Originally posted by twhiteheadDefinitions 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.
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]
yet you deny me that very same right.
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.
1. yes, i know that from the only source that is available. and the only source that is available is quite clear on what system jesus laid out. if some of his words were lost, and he really wanted all to stick radishes in our noses, we will never know. it is pointless to discuss what parts of his system were lost just as it is pointless to discuss whether we are in fact brains in jars, stuck in the matrix. all we can perceive reality with is our senses and we can only use the bible to figure out what jesus preached.
2. christian is in fact someone who follows jesus. just as a florist is someone who sells flowers.
your problem is that you see christian as rjhinds. it is just as bad as seeing germans as nazis. judge a group by its worse individual if you want and if you find it easy. people should identify what is wrong with a system and try to change it, rather than bash it just because the worse elements of it keep posting stupidity on the forums.
Originally posted by KellyJaywe say in fact who is christian and who isn't. we have done it since the dawn of christianity. since we started branding heretics and since christians split and each started calling themselves "the correct kind of christians"
There is only one gets to say who is a Christian and it isn't, and it is not one of
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 n ...[text shortened]... oking and envying each other.
If you want God you ask, if you don't you won't.
Kelly
i advocate the fact that the right way to define a christian is simply what that picture said. or joking aside, what jesus said: love god and love your neighbor.
Philosophy aside
Noun: A person who has received Christian baptism
or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
I think that definition should read:
Noun: A person who thinks they have received Christian baptism
or who thinks they are a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
Otherwise I can define Christian as "Someone who accepts Jesus as the first
chess champion of the world"
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo I AM a Christian, albeit an indirect one.
we say in fact who is christian and who isn't. we have done it since the dawn of christianity. since we started branding heretics and since christians split and each started calling themselves "the correct kind of christians"
i advocate the fact that the right way to define a christian is simply what that picture said. or joking aside, what jesus said: love god and love your neighbor.
I have queried other Christians on this point, ie. whether I would be classified as Christian for the reason you pointed out, and I have either received a negative reply or that JC will decide.
All I can say is that I love and help my neighbours and try to love my enemies and understand their motives , even though they in conflict with my understanding of life.
As far as loving G-d is concerned, that is an idea which keeps the boundaries, (between man and "God" ), that have been put up by Christians for millenia.
One of the key differences between say Buddhism and Christianity is that in the Christian tradition you are to die before you meet your maker. It says that you will continue to sin, even after you have accepted Jesus, that you are no good and that there is no possibility of self-improvement in this lifetime except to accept JC into your life. Other than that, there is not much that you can control, and that "God" is bound to stuff your life up somehow and that you have to accept it.
Where as in Buddhism, which claims not to be a religion so much as a system of psychology, we are immediatedly and repeatedly told that we can empower ourselves by finding a "middle way" in all things, and to put into context All phenomena experienced in this life. That there is no god and that while constructing "positive visualizations" will empower us in the short term and show us the 'way' , the final and most advanced form of Buddhist practice is one which doesn't rely on any constructs, including being able to rely 100% on our own authority regarding all things, not in need of any books or teachers anymore.
To me it seems that Christianity is just half complete. It seems as if chunks have been taken out and then the focus put onto JC's death, which is described as the ultimate sacrifice, rather than focus on Jesus' words and the direction where his thoughts were going, which is at odds with the church, a fact that Jesus pointed out verbally and in life, as he was murdured by the organized religions of his time for speaking his mind.
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo, I do not. If you said "For the purposes of this discussion, when I say 'Christian' I mean ....."
yet you deny me that very same right.
But that is not what you said.
What you said is "When anybody else says 'Christian' they either mean what I defined it as or they are wrong!"
You claim exclusive ownership over the definition.
1. yes, i know that from the only source that is available. and the only source that is available is quite clear on what system jesus laid out.
So you say, but it seems everybody has their own interpretation of that source, so in reality, it is your interpretation, not a black and white statement in a source.
all we can perceive reality with is our senses and we can only use the bible to figure out what jesus preached.
I see you totally overlook the belief by most Christians (oops, not sure what to call them if they don't fit your definition) that Jesus rose from the dead and talked to Paul and other followers, and may even talk to people today.
2. christian is in fact someone who follows jesus. just as a florist is someone who sells flowers.
So you say, but who gives you the right to decide that? What if I say a florist is someone who grows flowers, or someone who loves flowers.
your problem is that you see christian as rjhinds. it is just as bad as seeing germans as nazis.
You got that back to front. Do you not see Nazis as Germans? Do you not see RJHinds as a Christian? I see both. I do not assume all Christians are RJHinds any more than I assume all Christians fit your definition.
judge a group by its worse individual ...
But you claim he isn't in your group.
... rather than bash it just because the worse elements of it keep posting stupidity on the forums.
If you think I bash Christianity for that reason, then you are mistaken.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat? You're changing the definition already? You do realize that both your OP and your new definition includes some Muslims?
i advocate the fact that the right way to define a christian is simply what that picture said. or joking aside, what jesus said: love god and love your neighbor.
Originally posted by twhiteheadyes, muslims are allowed to follow the same two rules.
What? You're changing the definition already? You do realize that both your OP and your new definition includes some Muslims?
until we copyright being nice to people. then nobody except christians would be allowed to be nice without paying us.
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd your happy calling them Christian when they do?
yes, muslims are allowed to follow the same two rules.
until we copyright being nice to people. then nobody except christians would be allowed to be nice without paying us.
Except that you define 'Christian' as 'being nice to people', so even if you copyright it, all one needs to do is be nice to people, then they become Christian by definition, and part owners of the copyright.
Of course such a definition is rather confusing as it really has nothing to do with Christ or the historical meaning of Christian. The people traditionally called Christians are not, on average, any more nice to people than anyone else.
Originally posted by ZahlanziHe sees me as a Christian because I tell him I am a Christian. Unlike you, some people don't doubt it. I don't speak stupidity, I speak wisdom and knowledge that you know nothing about. 😏
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.
yet you deny me that very same right.
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 ...[text shortened]... ther than bash it just because the worse elements of it keep posting stupidity on the forums.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by twhiteheadcars and bycicles are both called vehicles.
And your happy calling them Christian when they do?
[b]until we copyright being nice to people. then nobody except christians would be allowed to be nice without paying us.
Except that you define 'Christian' as 'being nice to people', so even if you copyright it, all one needs to do is be nice to people, then they become Christian by definition, a ...[text shortened]... aditionally called Christians are not, on average, any more nice to people than anyone else.[/b]
christians and muslims can all be called "decent human beings"
i thought you're a programmer, do you need me to explain oop to you?
Originally posted by RJHindssure, sure, whatever you say
He sees me as a Christian because I tell him I am a Christian. Unlike you, some people don't doubt it. I don't speak stupidity, I speak wisdom and knowledge that you know nothing about. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!
1 edit
such long and thoughtful posts 🙂 but those 2 lines made me laught that poster hits the nail on the head! I think christians get a bad name sometimes for being 'evangelist' forcing there ideas somewhat. but they really are not 1/10 churches are 'evangilist' its quite clear in the new testament not to push christianity on those who are not receptive it says so many times. It is a lot like the poster - just be good! I think its an amazing religion for its ability to hook 'secular' people on its ideas without converting them.