Originally posted by lucifershammerSorry, but IMHO, a Christian who does not exhibit Christ-like characteristics to some degree is not a Christian, no matter how one reads into the gathering at Antioch. You are simply another shmo who unknowingly experienced a ritualistic blessing and uses it as a Get Out of Jail Free card.
Christian for demographic purposes (e.g. census).
The word "Christian" is mentioned in the NT three times (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16). In all three cases, a demographic/sociological/religiously formal definition is implied. While being Christ-like is exhorted of them, it is not presumed.
If you are neither cold nor hot... and all that jive.
Originally posted by darvlayI have no inclination to get into a rhetoric/jingoism-battle with you. Do you admit that the actual biblical usage of "Christian" did not match the one you provided? That's all I wanted to demonstrate. I am not questioning your opinion.
Sorry, but IMHO, a Christian who does not exhibit Christ-like characteristics to some degree is not a Christian, no matter how one reads into the gathering at Antioch. You are simply another shmo who unknowingly experienced a ritualistic blessing and uses it as a Get Out of Jail Free card.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's open for interpretation, as is everything written in the Bible.
I have no inclination to get into a rhetoric/jingoism-battle with you. Do you admit that the actual biblical usage of "Christian" did not match the one you provided? That's all I wanted to demonstrate. I am not questioning your opinion.
Originally posted by darvlayNaturally all language must be interpreted, and no-one stops you from using any cockamime interpretation you want. In conversing with another person, however, you must be ready to defend your interpretation as being more reasonable if you want that to be accepted as the basis of discourse.
It's open for interpretation, as is everything written in the Bible.
Do you want to explain how in the three verses cited your definition of 'Christian' is the most natural and reasonable interpretation?
Originally posted by lucifershammerit was a reply to your "What else does Catholic (uppercase 'C'😉 mean?" post. i was in a bit of a rush when i wrote it (i had a class at 4, and i posted it at 5 past...)
Huh?
basically, my point was that most churches are catholic. i'm not sure on the specifics, but if you read the Nicene Creed (as posted earlier) you read the word "catholic" in it. "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church". the church, by definiton (i beleive) is catholic. the whole* church. not just the roman catholic, or polish catholic, but all of it. i think. i should probably research this more, but i currently don't have time...
"Catholic" is commonly used to refer to the RC church, but it actually refers to more than just that.
basically...
*maybe not the whole church. i'm unsure about this point. but a lot of it is anyway.
Originally posted by darvlayi agree! ghandi once said, "i like your jesus, but i don't like your christians".
Sorry, but IMHO, a Christian who does not exhibit Christ-like characteristics to some degree is not a Christian, no matter how one reads into the gathering at Antioch. You are simply another shmo who unknowingly experienced a ritualistic blessing and uses it as a Get Out of Jail Free card.
If you are neither cold nor hot... and all that jive.
christians who don't at least try to act in a christ like way are hypocrites. 🙂
Originally posted by lucifershammer1 Peter 4: 15-16
Naturally all language must be interpreted, and no-one stops you from using any cockamime interpretation you want. In conversing with another person, however, you must be ready to defend your interpretation as being more reasonable if you want that to be accepted as the basis of discourse.
Do you want to explain how in the three verses cited your definition of 'Christian' is the most natural and reasonable interpretation?
"15 Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler;
16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name."
To me, this speaks more towards a person's virtue (contrasting murderers, thieves and evildoers [terrorists?]) than of their demographics. To be honest, I can't really see how it can be interpretted otherwise.
Originally posted by geniusNitpick: What you cited earlier was the Apostle's Creed, not the Nicene Creed.
it was a reply to your "What else does Catholic (uppercase 'C'😉 mean?" post. i was in a bit of a rush when i wrote it (i had a class at 4, and i posted it at 5 past...)
basically, my point was that most churches are catholic. i'm not sure on the specifics, but if you read the Nicene Creed (as posted earlier) you read the word "catholic" in it. "We believe ...[text shortened]... maybe not the whole church. i'm unsure about this point. but a lot of it is anyway.
The word 'catholic' in the creeds refer to the whole Universal Church (i.e. the entirety of the people of God), correct. But that's not the same as saying every institutional church is 'catholic'.
Nevertheless, I've always been a little curious as to how denominations that reject apostolic succession nevertheless profess their faith in an apostolic Church.
Originally posted by lucifershammer...but...if a church exists then it is a member of the universal church. the catholic church. thus, it is a member of the catholic church. no?
The word 'catholic' in the creeds refer to the whole Universal Church (i.e. the entirety of the people of God), correct. But that's not the same as saying every institutional church is 'catholic'.
Nevertheless, I've always been a little curious as to how denominations that reject apostolic succession nevertheless profess their faith in an apostolic Church.
Originally posted by darvlayIt exhorts a person to virtue, but does not presume it.
1 Peter 4: 15-16
"15 Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler;
16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name."
To me, this speaks more towards a person's virtue (contrasting murderers, thieves and evildoers [terrorists?]) than of their demographics. To be honest, I can't really see how it can be interpretted otherwise.
If Christian = Christ-like, then how can Peter ask the suffering Christian not to be ashamed? If he is ashamed then he is not Christ-like and therefore not a Christian. A Christian, by your definition, cannot be ashamed and therefore would not need to be told not to be ashamed. Logically speaking, your definition leads to a contradiction here.
Look at the passage again (with some more context):
[14] If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.
[15] But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief-maker;
[16] yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God.
Peter is talking about suffering for being a Christian ("reproached for the name of Christ" in v.14) rather than actual crimes; i.e. he is talking about religious persecution here (which presumes a sociological definition rather than a spiritual one).
Originally posted by geniusNot necessarily. The problem here is that two different meanings of 'church' are being used here -- a particular, concrete, institution vs. a general, universal, collective of people and graces. It's apples and oranges.
...but...if a church exists then it is a member of the universal church. the catholic church. thus, it is a member of the catholic church. no?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI see where you are coming from. Granted, persecution is presumably sociological/demographic in nature and not spiritual but one cannot extrapolate that fact into a universal definition of a Christian. Christianity, in the idealogical sense, is (or rather, should) be about spirituality and virtue, not sectarianism.
It exhorts a person to virtue, but does not presume it.
If Christian = Christ-like, then how can Peter ask the suffering Christian not to be ashamed? If he is ashamed then he is not Christ-like and therefore not a Christian. A Christian, by your definition, cannot be ashamed and therefore would not need to be told not to be ashamed. Logicall ...[text shortened]... gious persecution here (which presumes a sociological definition rather than a spiritual one).