How Many Christians Are There?

[Al_U_Card]

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That's why I wanted to clarify what we mean by Christian. Many people say they are following the teachings of Christ by trying to be good people but those people are damned. They may genuinely think they are following Christ but reject the main message.

Which one was that? (He left us with quite a few, didn't he?)

[DrTodd13]

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That's why I wanted to clarify what we mean by Christian. Many people say they are following the teachings of Christ by trying to be good people but those people are damned. They may genuinely think they are following Christ but reject the main message.

Which one was that? (He left us with quite a few, didn't he?)

Reconciliation to God (forgiveness of sin) by accepting him as sin-bearer through His death and resurrection.

[cherdano]

You could accept self-identification, or you could use one or

more additional criteria, such as:

1. Belief in Heaven and Hell

2. Belief that Jesus is the Son of God, who physically appeared

on the earth, and whose teachings lead the way to Heaven

3. Belief that every word of the New Testament is true

4. Belief that abortion should be illegal

5. Regular church attendance

6. Regular prayer

7. etc.

 

(...)

 

I am from the U.S.

You didn't need to add this. While your check list above should already be highly controversial for the US only, it just doesn't make any sense with regards to most European Christians...

 

Maybe I am a little biased myself, because (while I am atheist now) I come from a German Lutherian-protestant background, which is probably more intellectually dominated than most Christian churches. In Germany, "Theologie" is accepted as a branch of humanities that is taught at most universities. Every priest has studied this for 5 years or more. This may of course be quite controversial in itself (separation of government and religion - it isn't really in Germany though); however it does lead to a Christian belief that is intellectually reflected, knows about philosophy, science and isn't afraid to use computer linguistics as an aid in studying the bible. I am not sure non-religious Americans would recognize the religion as the one that many of their fellow countrymen are practicing...

 

Here is what, I believe, most Lutherian protestants would answer to your criteria:

1. In hell: no, in heaven: yes, but in a highly figurative sense

2. Yes

3. Of course not. Every school kid who takes the (optional) subject "religion" learns about the various sources of the new testament, how they got combined historically into what is now the new testament, etc. etc.

4. Of course not.

5. Only very few of them

6. Some of them, not sure it is a big majority.

 

If you want, this is a Christian belief that has absorbed and accepted the enlightenment.

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That's why I wanted to clarify what we mean by Christian. Many people say they are following the teachings of Christ by trying to be good people but those people are damned. They may genuinely think they are following Christ but reject the main message.

Which one was that? (He left us with quite a few, didn't he?)

Reconciliation to God (forgiveness of sin) by accepting him as sin-bearer through His death and resurrection.

"Toe the line or you're *****ed". Definitely Christianity's core message...

 

In all seriousness, DrTodd has raised a fairly significant schism within different Christian Churches focusing on what is necessary for salvation.

 

Some churches allow for the possibility of salvation through good deeds. What is most important is living a righteous life where one's actions are consistent with the teachings of Christ. When I was going through confirmation class in the Evangelical Lutheran Church this point of view was widely accepted, both by the students as well as the various Vicers and Pastors that were instructing. Simply put: None of us were comfortable with the idea of worshiping a God who was willing to burn billions of people who were born in the wrong place or time.

 

Other groups focus on the concept of salvation through ritual:

 

Shut down your brain.

Swallow the right flavor of Koolaid.

Learn the right chants

 

If you guess right and suck up to the appropriate demiurge you get to go to heaven

 

The following Chick comic is pretty representative of this line of reasoning

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0041/0041_01.asp

 

Of course, if you guess wrong...

 

Here's a few other tracts explaining how all the muslims will burn

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1031/1031_01.asp

 

All the Hindus will burn

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0070/0070_01.asp

 

All the Mormons will burn

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0061/0061_01.asp

 

All the Catholics will burn

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5023/5023_01.asp

 

And, course, my favorite: "Who will get eaten first"

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

 

You can probably guess which side of the fence I'm sitting on.

 

I'll be quite blunt here: Most of the occasions where I've seen serious discussion about "Salvation through Faith" have involved belligerent hard line fundamentalists. I consider this entire line of argument completely abhorent.

[EricK]

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That would put the actual percentage somewhere around 0%, wouldn't it?

[luke warm]

I'm a Christian.  Personally, I would add another caveat to the true Christian and that is that he is placing total faith in Christ as his sin-bearer and is relying on nothing else for salvation.

So do Roman Catholics qualify as Christians?

