Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Some Catholics are, some are not. Some self-professing Christians are, some are not. Some unprofessing people are, some are not.

Any other questions?

I agree.

Originally posted by amannion
This has got to be the stupidest question ever.
If someone calls themselves a Christian then they're a Christian.

Hitler called himself a Christian.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Hitler called himself a Christian.

Then he's a Christian (according to the criteria ammanion specified). Quite syllogistic, really. 😉

Originally posted by darvlay
Christianity, in the idealogical sense, is (or rather, should) be about spirituality and virtue, not sectarianism.

Demographic/Sociological Christians should aspire to be Spiritual Christians as well, agreed.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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..

I think this is a pretty big stretch. No Christian is perfect in the ways of Christ. Christ-like does not presume a perfect mimic of Christ but a resemblance to him.

Originally posted by darvlay
I think this is a pretty big stretch. No Christian is perfect in the ways of Christ. Christ-like does not presume a perfect mimic of Christ but a resemblance to him.

Of course, in Catholic sacramental theology, every Christian (i.e. validly baptised person) is already "Christ-like".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Of course, in Catholic sacramental theology, every Christian (i.e. validly baptised person) is already "Christ-like".

Therein lies the rub - Catrholicism is bunk. 🙂

Originally posted by darvlay
Therein lies the rub - Catrholicism is bunk. 🙂

Now I can tell you were brought up Pentecostal.

😀

Originally posted by darvlay
No Christian is perfect in the ways of Christ.

I am actually confused as to how Christ is supposed to be "perfect". Just not sinning doesn't spell out "perfection" to me. "Christ-like" doesn't mean anything to me, any more than "Buddha-like", unless by that you mean bearing a distinct resemblance to some or other plaster Christ or Buddha. It's becoming more and more difficult to pin anything down. Fewer butterflies around, too.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I am actually confused as to how Christ is supposed to be "perfect". Just not sinning doesn't spell out "perfection" to me. "Christ-like" doesn't mean anything to me, any more than "Buddha-like", unless by that you mean bearing a distinct resemblance to some or other plaster Christ or Buddha. It's becoming more and more difficult to pin anything down. Fewer butterflies around, too.

The many lessons and parables of Christ gives us an idea as to what He might think a "Christian" should be.

Originally posted by darvlay
The many lessons and parables of Christ gives us an idea as to what He might think a "Christian" should be.

I understand "Christian" but not "Christ-like".

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I understand "Christian" but not "Christ-like".

Jesus gave his life in support of a futile political cause; hence Joe Hill exemplifies the term "Christ-like". The IWW in the early 1900s had about as much chance as Jewish revolutionaries 2000 years ago.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Jesus gave his life in support of a futile political cause; hence Joe Hill exemplifies the term "Christ-like".

So many people are Christ-like by that definition.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I understand "Christian" but not "Christ-like".

Aren't they one and the same?

Originally posted by darvlay
Aren't they one and the same?

Is "Christian" music "Christ-like"? Maybe some of it is...a certain ration...but that's the aesthetic response, which admits of little verbalisation.

Ration--I meant ratio--how did that bread slip in