Thatās not correct in any way. The word āChristianā has a specific definition.
Webster isnāt any more of a dictator of truth than anyone else. Thereās a reason why Socrates spent a lot of time debating definitions with people. Theyāre hard to actually get right.
If someone claims theyāre a āChristianā but donāt believe in Jesus, then theyāre not a Christian. They canāt be.
But what if they also claim to believe in Jesus? How do you measure or test belief? How do you know whatās in the mind or soul of a person?
If someone claims to be a āCatholicā but doesnāt āacceptā Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, theyāre not a Catholic.
What if they attend Catholic mass? Hell, what if theyāre a member of the priesthood?
I can claim to be a musician but, if I canāt play any instruments, Iām not.
Even this is a bad argument. Arenāt singers musicians? How about rappers?
All of this debate is really over whether or not something is no longer a thing if theyāre not a high quality version of that thing. I think itās 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 someoneās a bad Christian doesnāt mean theyāre not a Christian.
ā¦ if theyāre 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 itās 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 personās 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 āChristianityā. When theyāre more official organizationsā¦still maybe, but if someoneās been excommunicated from something it makes sense to me from a practical standpoint that they no longer belong to that thing.
Weāre not talking about the definition from Webster. Weāre 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 donāt have to. Being a Christian isnāt only predicated on believing in Jesus. If that was the case, then Satan is also a Christian because heās personally met Jesus and, therefore, would be forced to ābelieveā 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 theyāre 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. Itās repeated numerous times throughout the Bible that Christians will be known by their actions.
Even this is a bad argument. Arenāt singers musicians? How about rappers?
Itās 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 theyāre not a high quality version of that thing. I think itās 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 someoneās a bad Christian doesnāt mean theyāre not a Christian.
No. Again, youāve 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 itās not possible for someone who has not kissed me on the mouth to be part of the religion. They can follow everything else Iāve said to the letter but, as long as they havenāt kissed me directly on the mouth, they cannot be a part of this particular religion because they are missing the central qualification. Itās not about whether someone is āgoodā or ābadā at doing something. Itās whether theyāre doing that thing at all.
Itās not a bad argument, you just misunderstood it. The voice is an instrument.
Ok then, so who is this person that can āclaim to be a musicianā but isnāt?
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. Itās not even the original text, was translated multiple times, and there is no way we can be assured that the King James Bible (Taylorās Version) is the real deal. Definitions from it arenāt more authoritative than Websterā¦theyāre even less so.
Someone who doesnāt play any instrument, including singing. There are unending numbers of people who will tell you theyāre not musicians because they donāt even try. Anyone who doesnāt try but tells you theyāre a musician is a liar. Thatās the point.
load of gish gallop
Nothing that Iāve said should have been overwhelming or inundating. My premise is incredibly simple. You just keep misunderstanding it repeatedly because it seems that youāre not even reading whatās being said.
Weāre not talking about interpretation from the Bible. Weāre talking about the definition used by Catholics that is part of their dogma and doctrine. Weāre 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 Iāve said all you want but none of what Iāve said is inaccurate whereas your response is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
Someone who doesnāt play any instrument, including singing.
Lol, so someone who wants to claim to be a musician but canāt even sing badly (or rap badly, because rappers are still musicians)? Thatās who weāve excluded? Wow, what a useful definition for musician. š
Who is this person who wants to go around claiming musician creds and then canāt attempt a couple of bars?
Congratulations, you understand my example. Thatās my entire point. Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician. If you donāt do the thing that defines the word that means āsomeone who does this thingā, then you canāt be that thing. Thatās the argument! If someone claims to be a Christian and doesnāt follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian. If you donāt like the musician example, come up with a better one.
Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician.
But given that bar thereās 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 āclaiming to be a Christian makes you a Christianā is essentially trueā¦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 doesnāt follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian.
Now itās āfollow the exampleā. So is that words? Actions? Both? Who determines what is āChrist-likeā? You? Are you the guy who determines who is and isnāt a Christian?
Are you being intentionally obtuse here or what? The definition isnāt about being capable of singing (even poorly). Itās about whether or not the person does that thing in their life. If you donāt like the music example, choose a different profession. For example, if I claim to be a golfer, I canāt be one if I donāt play golf. I canāt claim to be a golfer and then āshit out golf clubs and whack a ball aroundā. Youāre just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that āshit[ting] out a couple barsā doesnāt make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.
Now itās āfollow the exampleā
What do you mean here? This implies that my position on this has changed somewhere. Iāve already clarified in my 1st response to you that ābelief in Jesusā isnāt enough to make someone Christian. Itās what started your whole fake confusion about being a musician. This kind of nonsense just leads me to believe that youāre 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 āChrist-likeā. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.
Youāre just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that āshit[ting] out a couple barsā doesnāt make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.
Youāve done nothing but argue semantics the entire thread. Iāve golfed before but Iām not a golfer largely because I donāt claim to be nor aspire to be a golfer despite having golfed at one point. Peopleās identity is to a large extent wrapped up in the claims they make about themselves. I understand that thereās a common understanding of what a āgolferā or a ābarberā or a āChristianā is, but youāre the guy trying to invent the new one. Iām trying to follow your ālogicā here to get an actual definition of a Christian that excludes this Mike Johnson character (for instance).
