This is a very cool topic Ritchard.

I believe there are so very many who can relate to this young man in this video.

For me, to call myself a christian is a lable, just like the young man suggested.

So I understand why he is concerned with this lable.

I go a step further with this principle, & wish not to be associated to one specific denomination.

The reason for this is,  I feel our division is due to differences, &  can be more subjective, without the lables.

It is probably because he doesn't agree with an interpretation, that many mainstream "christians" adopt as their principles.

Most noteably sin & salvation.

The thing is, many don't wish to realy delve into a negative (sin), in order to get a grasp of the positive (salvation).

To be set "free' or to be liberated from a slavery, could this not be seen as a form of "salvation"?

The real basis for this principle of sin & salvation is positive in nature.

The principle of salvation is one of a positive principle of restoration of relationship with God.

It is not meant as a negative in any way shape or form.

Due to our flesh, we may see it as a negative of our exploring all facets of this  life journey.

Some things are best left alone, until we gain the understanding that is required to live a life more abundant.

Sometimes we in our "human condition" delve on a negative, yet believe it to be positive. When it is nothing of the sort.

This is deception.

Some would say that being a christian is loyalty to the church, but I believe it's more about loyalty to Christ & His message.

Bolt

Mike, I have started naming myself as someone who is reclaiming the word Christian.

There's an amusing set of videos on youtube about this.

Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RtfNdg1fQk for the first one.

As I listened to the video - thank you Richard for posting it - Gandhi's quote kept popping in my mind's eye

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.

Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

I identify with John in the video.  I am not comfortable with taking on the label of Christian for the very same reasons that he describes.  It is the same reason I do not identify with any one political party.  I hold both liberal and conservative positions in life.

For me, labels restrict one from looking at all the possibilities and taking the best from all. I can find the actions of Christ in the writings of a 13th century Tamil poet, a 19th century Quaker peace activist or a 21st century atheist sci-fiction writer. They all speak of cohesion with people and the universe.

But that is my perspective, and just as I do not wish others to impose theirs on me, I have no desire to impose mine on them.  Some people need concrete definitions.  They require markers to form their identity.  It provides form and security just as the formlessness gives me room to breathe.

I am reminded of the stories of early Christians meeting each other, one would draw a line in the sand, the other would complete the image.  I see several symbolic acts in this simple greeting.  The image does not say "I am a Christian", it says "We are" for it requires two to complete.  It is a curved line, not straight and joins at both ends but remains open with two paths.  It was written in sand so not permanent thus being able to shift.  For me it is an image that speaks of union with endless possibilities.

There is room in this universe for everyone whether they seek an indelible mark or not; all that is required is respect for the freedom to do so - or not.

LB

Each has his past shut in him like the leaves of a book known to him by heart and his friends can only read the title.

Virginia Woolf

Humans can do mean, nasty and disgusting things to each other, does that mean that we should stop identifying ourselves as human? If one has to use qualifiers, perhaps one should rethink their position.

People use labels as an extension of tribalism. It is "your" tribe vs. "my" tribe, and the label provides a way of distinguishing which tribe you are in. Well, if you want to play that game, then the reply to the question "are you a Christian" could be first, "what are you?" And if they cannot reply, why should you? But really, can't we get beyond this label thing and deal with the real issues? Because usually labels are just a way of avoiding talking about those issues (if you are a _____, you must believe ____). It's a rather naive way of understanding.

Many describe themselves as "christian" and live like the world with no love of God, Jesus or man and if they bothered to read Matthew 7 about the narrow path they should be worried.

Christian means Christ in us and was intended as an insult but that difference shoud make us the Jesus freaks of the world, we should be unique and not take part in the drunkenness, profanity etc. of this world.  Jesus came to set us free from sin and God's wrath and judgment and the penalty of hell and sadly for so many it is nothing more than a title that says nothing about their hearts.

