Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
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"

124

Posts

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    earthless wrote:
    ...the law required that people performed rituals and sacrifices in order to please God and remain in His grace.

    I'm not too clear on that. Wasn't there some kind of special temple in Israel where rituals and sacrifices could be performed but it was destroyed when Israel was overrun the first time? Why didn't they rebuild the temple somewhere else? I do know that you couldn't just sacrifice a fat calf in the streets and have it count ... for some reason.
    The reason being you had to give the priests their cut of the sacrifices. No temple, no priests.

    And don't forget to season your sacrifice with salt, oil, and herbs, per Leviticus 2. God demands it!

  • earthlessearthless Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    earthless wrote:
    ...the law required that people performed rituals and sacrifices in order to please God and remain in His grace.

    I'm not too clear on that. Wasn't there some kind of special temple in Israel where rituals and sacrifices could be performed but it was destroyed when Israel was overrun the first time? Why didn't they rebuild the temple somewhere else? I do know that you couldn't just sacrifice a fat calf in the streets and have it count ... for some reason.
    The reason being you had to give the priests their cut of the sacrifices. No temple, no priests.

    And don't forget to season your sacrifice with salt, oil, and herbs, per Leviticus 2. God demands it!

    Mmm.. sounds mighty tasty! :^:

    earthless.png
  • AcidSerraAcidSerra Registered User
    edited October 2007
    To get down to brass tacks here. Christians believe in the 'Christos' or Greek interpretation of Messiah. Since it si the Greek interpretation of a Hebrew word I can only assume it began as the collective grouping of those who believed in Jesus Christ as Paul and other early Hebrew disciples taught and that used Greek as a common language, this would include all early, non-Hebrew sects that followed the icon Jesus. After the formation of Catholicism, "universal" is used to mean unified leadership for all sects and therefore the utter destruction of all sects but the most powerful few and not everyone believe what you will, it was pretty simple, Christian meant member of the Catholic church.

    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.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    earthless wrote: »
    The simple point is that if two people are going to claim the Bible as their Word of God - then the argument for anyone to say we're still under the law doesn't quite work unless they reject 90% of the NT.
    That's not what I asked. Theonomists don't believe (to my knowledge) that we're still under the law, or that we can be saved by the law.

    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?

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    earthless wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    earthless wrote:
    ...the law required that people performed rituals and sacrifices in order to please God and remain in His grace.

    I'm not too clear on that. Wasn't there some kind of special temple in Israel where rituals and sacrifices could be performed but it was destroyed when Israel was overrun the first time? Why didn't they rebuild the temple somewhere else? I do know that you couldn't just sacrifice a fat calf in the streets and have it count ... for some reason.
    The reason being you had to give the priests their cut of the sacrifices. No temple, no priests.

    And don't forget to season your sacrifice with salt, oil, and herbs, per Leviticus 2. God demands it!

    Mmm.. sounds mighty tasty! :^:
    I'm sure the priestly class who composed and propogated much of the Old Testament thought so too.

  • earthlessearthless Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    earthless wrote: »
    The simple point is that if two people are going to claim the Bible as their Word of God - then the argument for anyone to say we're still under the law doesn't quite work unless they reject 90% of the NT.
    That's not what I asked. Theonomists don't believe (to my knowledge) that we're still under the law, or that we can be saved by the law.

    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.

    earthless.png
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Quick, someone call a Jesuit.

  • earthlessearthless Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Quick, someone call a Jesuit.

    Illuminati!! New World Order!! Reptilians! :P

    earthless.png
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    That's what it was. Grace. Totally forgot that word.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    earthless wrote: »
    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.
    So you wouldn't have a problem of a group of Christians who stoned their non-virgin brides to death on the doorsteps of their father's house (per Dt. 22), so long as they believed they were saved by grace and not by obedience to the law?

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    OK, doing a little google searching, and it seems there's a niggle about the translation of the Old Testament - mainly, 2 Corinthians 3:14 refers to the actual Old Testament but the word 'Testament' could be translated as 'Covenant.' Old Covenant? This sounds fishy so I'm going to search a little more...

