Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Two-Spirited, Transexual

[Joe Cooler]

Who are you to define Christianity, though? Just because a person doesn't fit your definition of a Christian (ie, if they aren't following his teachings in the way you feel they should be followed) doesn't mean they aren't Christian.

Also, the problem with your Satanic example is that person isn't following Christ's teachings in any way, shape or form (and if he is, he's a poor Satanist).

I disagree. It's undisputed that Jesus was an historical figure. Secondly, most people will agree that his teachings are upstanding and worth following. That does not make them "Christian" though. Ultimately it is WHAT you believe about Jesus that defines a Christian, not simply believing he existed and is worth following. From an protestant and catholic perspective, being a Christian means believing that Jesus is God and came to die for humanities sins. The early Christians defined Christianity this way as well.

[Henrietta]

I believe that too though. Just the little details that are different. So I'm not Christian?

[Joe Cooler]

Haha, well whether or not Christ is the Messiah is a rather large detail. Really it's the detail that the entire protestant and catholic faith revolves. Therefore you're Mormon but I personally would not call you a Christian much like you would not call a Protestant or Catholic a Mormon baised on what they believe.

[thirdhour]

Who are you to define Christianity, though? Just because a person doesn't fit your definition of a Christian (ie, if they aren't following his teachings in the way you feel they should be followed) doesn't mean they aren't Christian.

Also, the problem with your Satanic example is that person isn't following Christ's teachings in any way, shape or form (and if he is, he's a poor Satanist).

I disagree. It's undisputed that Jesus was an historical figure. Secondly, most people will agree that his teachings are upstanding and worth following. That does not make them "Christian" though. Ultimately it is WHAT you believe about Jesus that defines a Christian, not simply believing he existed and is worth following. From an protestant and catholic perspective, being a Christian means believing that Jesus is God and came to die for humanities sins. The early Christians defined Christianity this way as well.

Jesus' teachings say that he is the son of God and died for our sins...so if you follow his teachings in whatever manner you choose, this is one of the things you must accept. Sure, you can say that Jesus' morals are pretty far-reaching, and I probably live most of my life to the way he wants people to (loving others, no violence, etc), I still don't believe that first part, so I'm not christian.

[Joe Cooler]

Who are you to define Christianity, though? Just because a person doesn't fit your definition of a Christian (ie, if they aren't following his teachings in the way you feel they should be followed) doesn't mean they aren't Christian.

Also, the problem with your Satanic example is that person isn't following Christ's teachings in any way, shape or form (and if he is, he's a poor Satanist).

I disagree. It's undisputed that Jesus was an historical figure. Secondly, most people will agree that his teachings are upstanding and worth following. That does not make them "Christian" though. Ultimately it is WHAT you believe about Jesus that defines a Christian, not simply believing he existed and is worth following. From an protestant and catholic perspective, being a Christian means believing that Jesus is God and came to die for humanities sins. The early Christians defined Christianity this way as well.

Jesus' teachings say that he is the son of God and died for our sins...so if you follow his teachings in whatever manner you choose, this is one of the things you must accept. Sure, you can say that Jesus' morals are pretty far-reaching, and I probably live most of my life to the way he wants people to (loving others, no violence, etc), I still don't believe that first part, so I'm not christian.

Right. Mormons don't believe in Jesus as a Messiah though, therefore I don't classify them as Christian.

[thirdhour]

wait...what? they dont?

[Henrietta]

Uhm. Yes, we do. Jusus Christ is the savior of the world. Where in the world did you get that idea?

[Joe Cooler]

Sorry my bad. For some reason I was thinking of the Jehova's Witnesses. To them salvation is based mostly on works rather than the death and ressurection of Jesus. Well what a mess I've made. My point still stands though. Ultimately Christian classification is based on beliefs about Jesus himself, not belief in him alone.

[thirdhour]

you're arguing some tiny little detail that still doesn't make sense to me. What are you trying to prove?

people that are christian all interpret christ and God differently, but they all live in His name. Thy are all christian. How is this not true?

[Joe Cooler]

Whether Christ is the Messiah or not is a HUGE detail. It's the very detail that defines Christianity. If Jesus did not die for humanities sins, then he was merely a teacher. Christianity is built on the basis of his death and ressurection. We as humans are sinful, and unable to achieve salvation by ourselves, therefore doomed to be seperated from God. When Jesus died on the cross, he took the blame for humanities sins so that we might live. How is this an insignificant detail?!

[Axtech]

Exactly, Yannic.