In his sermon that became a book "The Greatest thing in the World", Henry Drummond talks about love and our relationship with God.  There are many hearts that if we read Matthew 7 will not make it past the gates of heaven.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16739
H.D. preached it over a century ago, you may learn from this.
 

Christ in us = hearts being changed and love of God and Jesus and man.

Ping & Olive.. re: way back at the top there.

The thing that's put me off too readily telling other "Christians" that I think I'm "Christian" is the number of times I've been told "no you're not, not if you don't believe... blah balh" --  I don't "believe" anything; I just trust.

God is a mystery to me. Jesus is a path I am following. I experience God, as far as I know. But I know it's only a hint I get.

On the other hand, i've found many non-Christians who will engage in a decent and insightful conversation "without prejudice" (as the lawyers say.

yeah, i know, mike.. but..you know....it's kinda like wondercafe.

I am guessing that there are atheists and agnostics on this site who are surprised when they encounter theology suchas we express regularly here. 

I am a Christian...though I don't believe in the God of hellfire/damnation that would send an earthquake to Haiti, Aids to gays, and pick & choose who lives/dies.   I am a Christian though I have a different understanding of the resurrection , and am challenged by the intrepetations oft put on the stories.

Call me a goof, but, I don't feel it should only be those who seek to exclude who use it.

absolutely,and that is the point of the song, bolt.....i aint afraid of your _______, i am afraid of what you do in the name of our God.

free up...rise higher.....work for good...

right..understood....

CHRISTIAN  - pro a word first used by a roman soldier just befor he killed him. Like other words used ON People.-Like Italian- - - -  Black person - - - - - I belive it meens christ like. Of witch I am not . I'm a littel like John the baptist in this thinking. I am not worthy to touch his shoes.When you say the word Christian. the next thing you here is witch Demomintion?I offten just say follower of the Way.

Understood

Bolt

GETTING TO KNOW THE OPPOSITION

================================

With a view to understanding atheism, agnosticism and why some are bitter and cynical, since last August I have been dialoguing in an Agnosticism/Atheism forum  http://forums.about.com/   

I have found that most A/A's in this forum take an in-your-face militant approach--lots of ad hominems--to religion, faith and morals and are not all that willing to be open-minded. They prefer debate over dialogue and most are more than ready to put their own spin on what the Bible and those who quote it are trying to say. BTW, currently I am in the thread: Is New Atheism Justified?

However, one of the posters, while curt, seems a little more willing to disagree agreeably. When he recently expressed a narrow view of Christianity and attacked it as if there is only one kind, I asked him if he was aware of pluralism and ecumenism, he responded:

• 

•  Seeker (Seeker000)    Yeah, but all that wishy-washy "let's stick together" Christianity is still Christianity... you know, that whole "believe that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God"-schtick. So one would still expect the ministers of those churches to be Christians (or at least profess to be Christians)

================

Then I posted the following about Jesus. I also asked him if he knew that Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. As Acts 11:26 makes clear, Christianity came later. Then I wrote:

• Jesus preached and practiced a constant concern for the poor; that we must welcome and embrace the stranger, the foreigner, and the alien.
  
• He preached and practiced tolerance for others, including other religions, cultures, ethnic groups, and gays.
• He preached and practiced visiting those in prison, relieving their suffering, and healing their physical, mental and spiritual wounds.
  
• His parables, especially the parable of the good Samaritan--Luke 10:25-37--are about doing, not just about believing.
  
• By the way, the Samaritans--much like the blacks who were held in slavery--were held in contempt, targeted and despised by the enemies of Jesus among his own people.
  
• Am I a Christian? Ask my neighbours, near and far, how I treat them. What would your neighbours tell me about you? Good news, I assume.

============================================================

Here is his response. My comments are in italics:

"John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." All the works referred to in Mt. 7:22-23 are useless without professing the belief." Seeker

Interestingly, there is evidence that "The Way" is what Christianity was called before it was called Christianity. IMO, it was, and is, a way of action, not a set of beliefs. There are those who say that during those 20 years of which we have no record in the Gospels, Jesus visited the far east. It is believed that there he met and was influenced by Taoists--the name means 'the way'.

