Originally posted by twhitehead
If enough people claim to be a horse, then they will be put in the dictionary.
if the definition is ever redefined, they may call themselves by that new term. but as long as the original definition remains, we go by those.
The problem comes when they claim to fit the current definition of 'horse' and they do not match that definition. However I don't believe that is the case when it comes to 'Christian'.
why not? we still have a definition of what it is to be a christian in the new testament.
those that redefine what it meas to be a christian come up with special identifiers for their beliefs; for example "catholic," "protestant," "jehova witness" and so on. often they even sub-define those categories.
I think it is important what people claim and what they wish to call themselves.
For example some people call themselves 'Satanists' yet they do not believe in the existence of Satan. They have their own meaning for the word, and by their meaning they are not wrong.
Similarly being 'Jewish' could refer to your religion, your culture, or your genetic inheritance or your descent from other people calling themselves 'Jews'. Who are we to decide who the 'True Jew' is?
i don't hold any importance on what people claim to be. i place importance on how people behave in relation to what they claim to be. if a person claims to be a horse and goes around on all fours, whining, hanging out at the stable and generally behaving like a horse, then i would grant them that identification, not before.