Am I a real Christian?

Originally posted by divegeester
After an offline exchange with Twhitehead recently, I would like to open a thread about "real" Christianity and me being a "real" Christian.

Why?

Well twhitehead mentioned a few times in various exchanges between us something along the lines of "I wonder if you really believe..."This is not a challenge or attack on twhitehead, far from it, it a ge ...[text shortened]... lare Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.

Who here can help me know if I am a real Christian?

Just from what I gather here, it seems that twhitehead was trying to make a point about belief structure consistency. If someone says that he or she believes P; and if P implies Q; and yet he or she does not believe Q upon considering it; then there's probably a failure of rationality somewhere in there.

However, for what it's worth, I would add some points here to consider.

First, from the fact that one has declared belief in P; and P implies Q; and yet one does not believe Q upon introspection; it does not follow that one does not "really" believe P. I think probably some belief structure disorder is clearly indicated by this scenario; but I do not see much to recommend the conclusion that P is not a real object of this person's belief. One can simply fail to fully grasp the implications of some proposition, while still really thinking this proposition is true. It happens quite regularly.

Second, it may not be so clear that P implies Q in this case. In this case, P would stand for the proposition that there is life after death, in accordance with Christian eschatology; and Q would stand for the proposition that natural death is not such a big deal (or some such). But that P implies Q in this case hardly seems to follow, especially since Christian eschatology often holds that there can be vastly different conditions of life after death, depending on the state of one's soul at natural death (after all, heaven and hell are pretty vastly different).

Third, in such cases as this, we may need to examine the distinction between belief and faith. In order to rightly be called a Christian it may just be that, with respect to some core Christian tenets, either belief or faith is enough. And there are very plausible accounts of 'faith' under which an attitude of faith with respect to P does NOT entail belief that P (see, e.g., bbarr's excellent delineations of different potential interpretations of 'faith' in Thread 102108 ). For example, 'faith' seems consistent with an attitude in which one decides, out of volition, to accept that P under some sort of assumption; but that does not entail belief that P. The relevance of this point to the current discussion is as follows. Whereas it seems a relatively straightforward matter that there is something structurally wrong with the situation where one declares belief that P, has good grounds for thinking that P implies Q, and yet does not declare belief that Q upon introspection; it is far less clear that there is something structurally wrong with a situation in which we replace 'belief that P' with 'faith that P' in that same situation. (Of course, if you are like me, you would still have other fundamental epistemic objections against 'faith' to begin with.)

Fourth, we should not forget that belief proceeds at differing levels of credence or confidence. For instance, one could have an extremely high degree of psychological certainty in the truth of P; or on the other hand one could think it is only slightly more probably true than not; and we may call it "belief that P" in both cases. But this may have interesting implications here. Suppose that one believes P but only with a modest degree of conviction. Suppose also this person believes that P implies Q but again with only something like the minimal required conviction. So, this person believes both that P and that P implies Q. But does it follow that this person should also believe Q on this basis? I am not so sure, given the probabilistic nature of the belief and given that it takes both that P and that P implies Q to infer Q on such basis (say, in the absence of direct evidence that recommends Q). This may also be something to think about.

Originally posted by divegeester
I see they have managed to hijack what is a serious Christian thread.

In keeping with your origoinal thread. I hope you read my entry before this, it was sincere in the offering, and my reply to your question.

Originally posted by galveston75
I believe you are the one who brought up the persecusion thought, not me.

No it was you; here is what you said, you don't even seem to know when you're doing it.

...is not a command from Jesus and should really not take it seriously but at best find the easy way out and in their comments basically condemn us for doing it.

"Us" being the JWs

Originally posted by galveston75
Do you want me to be in the discussion here? If yes then I have the right to speak as I see in fitting in with your thread. If You are not open to others speaking here that may disagree with your version of Christianity...say so now!

I don't care whether you are in the discussion it's your choice. It's just that you contribution involves preaching JW doctrine, dogma and why you are right any everyone else wrong, period. You are aware of what I think, not of you specifically, but of organised corporate religion generally and especially the cultish organisation you are trapped in. So why feign surprise and act all victimised and persecuted when I respond.

It is the usual mindset of "god's chosen ones will be persecuted > we are persecuted > therefore we are gods chosen ones. It's nonsense.

Yes you do have the right to post irrespective of answer above.

I don't mind you disagreeing with my version of Christianity, I will always disagree with yours as you belong to a pernicious cultish organisation.

Sorry, but that is my honest opinion.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
I don't look at anyones compassion as being different, one from another. You either have it or you don't. This is why i don't condemn the Atheist, in many cases they are more christian than the christians. They are also sons and daughters of God. (Psst, they just don't know it, yet!!!)

God is God, if you choose to believe in the Trinity, ok so be it. But ...[text shortened]... en the compassion moves in you, to follow though with it. And God will already be living in you.

