matter in the Bible, and ignore the commanded conquest, the killing, even a simple thing like Jesus telling his disciples to bring swords to the Garden. These Christians start youth churches and hum along to Christian rock.
Ignorant Christians are blind to science, reason, and the loving aspect of God. They focus on the verses about God hating gays, sinners, and pretty much everyone who isn't the Christian. Their attitudes are militant and pretty much 13th century. They have their own TV network.
A real Christian is between the two. They accept science and reason; are willing to fight for their faith but love all mankind; they judge not, lest they be judged; they know when to preach and when to keep silent; they realize that God loves his creation, but is infuriated by the actions and attitude of it most of the time; they realize that their salvation is not secure until the Judgement Day and thus can they can be no better than any other person; they live their live's to the fullest, and don't cower in fear of or yearning for the Rapture, since this life is God's greatest gift.
A real Christian is damn hard to find.
Most Christians one will meet in a lifetime fall into one category or the other and both brands are equally frustrating to deal with.

Good piece of writing Nirvana.
Looks like philo might be your gig.

I agree with you 100%, If a jerk finds the Lord he may continue to be a jerk who found the Lord.

I am sure Jerks are allowed into Heaven, God needs jesters

Thank you.
Ah, the sig changed!

She looked too much like a cow from that angle.

Oh, that's just udder-ly ridiculous!

I love your post. however you must realize that those things that you speak of as crimes against humanity by Christians are not by the current Christian church but by the OrthoCatholic church. There is a big difference. One way to tell the difference between a Real christian vs one that isn't is when a person claiming to be Christian does something bad or wrong, the person that calls the fake Christians are most likely not Christians. The Christian will be the one who shows love to the sinning Christian not hatred. The Christian is the one who will forgive not condemn. THose that condemn people are not of Christ because they are sinners as well and do not realize it.

There must have been a lot of false Christians then.....including several Popes!

In the Name of Christianity

Daer friend let me tell you something. Christians and Catholics ARE different. Many don't get that. I hate to be associated with those Catholics who worship the sinful Mary as if she were a diety. they believe that you gain salvation by works and through the church. That is why there was a reformation because the TRUE Christians realized that the Catholic church was and still is corrupt. Of COURSE some popes were false Christians. See the biggest flaw to Catholicism is that they are the largest religion in the world. Jesus Christ says few will make it many will not. So there size is against them.

My young friend Catholics ARE Christians.

A Christian= someone who accepts Christ as Lord and Svaior of all.

A Catholic=someone who worships Mary, believes in christ and has joined the Catholic church.

Now they believe in Christ however there beliefe that Mary and the Saints are holy and their worship of them nullify their faith. They believe that you cannot speak directly to God but must go throgh a priest. They believe to be saved the saints must intercede for you. That is NOT a Christian. That is saint worship. for the saints are dead and cannot hear their prayers meaning that unless THEY ask God THEMSELVES they are not saved because NO ONE can speak on their behalf but THEM.

Pssst. Up until the time of oh, say, Martin Luther, Catholics were the ONLY Christians in the western world (after they absorbed and dominated the Celtic Church). Why? I seem to remember things like the Inquisition and the Crusades against those like the Cathars.
And now, since the splintering of the Catholic Church, the Church itself is merely another version of Christianity.
To insist they are otherwise is just silly.

Would real Christians be calling the mother of Jesus "Sinful"?

PSSSST my friend....can you keep a secret?

A Link

Yes she was sinful. She was a sinner.

Oh, you HAVE to explain this one.

SO you're saying that there were no Israelites that were still Christians? That the message of Christ had no spread east? YOu should look at Asian history. In Japan from 800-900 christians were murdered for their beliefs. therefore there were actual Christians in the east in Asia. Years before Martin Luther. And I bet you anything the word got there by way of the disciples.

Well I totally agree

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23.