 

After all, the Papists have all that liturgy surrounding the intercession of the Virgin Mary and various Saints. Traditional pilgrimages like the Camino de Santiago d Compestella are still held to grant forgiveness from certain sins. And then, of course, there is the entire concept of indulgences, plenary and otherwise...

not to hijack todd's answer, but he's paraphrasing from a book written by dr. kennedy of coral gables, fla... the book is evangelism explosion and was written a long time ago

 

i happen to agree with the portion todd quoted, and will give more fodder for whatever cannons there are... dr. kennedy wrote the book to help his church evangelize, but the book gained almost universal acceptance among protestant christians... he suggested that those witnessing for Christ ask two questions, with the direction taken to be determined by the answers given

 

the second question was, ultimately, the most important... it was, if you died today and found yourself standing before God, and if God asked why he should let you into his heaven, what would your answer be?

 

in ths way dr. kennedy's witnesses were able to determine whether or not one had a faulty understanding of christianity... if the answer led the witness to the conclusion that the person thought works of any kind were a part of salvation, the witness could explain why they aren't... neither dr. kennedy nor anyone i know will say that a catholic is unsaved... none of us can judge the heart of another, we can only go by what a person proclaims (or denies)... all that can be done is to give the gospel of Christ, which is God's power unto salvation... one either believes or doesn't believe that gospel

"Toe the line or you're *****ed"... Definitely Christianity's core message...

this is definitely not christianity's core, or even adjacent, message... it is one that people have, and in a lot of cases it's our (christians) fault that's so

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

well a christian is certainly one who *tries* to follow the teachings of Christ, but for me it's impossible to distinguish between salvation (being saved) and being a christian... so it's possible, even likely, for a christian to be very unChrist-like in his behavior... luckily for us, that has no bearing on salvation

Perhaps you should read the whole wikipedia article:

i did

Humanists say that secular humanism is not a religion, while acknowledging that some varieties of humanism may be religious in some senses of the word.

oic... a religious non-religion (in some senses of the word)

[pbleighton]

"You didn't need to add this. While your check list above should already be highly controversial for the US only, it just doesn't make any sense with regards to most European Christians..."

 

That was the point of 7. etc.

 

Peter

[akhare]

The following Chick comic is pretty representative of this line of reasoning

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0041/0041_01.asp

ROFL -- some of those chick comics were really hilarious. The sad part of course is that someone actually believes that the "heretics" will actually burn in hell.

 

The cult of Kali was pretty well done -- they based it partly on the historical "thugs" (or Thugee if you will) and borrowed some inspiration from the legend of an encounter between Bodhisatva (an earlier incarnation of Buddha) and AnguliMala (literally garland of fingers).

[BebopKid]

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That would put the actual percentage somewhere around 0%, wouldn't it?

Amen. No person, other than Christ, has ever or can ever succeed in being Holy.

 

One can strive, though.

[pclayton]

I'm a Christian.  Personally, I would add another caveat to the true Christian and that is that he is placing total faith in Christ as his sin-bearer and is relying on nothing else for salvation.

So do Roman Catholics qualify as Christians?

 

After all, the Papists have all that liturgy surrounding the intercession of the Virgin Mary and various Saints. Traditional pilgrimages like the Camino de Santiago d Compestella are still held to grant forgiveness from certain sins. And then, of course, there is the entire concept of indulgences, plenary and otherwise...

Loosely, they are the same.

 

"Christians", to Catholics anyway, is a euphemism for others that have struck out and formed their own sects. Lutherans, Episcopal, Baptists, etc..

 

Many "Christians" are ex-Catholics that got fed up with the pomp and circumstance, or wanted something more energetic and evangelical. Most Catholic ceremonies are as dry as toast.

 

The core beliefs are the same (Peter's list), but the rituals are a lot different. The political views are frequently different, as are the group's views toward divorce, homosexuality and abortion.

[pclayton]

Chick Publications; what a joke.

 

The only groups that I know that uses this garbage are Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

Richard, you need to come up with something more credible to prove your point.

[Al_U_Card]

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That's why I wanted to clarify what we mean by Christian. Many people say they are following the teachings of Christ by trying to be good people but those people are damned. They may genuinely think they are following Christ but reject the main message.

Which one was that? (He left us with quite a few, didn't he?)

Reconciliation to God (forgiveness of sin) by accepting him as sin-bearer through His death and resurrection.

Oh, that "the dog ate my homework so I'm off the hook" one...

[mike777]

"Well it only takes faith of the size of a Mustard seed."

 

I repeat this for emphasis.

 

 

To make the other more complicated answers even more confusing

 

consider if you are only saved by the Grace of the gift of the Holy Spirit by definition an Undeserved Gift of forgiveness bestowed only by the supernatural.

 

Note the phrase undeserved gift, that is why the term Grace permeates the religion.

[Gerben42]

1. Belief in Heaven and Hell

2. Belief that Jesus is the Son of God, who physically appeared

on the earth, and whose teachings lead the way to Heaven

3. Belief that every word of the New Testament is true

4. Belief that abortion should be illegal

5. Regular church attendance

6. Regular prayer

7. etc.