BTW, pluralistic Christians welcome pluralistic agnostics and atheists, especially when they are active followers of "the way"--that is, a way that is moral, ethical and loving.

Christians who babble about Christianity being "the way", doctrinally, and then make no attempt to live "the way" in actuality are simply hypocrites.

BTW, I know Dawkins and Hitchens do ridicule irrational beliefs and hypocritical behaviour--and I do not blame them--but I do not think they, and other rational atheists, go out of their way to ridicule and mock people--whatever their religion--who actually do, to the best of their ability, try to live moral, ethical and loving lives devoted to the service of others, do they?

Are there those in this forum who think it is OK to mock and attack people of good intent--or who strive to do the good--even if they are not perfect at it?

I am thinking of Socrates, Aristotle, Jesus, Mohammed, St. Francis, Wesley, Knox, Gandhi, Spinoza, Einstein, MLKing, and the like.

       http://forums.about.com/

This is a good info site. To get a taste of what is going on:  type in   revlgking  on the front page, where it says experts and then hit go.

Indeed!  great stuff.

Wow for me to comment on every good point that is raised, it would take this two finger typist a decade.LOL!

Bolt

Only Jesus can save us.                                                                              ]

lol...we hope so...

reminds me of rev matt's t-shirt ..."jesus saves" ...with jesus in goalie pads doing a wonderful stop

Christ concience would say to me that we cannot judge the motives of love within  a relationship.

With this in mind, I will no longer judge the homosexual by their actions, because I have absolutely no concept of the homosexual's motives.

This is completely between the homosexual & God.

Bolt

What?

===============================================

Airclean:

Without going into the details about the difference between

agape (let's give good will, respect and be fair with one another, without conditions),

philia (let's be friends with one another. From it we get philosophy, philanthropy, Philadelphia)  and

eros (let's be lovers and family-like--even sentimental. From it we get erotic--OK in the right time and place)

BTW, has anyone done any posting on this?--

It seems to me that Jesus did teach that, in all things, we are to agape/love, without conditions. Did he not? Did he not even say we ought to agape/love our enemies?  BTW, you are off the hook: He did not say we have to befriend (philia) and/or be attracted to (eros) everyone, including enemies. Jesus was not always friendly, even to some of his disciples.

For information, I have relatives and friends--perhaps we all do--who are homosexual, and they are far from being enemies. Why would I not give them lots of agape? Or even friendship. As long as they do not expect me to be homosexual and to be attracted to them, I accept them for what they are.

BTW, when it comes to sexual behaviour, I also expect them--as I expect people in general--to keep the law.

I have absolutely no concept of the homosexual's motives.

This is completely between the homosexual & God. --    Boltupright Wrote ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It always has been Bolt---I won't judge them .But did Jesus say except them as bothers ? PHiadphia means Brotherly Love. Agepe Means the Love God has for us even when we are in sin .  If some one said Praise  The Lord for this is the day the Lord has made. If my Bible agrees so  do I.                              

RevLGKing------Thank you for your time Airclean33

Are we not in the same human condition as they are? Is the homosexual realy any different than us who are not?

Those who see it as sin, do people such as this not not have their hidden sins?

Anyone who says they are without sin , sin if doing so, for it is a bull face lie, in a world of subtlties of deception,

Just as they are perceived as putting sin on thier foreheads for all to see, yet we believe that they see it as sin like we do. LOL this is rediculous!

These people who love with a love not unlike ours when we see the love of God in the eyes of one, who God wishes to form a lesson of love from.

Then we look at their flesh & judge their love based on their flesh.

Does God measure our love by the flesh?, Or by where His spirit births love of the perfect kind?

We are not God, & if we are to get closer to the mark, we better start using the Christ conscience that God has dispenced for us to get a better picture, than what we see in our flesh.

Bolt