I'll ignore the trinity elements of your post (although I would challenge where in scripture you base sone of you statements here) as I want to focus on what it means to be a "real" Christian.

I like your comments about compassion, I think some people have a compassionate nature and others not. Are you saying that being compassionate is what demonstrates being a real Christian? I suspect many of the atheists here are compassionate.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Just from what I gather here, it seems that twhitehead was trying to make a point about belief structure consistency. If someone says that he or she believes P; and if P implies Q; and yet he or she does not believe Q upon considering it; then there's probably a failure of rationality somewhere in there.

However, for what it's worth, I would add som ...[text shortened]... n the absence of direct evidence that recommends Q). This may also be something to think about.

Try talking to me as if we were down the pub chatting over a beer.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Words have weight.

Remember the words of your acceptance of Christ's sacrifice for your sins? There is weight there, they mean something. God takes you at your word, He makes covenant with us that He will fulfill His promises to us, if only we accept His Son's sacrifice on the cross. Do you expect Him to understand your words renouncing your faith as "just words"?

Integrity. Words have meaning.

My honesty moves you to challenge my integrity as a Christian. Remember that Peter denied Christ, or pretended to. Are you honestly claiming that you would die rather than pretend to renounce your faith?

Would that include any type of death? What about being burned alive, would you go to the stake? What about if it was a member of your family being executed, would you pretend to renounce your faith to save them?

Originally posted by divegeester
My honesty moves you to challenge my integrity as a Christian. Remember that Peter denied Christ, or pretended to. Are you honestly claiming that you would die rather than pretend to renounce your faith?

Would that include any type of death? What about being burned alive, would you go to the stake? What about if it was a member of your family being executed, would you pretend to renounce your faith to save them?

I bet you would have move luck in getting her to renounce her faith if she believed it would prevent a rape from you. How detestable that must be to her.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Zero, but you knew that already. So what's your point?

So you have no experience? would you like to go from house to house and gain some experience?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you have no experience? would you like to go from house to house and gain some experience?

Again, what relevance does this have to anything? We're talking about you claiming to be 'persecuted and harassed' because of your version of Christianity. If getting shouted at by householders because you turn up unannounced on their door step peddling your propaganda is evidence of 'persecution and harassment' then, as my grandmother would say, that is 'weak as water'.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Again, what relevance does this have to anything? We're talking about you claiming to be 'persecuted and harassed' because of your version of Christianity. If getting shouted at by householders because you turn up unannounced on their door step peddling your propaganda is evidence of 'persecution and harassment' then, as my grandmother would say, that is 'weak as water'.

Can a man who's warm understand one who's freezing? - Solzhenitsyn

Originally posted by LemonJello
Just from what I gather here, it seems that twhitehead was trying to make a point about belief structure consistency. If someone says that he or she believes P; and if P implies Q; and yet he or she does not believe Q upon considering it; then there's probably a failure of rationality somewhere in there.

However, for what it's worth, I would add som ...[text shortened]... n the absence of direct evidence that recommends Q). This may also be something to think about.

Geeeeeeeez, talk about a hijack...

Originally posted by divegeester
My honesty moves you to challenge my integrity as a Christian. Remember that Peter denied Christ, or pretended to. Are you honestly claiming that you would die rather than pretend to renounce your faith?

Would that include any type of death? What about being burned alive, would you go to the stake? What about if it was a member of your family being executed, would you pretend to renounce your faith to save them?

My entire point is that there is no "pretending". Peter was not pretending to deny Christ, either. He *was* denying Him.

And yes, any kind of death. And my family members don't enter into it. Are you changing the parameters in mid-stream?

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't care whether you are in the discussion it's your choice. It's just that you contribution involves preaching JW doctrine, dogma and why you are right any everyone else wrong, period. You are aware of what I think, not of you specifically, but of organised corporate religion generally and especially the cultish organisation you are trapped in. So w ...[text shortened]... urs as you belong to a pernicious cultish organisation.

Sorry, but that is my honest opinion.

It goes both ways. I'll always disagree with you because of your "not seeing" and supporting what the bible says about being a part of his organization and why it has to exist in order to do the world wide teaching work a Christian has to do in order to educate all who are looking for knowledge of Jehovah and of the time period we are in.
This work has to be done in an organized manor just as it was done while Jesus was here.
If it was left up to individuals like yourself, it would never be done.
As I asked Ron, and he of course has no responce, when was the last time you went out to your neighbors and offered to help teach them about God's Kingdom and what it will do not only for the person your talking too but all of mankind?

Originally posted by divegeester
Try talking to me as if we were down the pub chatting over a beer.

Maybe he talks like that over a beer 🙂. Have a few more beers and you will understand what he is saying. Basically he is saying that some people claim to be Christians but they fail to do what it takes to be one. So in fact they are deluded.