Hey if you called and condemned my mother as a sinner, you sure would not be invited to my party

Jackass. "Western World", I said "Western World". Obviously there was a form of Christianity in the east, since there is something called the Eastern Orthodox Church!
In the WESTERN WORLD, the common use of the word Christian includes all believers in the Bible, including Catholics, since in the WESTERN WORLD, Catholicism is the template for all of the WESTERN WORLD's versions of Christianity. It is the perverted fount from which all streams flow.
And yes, there were Christians in Palestine or Judea, if you will, not Israel. The Israelites were destroyed years before Christ. Hence, the 10 lost tribes. The Jews that have definitely survived derive mostly from the kingdom of Judah, or as the Romans call it: Judea. But these Christians became the Eastern Orthodox Church as they had a beef with Paul, the writer of the letters most of the WESTERN WORLD accepts as canon, and thus have no bearing on the WESTERN WORLD's definition of Christianity.
Sheesh.

We are all sinners but it is natural human urges and emotions.


just like nobody is innocent , there are merely varying degrees of guilt.

Still if I was the father of heaven, anyone calling my adopted mother a sinner is not coming to my party, they can wait outside in the dark.

Look at NOW. NOW there is a difference between Christians and Catholics.

First of all I didn't condemn Mary, second umm.....your mom is a sinner, so are you.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Romans 3:23.

Quote of the year.
Seriously, you can have your sins, Cyclonus. Not everyone needs a book to teach them right from wrong.

No book is needed to determine right from wrong. Everyone know this because of sin. THe tree of knoweledge of good and evil was called that for a reason. You can't know the difference between good and evil if evil does not exist right?

Jesus Christ was the only real christian. Everyone else is just posing as hard as they can. with the example of the christ as their guide. We are sinners. We will die sinners.

But their are who call themselves christians and yet completely ignore their teachings... like George Bush

Not quite correct. Job was without blemish and perfect in the eyes of the lord. Job 1:1



Um, no.
Luke1:28-30 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.


Luke 1:46-48And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Ergo, Mary was not a sinner when she found favor in the eyes of the lord. She was blessed above all women, by god to deliver unto the world, a savior.

The difference between Good and Evil is an illusion. Good can change to Evil and Evil can change to Good when you change your point of view.
I decided what I think is Right and what I think is Wrong based on my own point of view.
That does not mean I am right, but it proves to me that what I consider "Good and Evil" was not determined before I was born.

Good and Evil is in the eye of the beholder. One mans good deed is another mans evil act.

Personally I see people who will the end of humanity and the world and who rejoice in the apocalypse, and who live life through fear, and inflict it on others, as some of the most evil people on the planet.

Chaos and SHJ: I agree with both of you.

It seems we all need to understand what the sin nature in mankind really is (of course from my Christian perspective should you wish to stop reading now). For the sake of a shorter post I won’t get into the definition of sin, rather I will call it if I may a “fly in the ointment of creation” Man was created with perfection. The accuser of the Creator was very jealous of man and the authority he was given over his domain (the Earth). Some how he managed to put the fly into the ointment (Mans fall from Grace in the garden) this did not make man evil by nature but it did affect the relationship from his Creator.
This fly caused man to understand the difference between right and wrong, I don’t think it was part of the original plan of both parties involved but man because of this flaw was now a very unique creation in the universe kind of the accidental Post It Notes invention.

Mans new found knowledge allowed him to see the law in a different light than his Creator because of our perspective as earth bound and mortal. We tend look at sin/wrong doings as gradients. One sin is greater than another. But God sees all sin as equally abhorrent and therefore not acceptable in His house (heaven). Just as we have the right to tell people that comes into our house to remove their shoes first. It is not a question as to whether we agree with the rules. If your house guest refused to remove his shoes and stood at your door arguing the point you would be inclined to close the door in his face.
The result would be much the same, a separation between visitor and guest. That separation between man and God is what we refer to as hell.
It is very simple really, either you believe or you don’t.
Like the analogy of the house guest being asked to remove his shoes I would comply without question as I have bigger questions to ask over dinner.
Whether we as humans agree or not the ultimate truth is He created us and the law.
And If He brought us into existence He certainly has every right to take us out of it! We could argue this is not fair from our perspective. But who ever said life was fair? Why does the Creator of life have to be reasonable? Perhaps His reasoning is different then ours because of His perspective.
We could argue the semantics of definition but we would miss the point and possibly never agree.
I for one believe that a loving Creator would provide a means to re-unite with His creation. And I believe that through Jesus He accomplished this.
It is very simple really, either you believe or you don’t.
Irish

Mother Theresa was a angel. And to be honest I don't think there is any hope or love left in most of the world. I just figured that out tonight. There is too much distrust and hatred for the world to ever have a chance living in harmony.

