That’s not correct in any way. The word “Christian” has a specific definition.
Webster isn't any more of a dictator of truth than anyone else. There's a reason why Socrates spent a lot of time debating definitions with people. They're hard to actually get right.
If someone claims they’re a “Christian” but don’t believe in Jesus, then they’re not a Christian. They can’t be.
But what if they also claim to believe in Jesus? How do you measure or test belief? How do you know what's in the mind or soul of a person?
If someone claims to be a “Catholic” but doesn’t “accept” Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, they’re not a Catholic.
What if they attend Catholic mass? Hell, what if they're a member of the priesthood?
I can claim to be a musician but, if I can’t play any instruments, I’m not.
Even this is a bad argument. Aren't singers musicians? How about rappers?
All of this debate is really over whether or not something is no longer a thing if they're not a high quality version of that thing. I think it's a fairly shallow debate because a wobbly stool is still a stool. A shitty singer is still a musician. A broken chair is still a chair, and similarly just because someone's a bad Christian doesn't mean they're not a Christian.
Webster isn't any more of a...
We're not talking about the definition from Webster. We're talking about the definition from Jesus that was given to Saint Peter, the very first Pope. The definition here is not in question because the idea was defined by the people who founded the religion.
How do you measure or test belief?
You don't have to. Being a Christian isn't only predicated on believing in Jesus. If that was the case, then Satan is also a Christian because he's personally met Jesus and, therefore, would be forced to "believe" in him. Luckily, Jesus himself supposedly stated and passed down what it means to be a Christian and those people supposedly wrote it down.
What if they attend Catholic mass? Hell, what if they're a member of the priesthood?
Also irrelevant. A priest who molests children cannot be a Christian whether they were inducted into the priesthood or whether they attend Mass because the very rules of the religion, as instructed by their figurehead, remove them from the group based on their actions. It's repeated numerous times throughout the Bible that Christians will be known by their actions.
Even this is a bad argument. Aren't singers musicians? How about rappers?
It's not a bad argument, you just misunderstood it. The voice is an instrument.
All of this debate is really over whether or not something is no longer a thing if they're not a high quality version of that thing. I think it's a fairly shallow debate because a wobbly stool is still a stool. A shitty singer is still a musician. A broken chair is still a chair, and similarly just because someone's a bad Christian doesn't mean they're not a Christian.
No. Again, you've misunderstood the argument. If I started a religion today and I said that the only qualification of the religion is that people have to kiss me on the mouth, then it's not possible for someone who has not kissed me on the mouth to be part of the religion. They can follow everything else I've said to the letter but, as long as they haven't kissed me directly on the mouth, they cannot be a part of this particular religion because they are missing the central qualification. It's not about whether someone is "good" or "bad" at doing something. It's whether they're doing that thing at all.
It’s not a bad argument, you just misunderstood it. The voice is an instrument.
Ok then, so who is this person that can "claim to be a musician" but isn't?
As for the rest of your load of gish gallop: the bible, like all other texts, is up for interpretation and has been re-interpreted many times with many different takeaways. It's not even the original text, was translated multiple times, and there is no way we can be assured that the King James Bible (Taylor's Version) is the real deal. Definitions from it aren't more authoritative than Webster....they're even less so.
who is this person
Someone who doesn’t play any instrument, including singing. There are unending numbers of people who will tell you they’re not musicians because they don’t even try. Anyone who doesn’t try but tells you they’re a musician is a liar. That’s the point.
load of gish gallop
Nothing that I’ve said should have been overwhelming or inundating. My premise is incredibly simple. You just keep misunderstanding it repeatedly because it seems that you’re not even reading what’s being said.
We’re not talking about interpretation from the Bible. We’re talking about the definition used by Catholics that is part of their dogma and doctrine. We’re talking about quoting the (supposed) words of Jesus in places where there is no debate on the meaning. You can try to dismiss and downplay what I’ve said all you want but none of what I’ve said is inaccurate whereas your response is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
Someone who doesn’t play any instrument, including singing.
Lol, so someone who wants to claim to be a musician but can't even sing badly (or rap badly, because rappers are still musicians)? That's who we've excluded? Wow, what a useful definition for musician. 🙄
Who is this person who wants to go around claiming musician creds and then can't attempt a couple of bars?
Your argument just sucks dude, get over yourself.
EDIT: Thanks for the downvote!
Congratulations, you understand my example. That’s my entire point. Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician. If you don’t do the thing that defines the word that means “someone who does this thing”, then you can’t be that thing. That’s the argument! If someone claims to be a Christian and doesn’t follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian. If you don’t like the musician example, come up with a better one.
My argument doesn’t suck. You suck.
Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician.
But given that bar there's nobody that could claim to be a musician and then not just shit out a couple of bars and be one by your definition. So, again, your definition sucks (EDIT: and it happens to actually prove that what someone else is saying about "claiming to be a Christian makes you a Christian" is essentially true...because I can claim to be a musician and then sing a little happy birthday and I fit your definition).
If someone claims to be a Christian and doesn’t follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian.
Now it's "follow the example". So is that words? Actions? Both? Who determines what is "Christ-like"? You? Are you the guy who determines who is and isn't a Christian?
You suck.
Right back at ya slick.
Are you being intentionally obtuse here or what? The definition isn’t about being capable of singing (even poorly). It’s about whether or not the person does that thing in their life. If you don’t like the music example, choose a different profession. For example, if I claim to be a golfer, I can’t be one if I don’t play golf. I can’t claim to be a golfer and then “shit out golf clubs and whack a ball around”. You’re just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that “shit[ting] out a couple bars” doesn’t make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.
Now it’s “follow the example”
What do you mean here? This implies that my position on this has changed somewhere. I’ve already clarified in my 1st response to you that “belief in Jesus” isn’t enough to make someone Christian. It’s what started your whole fake confusion about being a musician. This kind of nonsense just leads me to believe that you’re not arguing in good faith here (which is already obvious but I try give people the benefit of the doubt).
To answer your question, Christ determines what is “Christ-like”. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.
You’re just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that “shit[ting] out a couple bars” doesn’t make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.
You've done nothing but argue semantics the entire thread. I've golfed before but I'm not a golfer largely because I don't claim to be nor aspire to be a golfer despite having golfed at one point. People's identity is to a large extent wrapped up in the claims they make about themselves. I understand that there's a common understanding of what a "golfer" or a "barber" or a "Christian" is, but you're the guy trying to invent the new one. I'm trying to follow your "logic" here to get an actual definition of a Christian that excludes this Mike Johnson character (for instance).
If someone says they're a Christian, says they believe in Christ (for whatever that means), and they go around spouting quotes from the Bible, they're a Christian by my logic. They're a Christian by most people's logic. You're trying to define it some other way, so provide your criteria.
To answer your question, Christ determines what is “Christ-like”. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.
Well Christ isn't around to call balls and strikes, so then by your definition nobody can be a Christian.
This is not about logic! We’re discussing religion, for Pete’s sake.
It’s not my definition, it’s the definition of what it means to be a Christian from the source of the word. It’s literally in the name - Christian. Spouting Bible verses doesn’t make someone a Christian. They could be Jewish, after all! Believing in Jesus doesn’t make someone a Christian - that would mean that Muslims are Christians since they believe Jesus was simply a human prophet (rather than the son of Allah). Just because you’re intellectually lazy and because your logic only extends so far as immediately obvious “if a then b” situations doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with my argument.
The entire point of this thread is that “Christians” aren’t using their own logic and definitions. They can say that “Mike Johnson” isn’t a Christian because they’re perverting the definition of the word to include whatever specific flavor they like. Even if he did fit that specific flavor, they just move the goalposts and then he suddenly becomes “not a Christian” again.
by your definition nobody
Yet again… it’s not my definition. Christ was the one that defined what it means to be Christ-like. If someone’s actions do not reflect the actions of Christ, then they’re not “Christ-like”. I don’t understand how much more this can be spelled out for you.
Spouting Bible verses doesn’t make someone a Christian. They could be Jewish, after all! Believing in Jesus doesn’t make someone a Christian - that would mean that Muslims are Christians since they believe Jesus was simply a human prophet (rather than the son of Allah).
Claiming to be a Christian is a large part of what it takes to be a Christian by common definition. You skipped over that part likely because it's devastating to your bad argument. 🥱
EDIT: I also think it's funny that you think "believing in Jesus" would be as simple as believing that there was a guy that walked the Earth named Jesus that said and did some holy stuff. Believing in Jesus for most people would mean believing in his divinity, not just that oh there was this swell guy that walked around at one point.
Claiming to be a Christian means nothing. I didn’t skip anything. It’s literally the same argument as the “claiming to be a golfer” and “claiming to be a musician” arguments that you can’t wrap your head around.
Claiming to be a Christian is not a part of what it takes to be a Christian anymore than claiming to be Scotsman makes someone not born in Scotland one.
Edit: Your edit is even stupider than the body of your post. Satan is not a Christian yet, by your definition, he would have to believe in Jesus’ divinity and would, therefore, be a Christian. This is how stupid your responses are.
Satan is not a Christian yet, by your definition, he would have to believe in Jesus’ divinity and would, therefore, be a Christian. This is how stupid your responses are.