    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?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • earthlessearthless Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    earthless wrote: »
    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.
    So you wouldn't have a problem of a group of Christians who stoned their non-virgin brides to death on the doorsteps of their father's house (per Dt. 22), so long as they believed they were saved by grace and not by obedience to the law?

    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?

    earthless.png
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Read some of Dr Donald Akenson's stuff. He (among others, he is just the only name I can actually recall at the moment) makes a very good case that Jesus' teaching were not outside the norms for a devoit member of the YHWH faith of that time and place. He was a halachially strict jew.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    OK, doing a little google searching, and it seems there's a niggle about the translation of the Old Testament - mainly, 2 Corinthians 3:14 refers to the actual Old Testament but the word 'Testament' could be translated as 'Covenant.' Old Covenant? This sounds fishy so I'm going to search a little more...

    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?
    I understand that Christians believe they no longer have to follow the OT, now that they get a free salvation pass from Jesus.

    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)?

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    earthless wrote: »
    A Christian that actually adheres to the Bible will not stone anyone to death.
    Even though this is precisely what God commands you to do in the Old Testament?
    Why would a Christian follow anything meant for a first century Jew?
    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?

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2007
    earthless wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    earthless wrote:
    ...the law required that people performed rituals and sacrifices in order to please God and remain in His grace.

    I'm not too clear on that. Wasn't there some kind of special temple in Israel where rituals and sacrifices could be performed but it was destroyed when Israel was overrun the first time? Why didn't they rebuild the temple somewhere else? I do know that you couldn't just sacrifice a fat calf in the streets and have it count ... for some reason.
    The reason being you had to give the priests their cut of the sacrifices. No temple, no priests.

    And don't forget to season your sacrifice with salt, oil, and herbs, per Leviticus 2. God demands it!

    Mmm.. sounds mighty tasty! :^:

    It's... it's a cookbook!

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • earthlessearthless Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    Even though this is precisely what God commands you to do in the Old Testament?

    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.
    Qingu wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    earthless.png
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    earthless wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    The big issue is, though, that there are four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, and each account has been edited thousands of times. So there really is no universal definition of "the teachings of Jesus Christ."

    Edited a thousand times? Historical and manuscript evidence say otherwise.

    It's very telling that with each turn of the archaeological spade, the veracity of the Bible comes forth more and more.

    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

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Since non-virgin brides are not being regularly stoned to death these days, the only conclusion is ... all brides are virgins! 8-)

    Either that or evolution has made brides physically immune to stonings. My, how we've adapted in the last 2600 years.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    earthless wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Even though this is precisely what God commands you to do in the Old Testament?

    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.
    So you believe it was right for the ancient Jews to kill non-virgin brides, but not right for anyone else to do so.

    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.
    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.
    Isn't sin defined as an inability to follow God's laws?

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Heartlash wrote: »
    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?
    No.

    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.

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    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?
    No.

    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.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    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?
    No.

    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 from the third century. I don't know of any complete bibles from prior to the late 4th century.
    You're right, I was wrong. Anyway, the point is that the Bible we have now is probably mostly the same as the scriptures they had 1500 or even 2000 years ago. A lot of atheists on the internet often claim that today's Bible has been revised extensively from the original, which isn't a valid claim.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2007
    Hey, I already split off a thread for talking about the validity and accuracy of the Bible. If you guys keep drifting off topic, I'm going to lock this, after taking a big metaphorical dump on each of your heads.

    And if I'm feeling grouchy, it won't be metaphorical.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    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?
    No.

    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 from the third century. I don't know of any complete bibles from prior to the late 4th century.
    You're right, I was wrong. Anyway, the point is that the Bible we have now is probably mostly the same as the scriptures they had 1500 or even 2000 years ago. A lot of atheists on the internet often claim that today's Bible has been revised extensively from the original, which isn't a valid claim.

    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.

  • earthlessearthless Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    So you believe it was right for the ancient Jews to kill non-virgin brides, but not right for anyone else to do so.

    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.

    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.
    Qingu wrote: »

    Isn't sin defined as an inability to follow God's laws?

