Billion + believe in Satan. Should all schools be mandated to teach Creationism?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

As I've stated before, a person isn't Christian just because they or someone else calls them that.

Christians as an adjective pretty much means you adhere to Jesus's teachings, Roman catholics and Orthodox catholics obviously qualify.

Of course, there are other confessions that adhere to the teachings of Jesus but add their own (contradicting?) concepts into the mix by other sources, or they consider Jesus not to be a God (Jews and Muslims both recognize the teachings of Jesus have the authority of a prophet). I'd say you wouldn't say Islam is a christian religion, so there must be another value of exclusion to the word. Arguably (not an expert in the matter to be honest) Mormons and Gnostics also have a different body of teachngs attached to them, but are more inspired on the gospels than those I just mentioned, so they might be classified as christians in that regard?

No idea. Obviously the word has a very loose significance and different confessions (ab)use it as they see fit.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
3. Christian
...adj.
........1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
........2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
........3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
........4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
........5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
...n.
......1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
......2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

That would mean that Catholics, Mormons, and even Gnostics are Christian.

The dictionary's definition is not the same as God's in the Bible. Just look at #1. "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ OR following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus".

As blue showed earlier just believing isn't enough for God in the Bible but it's enough for the dictionary

Originally posted by juggerman
The dictionary's definition is not the same as God's in the Bible. Just look at #1. "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ [b]OR following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus".

As blue showed earlier just believing isn't enough for God in the Bible but it's enough for the dictionary [/B]

I'm sorry, but I am not going to take your word for it. There are too many interpretations of the bible. The only thing we can go with is the definition of Christianity and what denominations of Christianity are commonly known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

That doesn't really cover it tho. It clearly says in the Bible that just calling yourself a Christian is not enough.

Originally posted by juggerman
That doesn't really cover it tho. It clearly says in the Bible that just calling yourself a Christian is not enough.

But we are not talking about people who just calling themselves Christians. We are talking about entire denomination of Christianity. For example: Catholics.

But according to the definition you provided "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ" is enough to lump you in.

Originally posted by juggerman
But according to the definition you provided "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ" is enough to lump you in.

That sounds reasonable to me. If you follow the teaching of Buddha, you are a Buddhist, right? If you follow the teaching of Mohammed, you are a Muslim?

I think that some Christians want to exclude other Christians from being Christian. That's their problem, not mine.

Originally posted by juggerman
That doesn't really cover it tho. It clearly says in the Bible that just calling yourself a Christian is not enough.

The quote means in context that a true christian is not about what he believes, it's about what he does. If you are a murderer and you say you believe in Jesus, you're no true christian as you don't follow the christian teaching.

It's more of a figure of speech than an actual definition.

Originally posted by Bentley
The quote means in context that a true christian is not about what he believes, it's about what he does. If you are a murderer and you say you believe in Jesus, you're no true christian as you don't follow the christian teaching.

It's more of a figure of speech than an actual definition.

That is what Excommunication is for.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is what Excommunication is for.

Not really, orthodox catholics were excommunicated from the roman catholic church from quite a long time, but they would still qualify as christians when definining each other. I could probably produce official documents from both sides recognizing the other as christian if proof is required.

Originally posted by Bentley
Not really, orthodox catholics were excommunicated from the roman catholic church from quite a long time, but they would still qualify as christians when definining each other. I could probably produce official documents from both sides recognizing the other as christian if proof is required.

I was only talking about individuals.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was only talking about individuals.

In canon law it's the same thing.

But really, you cannot excommunicate someone "just" because they murder people. It would go against the idea of forgiveness and helping people to make up for their sins. Excommunication is almost exclusively a question of heresy or -potentially- hurting the faith of a community as a whole.

Originally posted by Bentley
In canon law it's the same thing.

But really, you cannot excommunicate someone "just" because they murder people. It would go against the idea of forgiveness and helping people to make up for their sins. Excommunication is almost exclusively a question of heresy or -potentially- hurting the faith of a community as a whole.

Okay. It can also be abused.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Okay. It can also be abused.

Is there anything that can't be abused?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. The Catholic Church is part of Christianity.
2. People don't need bible verses to do evil.
3. Christian
...adj.
........1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
........2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
........3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
........4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
........5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
...n.
......1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
......2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

That would mean that Catholics, Mormons, and even Gnostics are Christian.

Biblically? the only correct part of the definition is this:

following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus

that's the true Christian in the Bible... i don't believe on the other definitions...

Originally posted by Bentley
Is there anything that can't be abused?

Perhaps.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That sounds reasonable to me. If you follow the teaching of Buddha, you are a Buddhist, right? If you follow the teaching of Mohammed, you are a Muslim?

I think that some Christians want to exclude other Christians from being Christian. That's their problem, not mine.

Notice how you said "follow" yet the definition clearly says "Professing belief" first and the "or" indicates actually following isn't needed.

If I "professed belief" in Christ yet killed, raped, tourtured, slept with farm animals, never went to church, took his name in vain, forced children to do coke, and an host of other horrendous behavior; would I still be a Christian? According to the definition? Yes because I have professed belief in it with is all that's required. But according to God's own words in the Bible? Nope. Heck, not even according to the general populace I would imagine.

And that goes for Buddhists too. Would I be a Buddhist if I professed belief in it yet lived a lifstyle completely opposite of it? Probably not tho I admit I'm not sure as to what is accepted for it

I'm not trying to exclude anyone from Christianity, just pointing out the issue with the definition you provided

Arguing about definitions is stupid. They are conventional, whatever is accepted it's right. Booooooooring.

Originally posted by juggerman
Notice how you said "follow" yet the definition clearly says "Professing belief".

If I "professed belief" in Christ yet killed, raped, tourtured, slept with farm animals, never went to church, took his name in vain, forced children to do coke, and an host of other horrendous behavior; would I still be a Christian? According to the definition? Yes because I have professed belief in it with is all that's required. But according to God's own words in the Bible? Nope. Heck, not even according to the general populace I would imagine.

And that goes for Buddhists too. Would I be a Buddhist if I professed belief in it yet lived a lifstyle completely opposite of it? Probably not tho I admit I'm not sure as to what is accepted for it

I'm not trying to exclude anyone from Christianity, just pointing out the issue with the definition you provided

I can't answer to the Christian thing, cause there are a lot of Christians that don't follow what the bible teaches. It all depends of interpretation. As far as Buddhism, if you do things that are immoral , you run the risk of being excommunicated.