I like how you keep telling me how stupid I am, but think the common sense definition for "Christian" wouldn't include having to be a person. 😎
... if they’re not a high quality version of that thing.
And who is the arbiter of quality, and who draws the line in the sand?
I know this has all kind of devolved into a semantic argument, and a weird discussion about Popery, and I think at this point it's worth reiterating my initial point: If someone claims to belong to a religion, they do. Whether that claim enables anyone to make predictions or judgments about a person's other statements or actions is another question entirely.
If someone claims to belong to a religion, they do.
I think this is 100% true for generic things like "Christianity". When they're more official organizations...still maybe, but if someone's been excommunicated from something it makes sense to me from a practical standpoint that they no longer belong to that thing.
Webster isn't any more of a dictator of truth than anyone else. There's a reason why Socrates spent a lot of time debating definitions with people. They're hard to actually get right.
But what if they also claim to believe in Jesus? How do you measure or test belief? How do you know what's in the mind or soul of a person?
What if they attend Catholic mass? Hell, what if they're a member of the priesthood?
Even this is a bad argument. Aren't singers musicians? How about rappers?
All of this debate is really over whether or not something is no longer a thing if they're not a high quality version of that thing. I think it's a fairly shallow debate because a wobbly stool is still a stool. A shitty singer is still a musician. A broken chair is still a chair, and similarly just because someone's a bad Christian doesn't mean they're not a Christian.
We're not talking about the definition from Webster. We're talking about the definition from Jesus that was given to Saint Peter, the very first Pope. The definition here is not in question because the idea was defined by the people who founded the religion.
You don't have to. Being a Christian isn't only predicated on believing in Jesus. If that was the case, then Satan is also a Christian because he's personally met Jesus and, therefore, would be forced to "believe" in him. Luckily, Jesus himself supposedly stated and passed down what it means to be a Christian and those people supposedly wrote it down.
Also irrelevant. A priest who molests children cannot be a Christian whether they were inducted into the priesthood or whether they attend Mass because the very rules of the religion, as instructed by their figurehead, remove them from the group based on their actions. It's repeated numerous times throughout the Bible that Christians will be known by their actions.
It's not a bad argument, you just misunderstood it. The voice is an instrument.
No. Again, you've misunderstood the argument. If I started a religion today and I said that the only qualification of the religion is that people have to kiss me on the mouth, then it's not possible for someone who has not kissed me on the mouth to be part of the religion. They can follow everything else I've said to the letter but, as long as they haven't kissed me directly on the mouth, they cannot be a part of this particular religion because they are missing the central qualification. It's not about whether someone is "good" or "bad" at doing something. It's whether they're doing that thing at all.
Ok then, so who is this person that can "claim to be a musician" but isn't?
As for the rest of your load of gish gallop: the bible, like all other texts, is up for interpretation and has been re-interpreted many times with many different takeaways. It's not even the original text, was translated multiple times, and there is no way we can be assured that the King James Bible (Taylor's Version) is the real deal. Definitions from it aren't more authoritative than Webster....they're even less so.
Someone who doesn’t play any instrument, including singing. There are unending numbers of people who will tell you they’re not musicians because they don’t even try. Anyone who doesn’t try but tells you they’re a musician is a liar. That’s the point.
Nothing that I’ve said should have been overwhelming or inundating. My premise is incredibly simple. You just keep misunderstanding it repeatedly because it seems that you’re not even reading what’s being said.
We’re not talking about interpretation from the Bible. We’re talking about the definition used by Catholics that is part of their dogma and doctrine. We’re talking about quoting the (supposed) words of Jesus in places where there is no debate on the meaning. You can try to dismiss and downplay what I’ve said all you want but none of what I’ve said is inaccurate whereas your response is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
Lol, so someone who wants to claim to be a musician but can't even sing badly (or rap badly, because rappers are still musicians)? That's who we've excluded? Wow, what a useful definition for musician. 🙄
Who is this person who wants to go around claiming musician creds and then can't attempt a couple of bars?
Your argument just sucks dude, get over yourself.
EDIT: Thanks for the downvote!
Congratulations, you understand my example. That’s my entire point. Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician. If you don’t do the thing that defines the word that means “someone who does this thing”, then you can’t be that thing. That’s the argument! If someone claims to be a Christian and doesn’t follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian. If you don’t like the musician example, come up with a better one.
My argument doesn’t suck. You suck.
But given that bar there's nobody that could claim to be a musician and then not just shit out a couple of bars and be one by your definition. So, again, your definition sucks (EDIT: and it happens to actually prove that what someone else is saying about "claiming to be a Christian makes you a Christian" is essentially true...because I can claim to be a musician and then sing a little happy birthday and I fit your definition).