    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.

    earthless.png
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    earthless wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    So you believe it was right for the ancient Jews to kill non-virgin brides, but not right for anyone else to do so.

    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.

    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.
    Qingu wrote: »

    Isn't sin defined as an inability to follow God's laws?

    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.
    Shall we take this to the other thread?

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    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?
    No.

    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 from the third century. I don't know of any complete bibles from prior to the late 4th century.
    You're right, I was wrong. Anyway, the point is that the Bible we have now is probably mostly the same as the scriptures they had 1500 or even 2000 years ago. A lot of atheists on the internet often claim that today's Bible has been revised extensively from the original, which isn't a valid claim.
    Except for the whole "translation" thing, and the "different versions" thing.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • TalousTalous Registered User
    edited October 2007
    When I'm unsure of the definition of a word, I tend to look it up in a dictionary. Merriam-Webster says:

    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.
    There isn't a definition of christian. It's just an affiliation, a label. Every christian I've ever met has a different idea of what it means to be christian. Almost all of those ideas contradict scripture, and very rarely do they not contradict eachother. The only constants are Jesus as Christ, virgin-birth, and that you shouldn't worship golden cows.

    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.

    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Has anyone mentioned the Nicaean creed yet? Because that the thing was designed back in the...4th (? could be 5th, I guess) century as a unified statement of faith by all Christian churches (all members of the pentarchy).

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote:
    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.

    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?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    saggio wrote: »
    Has anyone mentioned the Nicaean creed yet? Because that the thing was designed back in the...4th (? could be 5th, I guess) century as a unified statement of faith by all Christian churches (all members of the pentarchy).
    Yeah, that's a good point.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Malkor wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    Has anyone mentioned the Nicaean creed yet? Because that the thing was designed back in the...4th (? could be 5th, I guess) century as a unified statement of faith by all Christian churches (all members of the pentarchy).
    Yeah, that's a good point.

    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.

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    Has anyone mentioned the Nicaean creed yet? Because that the thing was designed back in the...4th (? could be 5th, I guess) century as a unified statement of faith by all Christian churches (all members of the pentarchy).
    Yeah, that's a good point.

    But the Nicaean Creed is trinitarian, right? And there still are unitarians, even if they're the small minority.
    And in the Holy Ghost.
    And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

    I bet their arguments were just as good as the ones in the forums today.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    I fail to see that an authority exists which can credibly define what "Christian" is, therefore I'm left with the definition of whoever claims that label for themselves.

    Whatever the prefered definition is, the real definition seems to be; Someone who consistently ignores the basic tenets of Christianity.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Why don't we have this discussion about Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or any organized religion? There are always disagreements, and half the time most dogma is ignored for what's practical or what local culture and custom is.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Why don't we have this discussion about Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or any organized religion? There are always disagreements, and half the time most dogma is ignored for what's practical or what local culture and custom is.

    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).

    *
    Spoiler:

  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    There is no god except Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.

    ...am I a Muslim now? Or am I just quoting The 13th Warrior?

    homer-drool.gif

    Mmm, theological...

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2007
    Sarastro wrote: »
    There is no god except Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.

    ...am I a Muslim now? Or am I just quoting The 13th Warrior?

    You are Super Bonus Option C) - Not adding useful commentary to the thread.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    earthless wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    SPLIT SPLIT SPLIT SPLIT

    Also, from the other thread -
    earthless wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Secondly, anyone who actually studies religions for a living places them squarely in the Christian corner. The only people who have a problem with this are certain fundamentalist and orthodox groups.

    I guess my secular university professors (who were not Christians) were wrong in saying that they are sects/cults of orthodox Christianity.

    How can someone have an entirely different and contradicting set of definitions for core essentials of a religion and still be considered members of said religion?

    Do you consider Wahabism, the Taliban/etc to be practitioners of Islam?

    The bolded portion indicates that your secular professors who form the basis of your argument from authority agree with The Cat. I'm tickled.

    Regarding the question that remained untouched - what say you?

    Do you consider Wahabism, the Taliban/etc to be practitioners of Islam?

    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?

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
This discussion has been closed.