Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The Definition of "Christian"
Posts
And don't forget to season your sacrifice with salt, oil, and herbs, per Leviticus 2. God demands it!
Mmm.. sounds mighty tasty! :^:
Since the splitting off of protestantism, the word was reclaimed as anyone from a sect deriving of Catholicism. Other groups who hold a figure named Jesus of Nazareth as the 'Christos' also have attempted with varying success to take back the word.
Outside of power plays for the word, taking the word in it's most literal sense it would be anyone who believes in the 'Christos', ignoring language barriers this would also mean Jews are Christians, and in fact any religion with any messiah at all would also be Christian.
For ease of use, the protestant definition of the word is most used.
The whole argument is rather trite though, since like all words it is a simply a variable meant to hold a meaning. It's meaning may be informed by the configuration of it's letters, but without a good consensus it doesn't have a set meaning across all people and situations. If your goal was to create a consensus then perhaps you should have clearly stated a proposal, such as "I propose this to be the definition henceforth to be used for the word Christian." Since no proposal was made, nor has it been accepted by a majority of others, there fails to be a simple concise definition of it and instead each person will use the meaning which it has been connoted to them. Whether that be "accepts Jesus as the Christ" or "delusional freak" both are valid definitions so long as their is no group consensus otherwise. We might as well just use the wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian , as a foundation and go from their for all the good this topic will do us.
Rather, they believe that the law, while insufficient for salvation, is nevertheless the best legal code we have since it comes directly from God, is "holy, just and good" according to Paul in Romans 7:12, and is to remain for all time per Dt. 4.
In other words, while you don't have to follow the law to be saved, you should still try to follow the law, and should try to model current legal codes after the law.
So can you explain what the problem is with such an interpretation?
Nothing wrong with that if they accept that they are saved by grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ Jesus alone. As long as nothing is added to the requirements for what Jesus completed on the cross, they are A-OK according to Scripture.
Illuminati!! New World Order!! Reptilians!
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
Anyways, Christians believe the Old Testament has some value as a moral compass but many believe it's out of date compared to the NT. Jesus said references to Him in the OT (not the whole OT) were valid in Luke 24:27 and 44 but, let's be practical - Jesus' message differed from Mosaic Law so how is anybody going to place equal value on two testaments at the same time?
A Christian that actually adheres to the Bible will not stone anyone to death. Can a Christian sin and kill someone? Sure thing. Is it done because of their faith? No.
Why would a Christian follow anything meant for a first century Jew?
But do you believe it would be immoral to follow the Old Testament laws today? After all, Jesus says he has not abolished them, and Paul says they are holy, just, and good.
If you do believe it would be immoral to follow the laws of the Old Testament—such as the one commanding virgin rape victims to marry their rapists in Dt. 22:28—then why on earth would your God give you laws which are immoral to follow? And why would he say that these laws are never to be changed and will be looked at in awe by other cultures as wise and just (Dt. 4)?
Because they presumably believe that the laws God gave to the Jews are the best laws available to humans, as God himself says in Deuteronomy 4:6?
It's... it's a cookbook!
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Sigh, round and round we go. It is precisely what God commanded a specific group of Jews to do in the OT. Your assertion that God commands ME to do so is wholly incorrect and a bit disingenuous.
The best laws to show us our sinful and depraved state. The best laws to show us our dying state and our dire need for salvation/redemption.
Sorry to backtrack but I feel inclined to address this.
Haven't there been over 2,600 greek revisions of the Bible in the past 2,000 years alone?
Also no turn of any spade can prove that Christ was born of a virgin, or turned water to wine. History cannot prove the majority of Biblical miracles.
/votes for thread split
Either that or evolution has made brides physically immune to stonings. My, how we've adapted in the last 2600 years.
Why? Do you have scriptural support for this?
Do you also believe it is only wrong for the Jews to worship idols and commit adultery, but not wrong for anyone else? Since the law and the morals therein were apparently only intended for them.
Isn't sin defined as an inability to follow God's laws?
The Bible is pretty well-preserved from the first and second century onwards.
Note that "well-preserved" has nothing to do with "validity." Harry Potter is also well preserved.
Not that early no. There are a few dozen tiny scraps (mostly papyrus) from the second century. There are more and larger pieces (as in a few complete pages) from the third century. I don't know of any complete bibles from prior to the late 4th century.