 

If you would, please state your country and your definition

of Christian, and whether you consider yourself a Christian,

or if not, what are you. For me:

 

I am from the U.S.

I think about 40% of U.S. citizens meet my definition of

being a Christian.

I consider 1, 2, and either 5 or 6 (or both) to be necessary

to be a Christian.

I am an atheist.

 

I am from the Netherlands but living in Germany so will use that perspective.

I think about 50% of the citizens meet my definition of being a Christian, which means just #2 is necessary. I think #1 is part of #2...

 

Reality check: Turns out the number of registered Christians (which for me includes Catholics AND Evangelics) is a bit above 60% in Germany (probably higher in Bavaria, where I live).

 

I think religion is a personal thing so 5 & 6 is up to yourself.

 

I think #3 includes 0 people because of internal contradictions. However people who think they do might be called fundamentalist (which does not automatically mean they are violent, even though the media want you to believe this)

 

#4 is usually both connected and correlated to religion but in my opinion is a moral value and not a religious belief, and in addition it is a moral value that one in my opinion should not force upon others.

 

Personally I am a positive atheist. I cannot possibly believe any of this stuff, sorry people. Instead try to make yourself immortal in the way that when you have died, people will remember you in a positive way and you have contributed something that outlives you as long as possible.

[Al_U_Card]

"And the way of the many shall lead to perdition, while the way of the few will lead to salvation."

[hrothgar]

Chick Publications; what a joke.

 

The only groups that I know that uses this garbage are Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

Richard, you need to come up with something more credible to prove your point.

I readily admit that Chick comics are over the top in terms of their presentation, however, I rarely complain about rhetorical excess. To me, the more interesting question is whether or not one accepts the central theme behind the comics.

 

Lets consider the following specific case which I will put forth to DrTodd.

 

Mahatma Gandhi was many things. I would argue that his life epitomizes the values that Jesus taught. (I certainly can't think of a better example)

However, Ghandi doesn't appear to have been a Christian as defined by DrTodd. I certainly don't know of any examples where Ghandi spoke of the

necessity of accepting Christ as one's savior.

 

Were Ghandi's actions sufficient for him to achieve salvation?

 

If your answer is yes, doesn't this indictae that salvation through deeds is possible.

If not, why does your "God" deserve our veneration?

[akhare]

Instead try to make yourself immortal in the way that when you have died, people will remember you in a positive way and you have contributed something that outlives you as long as possible.

Well said -- technically though, for the believers, the soul is already immortal "out of the box" and so there's really nothing to do :(.

[luke warm]

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That's why I wanted to clarify what we mean by Christian. Many people say they are following the teachings of Christ by trying to be good people but those people are damned. They may genuinely think they are following Christ but reject the main message.

Which one was that? (He left us with quite a few, didn't he?)

Reconciliation to God (forgiveness of sin) by accepting him as sin-bearer through His death and resurrection.

Oh, that "the dog ate my homework so I'm off the hook" one...

sigh

[mike777]

If you are asking how many are saved, then the answer is quite ranging.

 

For most mainline versions it is anywhere from around 30-40% to all or almost all will be saved.

 

The Chapter Revelations is really about God calling everyone to salvation again, again and again with each horn blast.

 

 

I find the whole issue of Free will, God call those who he saves and the Nature of man accepting sin and rejecting God a bit confusing. If the Nature of man rejects God and the Nature of man can ONLY be changed by an undeserved gift of the Holy Spirit, where does free will come in if our Nature rejects God, confusing......

[DrTodd13]

Lets consider the following specific case which I will put forth to DrTodd.

 

Mahatma Gandhi was many things. I would argue that his life epitomizes the values that Jesus taught. (I certainly can't think of a better example)

However, Ghandi doesn't appear to have been a Christian as defined by DrTodd. I certainly don't know of any examples where Ghandi spoke of the necessity of accepting Christ as one's savior.

 

Were Ghandi's actions sufficient for him to achieve salvation?

 

If your answer is yes, doesn't this indictae that salvation through deeds is possible.

If not, why does your "God" deserve our veneration?

So you prefer an arbitrary God who randomly chooses a line where someone slightly less evil than X gets into Heaven and someone slightly more evil goes to Hell? This is the kind of God I would not want to venerate because he would be arbitrary and capricious. I prefer a perfect God who doesn't draw an arbitrary line but requires the non-arbitrary standard of perfection. Moreover, knowing that fallen humans are incapable of such a state He provides a means for us to attain perfection by proxy and did so through living a perfect life and accepting punishment for us. A perfect God who is willingly to sacrifice himself to attain fellowship with His creations sounds like something worth of veneration to me.