If someone says theyāre a Christian, says they believe in Christ (for whatever that means), and they go around spouting quotes from the Bible, theyāre a Christian by my logic. Theyāre a Christian by most peopleās logic. Youāre trying to define it some other way, so provide your criteria.
To answer your question, Christ determines what is āChrist-likeā. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.
Well Christ isnāt around to call balls and strikes, so then by your definition nobody can be a Christian.
Webster isnāt any more of a dictator of truth than anyone else. Thereās a reason why Socrates spent a lot of time debating definitions with people. Theyāre 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 whatās in the mind or soul of a person?
What if they attend Catholic mass? Hell, what if theyāre a member of the priesthood?
Even this is a bad argument. Arenāt singers musicians? How about rappers?
All of this debate is really over whether or not something is no longer a thing if theyāre not a high quality version of that thing. I think itās 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 someoneās a bad Christian doesnāt mean theyāre not a Christian.
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 itās 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 personās other statements or actions is another question entirely.
I think this is 100% true for generic things like āChristianityā. When theyāre more official organizationsā¦still maybe, but if someoneās been excommunicated from something it makes sense to me from a practical standpoint that they no longer belong to that thing.
Weāre not talking about the definition from Webster. Weāre 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 donāt have to. Being a Christian isnāt only predicated on believing in Jesus. If that was the case, then Satan is also a Christian because heās personally met Jesus and, therefore, would be forced to ābelieveā 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. Itās repeated numerous times throughout the Bible that Christians will be known by their actions.
Itās not a bad argument, you just misunderstood it. The voice is an instrument.
No. Again, youāve 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 itās not possible for someone who has not kissed me on the mouth to be part of the religion. They can follow everything else Iāve said to the letter but, as long as they havenāt kissed me directly on the mouth, they cannot be a part of this particular religion because they are missing the central qualification. Itās not about whether someone is āgoodā or ābadā at doing something. Itās whether theyāre doing that thing at all.
Ok then, so who is this person that can āclaim to be a musicianā but isnāt?
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. Itās not even the original text, was translated multiple times, and there is no way we can be assured that the King James Bible (Taylorās Version) is the real deal. Definitions from it arenāt more authoritative than Websterā¦theyāre even less so.
Someone who doesnāt play any instrument, including singing. There are unending numbers of people who will tell you theyāre not musicians because they donāt even try. Anyone who doesnāt try but tells you theyāre a musician is a liar. Thatās the point.
Nothing that Iāve said should have been overwhelming or inundating. My premise is incredibly simple. You just keep misunderstanding it repeatedly because it seems that youāre not even reading whatās being said.
Weāre not talking about interpretation from the Bible. Weāre talking about the definition used by Catholics that is part of their dogma and doctrine. Weāre 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 Iāve said all you want but none of what Iāve said is inaccurate whereas your response is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
Lol, so someone who wants to claim to be a musician but canāt even sing badly (or rap badly, because rappers are still musicians)? Thatās who weāve excluded? Wow, what a useful definition for musician. š
Who is this person who wants to go around claiming musician creds and then canāt attempt a couple of bars?
Your argument just sucks dude, get over yourself.
EDIT: Thanks for the downvote!
Congratulations, you understand my example. Thatās my entire point. Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician. If you donāt do the thing that defines the word that means āsomeone who does this thingā, then you canāt be that thing. Thatās the argument! If someone claims to be a Christian and doesnāt follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian. If you donāt like the musician example, come up with a better one.
My argument doesnāt suck. You suck.
But given that bar thereās 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 āclaiming to be a Christian makes you a Christianā is essentially trueā¦because I can claim to be a musician and then sing a little happy birthday and I fit your definition).
Now itās āfollow the exampleā. So is that words? Actions? Both? Who determines what is āChrist-likeā? You? Are you the guy who determines who is and isnāt a Christian?
Right back at ya slick.
Are you being intentionally obtuse here or what? The definition isnāt about being capable of singing (even poorly). Itās about whether or not the person does that thing in their life. If you donāt like the music example, choose a different profession. For example, if I claim to be a golfer, I canāt be one if I donāt play golf. I canāt claim to be a golfer and then āshit out golf clubs and whack a ball aroundā. Youāre just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that āshit[ting] out a couple barsā doesnāt 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. Iāve already clarified in my 1st response to you that ābelief in Jesusā isnāt enough to make someone Christian. Itās what started your whole fake confusion about being a musician. This kind of nonsense just leads me to believe that youāre 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 āChrist-likeā. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.
Youāve done nothing but argue semantics the entire thread. Iāve golfed before but Iām not a golfer largely because I donāt claim to be nor aspire to be a golfer despite having golfed at one point. Peopleās identity is to a large extent wrapped up in the claims they make about themselves. I understand that thereās a common understanding of what a āgolferā or a ābarberā or a āChristianā is, but youāre the guy trying to invent the new one. Iām trying to follow your ālogicā here to get an actual definition of a Christian that excludes this Mike Johnson character (for instance).
If someone says theyāre a Christian, says they believe in Christ (for whatever that means), and they go around spouting quotes from the Bible, theyāre a Christian by my logic. Theyāre a Christian by most peopleās logic. Youāre trying to define it some other way, so provide your criteria.
Well Christ isnāt around to call balls and strikes, so then by your definition nobody can be a Christian.