And if I'm feeling grouchy, it won't be metaphorical.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Oh definetly. I think the individual pieces were remarkably well preserved (except for the King James translation of course) after 100 CE or so. I think it is quite telling that none of the gospels make reference to the jewish revolts in many roman cities in 115 CE (like they all do for the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE).
What is important to keep in mind is that while the pieces that were determined to be canon in the 4th century were very well preserved there was a lot more materiel which did not make the cut and is still being discovered. Nothing has yet been found that is earlier than the gospels but quite a lot of it is earlier than Acts (which is generally considered very unreliable) or Revelations (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the historical Jesus).
One of the reasons why I think of the NT as a single source is because a single editorial body chose which of the different available sources to include and they made that choice based on how well it agreed with their views. It is much to their credit that it seems that they did not make any actual changes to the gospels themselves to make them even more in agreement.
Edit: Sorry Jeffe, was already writing this and didn't see your post.
You're confusing the Ten Commandments, what is deemed our consciousness, the moral laws written on our heart which is seen in civilizations all around the world - to Levitical Laws and Ordinances for ancient Israel.
I sincerely find it very hard to believe that someone like you, who is more versed than the usual detractor, to not know the difference nor what I am trying to explain to you.
Yes and no. It's a broad answer, but the short of it is that we have all sinned in simply not being able to not break the Ten Commandments.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Christian
Main Entry:
1Chris·tian Listen to the pronunciation of 1Christian
Pronunciation:
\ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin christianus, adjective & noun, from Greek christianos, from Christos
Date:
1526
1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): disciple 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
I guess I just don't get how this definition doesn't work for you. As long as someone is following a group of ideas "based" upon those espoused by Jesus Christ, we call them a Christian. We also have denominational names for the specific branches of this larger word. Since there are many, many, different versions of Christ in the Bible, it can easy to come away with different messages after reading the Gospels. But, we also have denominational names for the specific branches of this larger word. Are you trying to group all of these denominations under a new word?
Now if you're asking about the validity of believing, I think that's an even sillier question. First of all, a person can think whatever he or she wants (and it is protected under the constitution after all). Second believing, is based on faith. Catholics happen to believe that this faith is a gift from God, other groups believe different things.
I basically totally agree with VC, except that we have a definition. It's just rather non-descriptive in order fit the subject matter. And yes, it is just a label.
SS13 Rules Post
Even though no standards are mentioned in the dictionary definition except the main one, it's not practical to classify a person as a Christian if they have flim-flam ideas on what Christianity is. The definition you quoted is accurate but too sterile - it doesn't make mention of the lifestyle and guidelines we instantly think of when we think of the word 'Christian.' At the very extreme, you definition could apply to a person that changes their religion by the week. Last month they were big on Taoism but they're Christians today but by next Tuesday they'll convert to Islam. You have to call yourself a Christian and then you should stick with it. Like I said, that's an extreme case but the dictionary definition could use some refinement to match up to what we posting on this board can all agree to. This goes back to what ElJeffe mentioned as a difference between a Christian and a 'good' Christian ... I guess he means devout.
Whose ready to compromise to come up with a better general label?
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
But the Nicene Creed is trinitarian, right? And there still are unitarians, even if they're the small minority.
Edit: yeah, the Nicene Creed is a trinitarian statement, so it doesn't cover the world's various unitarians.
I bet their arguments were just as good as the ones in the forums today.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
Whatever the prefered definition is, the real definition seems to be; Someone who consistently ignores the basic tenets of Christianity.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Well, to be devil's advocate, two* of the four religions you mentioned have very clear-cut definitions of their membership (and I just don't know enough about Hinduism and Buddhism to say anything).
*
*Islam: if you say "there is no god except Allah and Mohammed is his prophet."
...am I a Muslim now? Or am I just quoting The 13th Warrior?
Mmm, theological...
You are Super Bonus Option C) - Not adding useful commentary to the thread.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
I note that you failed to acknowledge that yoru secular professors contradict you.
As for your question - I don't know, I know they consider themselves to be Practitioners of Islam, who am I to disagree? Just like I said earlier when I agreed with Shinto about what makes someone a Christian - they believe themselves to be or at least declare themselves as such. I am unable to fathom an authority by which I could demonstrate them wrong.
What's your point?
SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
Tide goes in. Tide goes out.