1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadthat is the only definition. anything else is not needed. define it any other way and it is no longer christianity.
No, that's your definition. If someone else wan'ts to have their own definition, who are you to tell them no? Why is yours right and theirs wrong?
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou mean its not your brand of Christianity. So I ask you again: who put you in charge of making the definition?
that is the only definition. anything else is not needed. define it any other way and it is no longer christianity.
If I want to start my own denomination of Christianity where we are all really selfish and nasty, then nobody can stop me, and if you say "You're not Christian" then I can say it right back.
Did you not start this thread because you disagreed with someone else's definition?
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhy does someone needs to be put in charge of defining it?
You mean its not your brand of Christianity. So I ask you again: who put you in charge of making the definition?
If I want to start my own denomination of Christianity where we are all really selfish and nasty, then nobody can stop me, and if you say "You're not Christian" then I can say it right back.
Did you not start this thread because you disagreed with someone else's definition?
do you understand what you are doing? someone defined christianity in a way that is wrong, with all the discrimination and prejudice and iflexibility, and you enjoy trashing that as an atheist. When someone comes along with a better definition, you deny them that right?
blacks were defined as 2/3 human for quite a while. where they in fact 2/3 human for as long as the majority deemed it so? or had their status as humans never been changed and the majority falsely believed that, to suit someone's agenda? at one point in time nobody questioned their "full membership" into the human race.
christianity was at one point just as i described it. it still is. the system, as laid out by jesus, never changed. we did. we added rules. then empowered popes and patriarchs, then empowered organizations and various individuals to define for us what christianity is.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI never trash definitions, because definitions can't be trashed.
someone defined christianity in a way that is wrong, with all the discrimination and prejudice and iflexibility, and you enjoy trashing that as an atheist.
When someone comes along with a better definition, you deny them that right?
I deny them the right to own the definition.
Definitions are either made up for the purpose of communication, or have already been arrived at through common usage. But nobody owns them and they can be changed.
blacks were defined as 2/3 human for quite a while.
No, they weren't. This is where you expose the fact that you don't know what a definition is. Blacks were defined as humans with dark skin of varying shades depending on where in the world we are talking about. That the humans matching the definition as black are 2/3 human, is an assertion or claim, not a definition.
christianity was at one point just as i described it. it still is. the system, as laid out by jesus, never changed. we did. we added rules. then empowered popes and patriarchs, then empowered organizations and various individuals to define for us what christianity is.
But you are asserting that:
1. You know what system Jesus laid out.
2. That you have the right to define a 'Christian' as someone who follows the system laid out by Jesus.
You then take your assertions and try to hide them as a definition. Not acceptable.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThere is only one gets to say who is a Christian and it isn't, and it is not one of
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/you-said-that-good-10.jpg?w=500&h=626
us. What we are told when we are not sure is to look at their lives, if they are
in Christ and have the Spirit of God we will see the fruit of God's Spirit in them
working out how they live!
Galatians 5: 13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
If you want God you ask, if you don't you won't.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadi meant christianity. you create the worse version of any religion and you enjoy trashing that, because really, where is the fun in mocking a theist who doesn't let science and religion mix, doesn't have any prejudices, doesn't shove his faith down other people's throat and celebrates his faith rather than mourn it. those guys are boring, fuk those guys.
I never trash definitions, because definitions can't be trashed.
[b]When someone comes along with a better definition, you deny them that right?
I deny them the right to own the definition.
Definitions are either made up for the purpose of communication, or have already been arrived at through common usage. But nobody owns them and they can be ch ...[text shortened]... Jesus.
You then take your assertions and try to hide them as a definition. Not acceptable.[/b]
now rj on the other hand, he is fun and easy to mock.