Job was not perfect, though the KJV translates the word as "perfect". Other translations use "blameless, upright". The Hebrew word - תּם denotes a morally pious person, specifically gentle, dear. Upright. It does not refer to being "perfect" or to being un-sinful, but rather there was no reason for him to be afflicted as he later was (edit: as the next post points out, it was a common belief back then that if you were afflicted with some ailment, you had to have deserved it for being sinful. The book of Job is from the start pointing out that this is not the case)

And Mary..... Mary is never told she is perfect. She has found favour with God, as have many others throughout history. Catholics believe she was chosen because she was perfect. According to the Bible only Jesus can make that claim.

Catholics are considered a branch of Christianity. But if I ask a practicing Catholic - "What must I do to be saved?", their answer would most likely be significantly different to a Protestant's response. And that's a result of the influence the papacy had in forming the doctrine of the Catholic church, which believes it has the divine right (as God's chosen representative on Earth) to change, add, or delete any doctrine they feel necessary at any time they wish.

It was this fact that caused the Reformation in the first place, when a few individual's stood up and said "Hey, that's not what the Bible actually says".

Regards, PA

Actually, Job was a sinner all the same, but the book calls him "blameless" meaning that he did nothing to warrant the hardships he had to go through. A common view in the old Hebrew traditions was a sort of 1st century version of karma. You see that when Jesus healed the blind man, and before he did, they asked "who sinned that he was born blind, him or his parents?" And of course he said "nay, it was neither. It was so the work of the Lord could be seen." And I paraphrased that a little bit.

The Catholic/Protestant "versions" of Mary are actually quite different. The Catholic version does say she was "perfect," never had sex, and those called Jesus' "brothers and sisters" were really cousins. She was (I believe) said to be taken directly into heaven. That's why she's called "co-redemptrix" or however that's spelled. The Protestant "version" tends to underemphasize her role a little, mostly to counter the Catholic version. Protestants believe that she was with original sin, but the virgin birth allowed for a child without that stain (the "new Adam"). They believe that she eventually married Joseph and had other children, James and Jude are the only two I can think of offhand.

Mary did indeed find favor with God, but so did David (a man after God's own heart), and he killed a man to steal his wife.

Granted Christianity is a very fractured religion but Catholics ARE STILL Christians....unless you can show us different.

NOW, Catholics are a division of Christianity.
Here I go again (cue Whitesnake), repeating myself to the mulishly ignorant:
"And now, since the splintering of the Catholic Church, the Church itself is merely another version of Christianity.
To insist they are otherwise is just silly."
You might want to separate Catholics from your version of Christianity, to make yourself feel all warm and fuzzy, but, by definition, Catholicism is a version of Christianity. All Christians use the same G-D instruction manual, it doesn't matter how they interpret it, or what they choose to add to it, or even what they call themselves.
Catholics are Christians, Mormons are Christians, even, technically speaking, Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians.
This is not a hard concept, most grasp it by second or third grade.

piping in to agree that catholics to me are considered christians. I am a christian, but I am not catholic. The only other label I see that sort of fits me is "protestant" which to me in this context means "non-catholic"... so I have called myself a "protestant christian"... but Mormons to me are "protestant christian" and I'm not mormon... or anything else for that matter...

non-denominational protestant christian? ugh. I don't know. Others will label me anyway so whatever...

catholics are christian tho

Edit: geez, disclaimer... there's still the difference between "real" and "fake" within all of christianity, regardless of denomination. like Just looking at catholicism, 2 guys, both "religious" catholics make every mass etc... one goes out and rapes, steals and kills people but still makes it to mass, the other goes out and does mother theresa work... both can call themselves christians but only one is producing the fruit. It's a cosmetic disclaimer because I don't know their hearts, just looking to demonstrate one way of differentiation cause volumes could be and have been written about it.

Anyone can wear the “Save the World” T-Shirt but if the one wearing it is a KKK member he probably has a non conventional way in which to accomplish it.
We can all wear the T shirt but it is what is lurking in our hearts that truly matters.
Irish