For example, let's put together a hypothetical.

Robbo, the messiah, while on earth, told a group of schoolchildren a story. It was about hunting sheep, and how two farmers were out hunting sheep in the wild (yes, wild sheep, wanna fight about it?). One farmer would kill one sheep a week, enough to support his family (these are big sheep). The other farmer killed as many as he could, as fast as he could. Eventually the sheep population ran out and both families starved. The first farmer went to heaven, the other to hell.

Now, half the class got the moral message against greed (the greedy farmer had sinned).

The other half thought it was a lesson about the devinity of sheep (you kill too many, you've sinned - though it's reasonable to do what you must to survive).

Fast forward a few centuries.

One church worships Robbo and practices his morals.

Another worships Robbo and practices his love of sheep.

Both are following Robbo, so both are Robbonian.



Obviously this is a stupid example, but it makes the point. Both churches, though they have a different viewpoint on his teachings, are following the same messiah. In the end, it's up to Robbo's judgement as to who got it right. But as far as earthly beliefs go, they're both Robbonian.

[Joe Cooler]

Whether or not salvation is achieved through accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or through good works is not insignificant in the least.

[Axtech]

I'm not saying that at all.

What I'm saying is that both your beliefs and Cass' would be considered Christian since both are following Christ, though you follow Him in different ways.

I'm not saying that how you follow Christ is insignificant, since in the end it may come down to one being right and one being wrong. The point is that there's no way of knowing which is right and which is wrong. But since both are following him in some way, they would be different forms of "Christianity". That doesn't mean they're both right (or both wrong), just that they fall under the same grouping of beliefs (in that they follow Christ in some way).

[Axtech]

I think I know where the discrepancy is coming from.

I think that when you see the word "Christian", you're thinking of it defining the one belief that will bring you salvation (and why not? As a Christian, that's exactly what you have been taught, and exactly you believe, and there's nothing wrong with that).

I, on the other hand, am using it strictly to classify the group of beliefs which involve following Christ, whether or not any, all or only some of those beliefs will result in salvation.

[thirdhour]

I agree with Rob and like his example. I was bad and hunted wild sheep too.

[Joe Cooler]

I still disagree. Using the term in such a fashion is rather misleading for me.

[thirdhour]

Ok, so since neither Taylor nor I seem to actually know anything about Jehovah's Witness, I looked it up.

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm

Apparently, they interpret the bible differently to find that God and Jesus are in fact, not the same thing, but rather God created Jesus. They have support from the bible to back up this claim, so I guess it depends which way you look at it as to who's right.

I kept looking through the page, and they really don't talk about Jesus all that much. They mostly make referance to God. In summary, they just confused the hell out of me and didn't really say much.

Upon closer examination, they DO see things differantly. You're actually right. They don't really have much use for Jesus, just think it was God talking through a man he put on earth (who used to actually be the archangel Micheal). Huh...well, I guess technically, if thier beliefs have so little to do with Christ, does that make them chirstian? They still have the same morals of love and compasion and stuff, but still...

They also don't believe in heaven and hell. WTF...they obviously use the bible because they quoted it in that article I was talking about, and the bible's pretty clear on eternal life for his followers. Wow, I think I actually changed my mind. They're in the same section as christians, I guess, but they deny some major things that Jesus is all about.

[Axtech]

I still disagree. Using the term in such a fashion is rather misleading for me.

Yes, it's a step out of the norm for a Christian to use the term that way, but it's more objective when you're having a conversation between people of different faiths.

[Rusty]

Who are you to define Christianity, though? Just because a person doesn't fit your definition of a Christian (ie, if they aren't following his teachings in the way you feel they should be followed) doesn't mean they aren't Christian.

Also, the problem with your Satanic example is that person isn't following Christ's teachings in any way, shape or form (and if he is, he's a poor Satanist).

Just to clarify on this topic...Satanists belive that there is no heaven and there is no hell. Satan is a force of nature, and God is an opposing force of nature, not spirtitual beings. They also practice respect to all religions including Christianity. The evil sacrificing kill 'em all people that come to mind when people say satanists is a corruption of the real religion and not the true religion at all. Now scurry back to the topic at hand.

[Joe Cooler]

However, Satanism is viewed by many as a cult, and not a religion. The difference, quite simply is that Religions are viewed as an institution that strives to better society whether directly or indirectly. My understanding of Satanism is that it teaches its followers to satisfy self, and self only. You'd be hard pressed to find anything positive about satanism in relation to the bettering society. Thus most would classify it as a cult.