[hrothgar]

So you prefer an arbitrary God who randomly chooses a line where someone slightly less evil than X gets into Heaven and someone slightly more evil goes to Hell?  This is the kind of God I would not want to venerate because he would be arbitrary and capricious.  I prefer a perfect God who doesn't draw an arbitrary line but requires the non-arbitrary standard of perfection.

Comment 1:

 

You failed to answer the core question: Were Ghandi's actions sufficient for him to achieve salvation?

 

Comment 2:

 

I seem to recall that this "God" thing is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful. In general, arguments for a concrete rule set are based on imperfect knowledge. All too often your "judge" isn't capable of separating intent from action. Accordingly, arbitrary standards are often necessary.

 

However, if your fundamental assertion is correct, all these little issues fall by the wayside. By definition, your God must be capable of enforcing a flexible standard in a just and equitable manner.

 

In short, I'm a hell of a lot more comfortable with a "God" who applies intelligence and discretion than I am with one who condemns Ghandi to burn because he didn't chant the right magic words....

[DrTodd13]

So you prefer an arbitrary God who randomly chooses a line where someone slightly less evil than X gets into Heaven and someone slightly more evil goes to Hell?  This is the kind of God I would not want to venerate because he would be arbitrary and capricious.  I prefer a perfect God who doesn't draw an arbitrary line but requires the non-arbitrary standard of perfection.

Comment 1

 

You failed to answer the core question: Were Ghandi's actions sufficient for him to achieve salvation?

 

Comment 2:

 

I seem to recall that this "God" thing is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful. In general, arguments for a concrete rule set are based on imperfect knowledge. All too often your "judge" isn't capable of separating intent from action. Accordingly, arbitrary standards are often necessary.

 

However, if your fundamental assertion is correct, all these little issues fall by the wayside. By definition, your God must be capable of enforcing a flexible standard in a just and equitable manner.

Answer to comment 1. Sin is infinitely worse than any good deed. The question is not did Ghandi do anything good, it is did he do anything wrong? So I would phrase it as Ghandi's bad deeds, however few they may be, have condemned him. His good deeds are irrelevant in the presence of sin.

 

Not sure what you're getting at with comment 2. God as perfect judge must separate intent from action I agree. I don't know the optimum method of representing good versus bad intentions. It could be one or more rules I don't know. I don't think it matters though whether the ultimately rules are small or large in number. Are you trying to say that what is defined as good versus bad is arbitrary? Many people might agree with you but there are others who claim to believe in objective morality even in the absence of God. Take some rule set and ask why some things are good and others bad. You can extract some principles and may be able to extract principles about those principles and so on and so on but ultimately the best you can do is get back to one uber-principle. Why should that statement be accepted? Well, it is axiomatic and if there is a perfect judge of what are good axioms and which are bad it is God.

[akhare]

Many people might agree with you but there are others who claim to believe in objective morality even in the absence of God. 

There was an article in a recent Scientific American about a study that raised the question of whether all animals have an innate canonical moral frame of reference. Apparently, chimps seem to be capable of sensing whether the reward (and by deprivation thereof, punishment) was proportional to the "good" action (presumably obeying a command or performing a trick in this case).

 

Apparently they were distraught if one chimp was say given a banana and the other a less favourite fruit for performing the same action.

[hrothgar]

Answer to comment 1.  Sin is infinitely worse than any good deed.  The question is not did Ghandi do anything good, it is did he do anything wrong?  So I would phrase it as Ghandi's bad deeds, however few they may be, have condemned him.  His good deeds are irrelevant in the presence of sin.

So, we cower before God because he will damn us if we don't

As I said originally, "Toe the line or you're *****ed"

 

Beautiful religion you got there Todd...

[DrTodd13]

Answer to comment 1.  Sin is infinitely worse than any good deed.  The question is not did Ghandi do anything good, it is did he do anything wrong?  So I would phrase it as Ghandi's bad deeds, however few they may be, have condemned him.  His good deeds are irrelevant in the presence of sin.

So, we cower before God because he will damn us if we don't

As I said originally, "Toe the line or your *****ed"

 

Beautiful religion you got there Todd...

First off, one can make an argument that God isn't the one doing the damning. You are damning yourself by rejecting a free gift. It is an impossibility for God to allow you to remain in his presence if you have sin. If the soul is immortal then there must be some place for the soul to go outside God's presence. You don't blame gravity if an asteroid falls on your head and you shouldn't blame God if your own deeds condemn you.

 

Nowhere did I say we should cower before God. There is no need for it. The God you seem to prefer is the one you need to cower before because you can never know whether you are good enough or not. My God provides a free way to atone for your sins and a way to know where you stand. It is a beautiful religion because despite your mockery, Christ still died for you so that you could be reconciled unto Him.