Now it's "follow the example". So is that words? Actions? Both? Who determines what is "Christ-like"? You? Are you the guy who determines who is and isn't a Christian?
Right back at ya slick.
Are you being intentionally obtuse here or what? The definition isn’t about being capable of singing (even poorly). It’s about whether or not the person does that thing in their life. If you don’t like the music example, choose a different profession. For example, if I claim to be a golfer, I can’t be one if I don’t play golf. I can’t claim to be a golfer and then “shit out golf clubs and whack a ball around”. You’re just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that “shit[ting] out a couple bars” doesn’t make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.
What do you mean here? This implies that my position on this has changed somewhere. I’ve already clarified in my 1st response to you that “belief in Jesus” isn’t enough to make someone Christian. It’s what started your whole fake confusion about being a musician. This kind of nonsense just leads me to believe that you’re not arguing in good faith here (which is already obvious but I try give people the benefit of the doubt).
To answer your question, Christ determines what is “Christ-like”. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.
You've done nothing but argue semantics the entire thread. I've golfed before but I'm not a golfer largely because I don't claim to be nor aspire to be a golfer despite having golfed at one point. People's identity is to a large extent wrapped up in the claims they make about themselves. I understand that there's a common understanding of what a "golfer" or a "barber" or a "Christian" is, but you're the guy trying to invent the new one. I'm trying to follow your "logic" here to get an actual definition of a Christian that excludes this Mike Johnson character (for instance).
If someone says they're a Christian, says they believe in Christ (for whatever that means), and they go around spouting quotes from the Bible, they're a Christian by my logic. They're a Christian by most people's logic. You're trying to define it some other way, so provide your criteria.
Well Christ isn't around to call balls and strikes, so then by your definition nobody can be a Christian.
This is not about logic! We’re discussing religion, for Pete’s sake.
It’s not my definition, it’s the definition of what it means to be a Christian from the source of the word. It’s literally in the name - Christian. Spouting Bible verses doesn’t make someone a Christian. They could be Jewish, after all! Believing in Jesus doesn’t make someone a Christian - that would mean that Muslims are Christians since they believe Jesus was simply a human prophet (rather than the son of Allah). Just because you’re intellectually lazy and because your logic only extends so far as immediately obvious “if a then b” situations doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with my argument.
The entire point of this thread is that “Christians” aren’t using their own logic and definitions. They can say that “Mike Johnson” isn’t a Christian because they’re perverting the definition of the word to include whatever specific flavor they like. Even if he did fit that specific flavor, they just move the goalposts and then he suddenly becomes “not a Christian” again.
Yet again… it’s not my definition. Christ was the one that defined what it means to be Christ-like. If someone’s actions do not reflect the actions of Christ, then they’re not “Christ-like”. I don’t understand how much more this can be spelled out for you.
Claiming to be a Christian is a large part of what it takes to be a Christian by common definition. You skipped over that part likely because it's devastating to your bad argument. 🥱
EDIT: I also think it's funny that you think "believing in Jesus" would be as simple as believing that there was a guy that walked the Earth named Jesus that said and did some holy stuff. Believing in Jesus for most people would mean believing in his divinity, not just that oh there was this swell guy that walked around at one point.
Claiming to be a Christian means nothing. I didn’t skip anything. It’s literally the same argument as the “claiming to be a golfer” and “claiming to be a musician” arguments that you can’t wrap your head around.
Claiming to be a Christian is not a part of what it takes to be a Christian anymore than claiming to be Scotsman makes someone not born in Scotland one.
Edit: Your edit is even stupider than the body of your post. Satan is not a Christian yet, by your definition, he would have to believe in Jesus’ divinity and would, therefore, be a Christian. This is how stupid your responses are.
I like how you keep telling me how stupid I am, but think the common sense definition for "Christian" wouldn't include having to be a person. 😎
So words mean nothing again according to you, now only the actions count. Someone's arguing in circles.
Claiming to be a Christian has a lot to do with whether or not people consider you a Christian by the common understanding of the word.
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must careful what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegut
And who is the arbiter of quality, and who draws the line in the sand?
I know this has all kind of devolved into a semantic argument, and a weird discussion about Popery, and I think at this point it's worth reiterating my initial point: If someone claims to belong to a religion, they do. Whether that claim enables anyone to make predictions or judgments about a person's other statements or actions is another question entirely.
I think this is 100% true for generic things like "Christianity". When they're more official organizations...still maybe, but if someone's been excommunicated from something it makes sense to me from a practical standpoint that they no longer belong to that thing.