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.
When did I ever claim that words meant anything in terms of whether someone was something?
It does not. We’ve already covered this. Are you mental? A claim to be something doesn’t make someone that thing. Do I need to keep repeating the “golfer” and “musician” examples? I’m not arguing in circles. You seem to be twisting yourself into knots, though.
Tell me you don’t understand the Vonnegut quote without telling me you don’t understand it…
Edit: Just as nonsensical - “Claiming to be a golfer has a lot to do with whether or not people consider you a golfer by the common understanding of the word”. Oh really? I thought it was whether or not you play golf that determined if you were a golfer.
When did I ever claim that words meant anything in terms of whether someone was something?
I’ve lost track of the post, but at some point you were saying someone can’t be a Jew if they deny the Commandments or something similar. Now, by your logic maybe a “denial” is some sort of action, but denials by common definition usually take the form of words, not actions.
Now, if actions are all that count for someone to be considered “a Christian” or “not Christian”, only a complete knowledge of every action a person ever took or will take would suffice for qualifying them or disqualifying them as Christian. So then again, you’d have to basically be God in order to determine which people were Christian. Rendering the definition pointless.
“Claiming to be a golfer has a lot to do with whether or not people consider you a golfer by the common understanding of the word”. Oh really? I thought it was whether or not you play golf that determined if you were a golfer.
How do other people know whether or not you play golf?
You aren’t a thing only when you’re actively doing it.
I’m going to ignore the first half of this post because you completely missed the point of the Ten Commandments example. I suspect you’re just actually that dense and aren’t being intentionally obtuse or feigning confusion.
You aren’t a thing only when you’re actively doing it
Of course not. But you’re definitely not a thing if you don’t do that thing at all.
Again…read up like 2 posts back. That’s the entire point here. Remember? If you don’t play music, you can’t call yourself a musician. If you don’t golf, you can’t claim to be a golfer. Are you really that dense? I genuinely can’t tell if you’re a troll at this point.
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. 😎
I keep telling you how stupid you are because you keep avoiding the actual point and, instead, say stupid things like what you just said as if they’re some sort of gotcha or disprove my point. I literally cannot spell out this argument to you any more simply so, rather than assume you’re intentionally being dishonest or are arguing in bad faith (which I expect is exactly what you’re doing), I have to go with the only logical alternative which is that you are stupid and the point of this is just whizzing above your head while you look at the sky wondering.
I keep telling you how stupid you are because you keep avoiding the actual point and, instead, say stupid things like what you just said as if they’re some sort of gotcha or disprove my point.
He posts, without a single bit of irony.
The common sense definition of “a Christian” would certainly contain “a person” or “people” in it.
Christians (/ˈkrɪstʃən, -tiən/ ⓘ) are people who follow or adhere to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. They form the largest religious community in the world.[10] The words Christ and Christian derive from the Koine Greek title Christós (Χριστός), a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term mashiach (מָשִׁיחַ) (usually rendered as messiah in English).[11] While there are diverse interpretations of Christianity which sometimes conflict,[12][13] they are united in believing that Jesus has a unique significance.[12]
Cuz that sure doesn’t seem like the same dumb fucking shit you were spouting, and sure sounds a whole lot more like what I would think of as a definition before looking the fucking thing up.
I have no idea but it’s not a “common sense definition” or whatever bullshit you claimed. Looks like a Wikipedia entry to me.
All that to say that you have no counter so you moved onto the next bullshit straw man that you pulled out of your empty vessel. I’m done with your inanity.
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.
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
When did I ever claim that words meant anything in terms of whether someone was something?
It does not. We’ve already covered this. Are you mental? A claim to be something doesn’t make someone that thing. Do I need to keep repeating the “golfer” and “musician” examples? I’m not arguing in circles. You seem to be twisting yourself into knots, though.
Tell me you don’t understand the Vonnegut quote without telling me you don’t understand it…
Edit: Just as nonsensical - “Claiming to be a golfer has a lot to do with whether or not people consider you a golfer by the common understanding of the word”. Oh really? I thought it was whether or not you play golf that determined if you were a golfer.
deleted by creator
I’ve lost track of the post, but at some point you were saying someone can’t be a Jew if they deny the Commandments or something similar. Now, by your logic maybe a “denial” is some sort of action, but denials by common definition usually take the form of words, not actions.
Now, if actions are all that count for someone to be considered “a Christian” or “not Christian”, only a complete knowledge of every action a person ever took or will take would suffice for qualifying them or disqualifying them as Christian. So then again, you’d have to basically be God in order to determine which people were Christian. Rendering the definition pointless.
How do other people know whether or not you play golf?
You aren’t a thing only when you’re actively doing it.
I’m going to ignore the first half of this post because you completely missed the point of the Ten Commandments example. I suspect you’re just actually that dense and aren’t being intentionally obtuse or feigning confusion.
Of course not. But you’re definitely not a thing if you don’t do that thing at all.
Who the fuck was arguing that you are?
Again…read up like 2 posts back. That’s the entire point here. Remember? If you don’t play music, you can’t call yourself a musician. If you don’t golf, you can’t claim to be a golfer. Are you really that dense? I genuinely can’t tell if you’re a troll at this point.
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. 😎
I keep telling you how stupid you are because you keep avoiding the actual point and, instead, say stupid things like what you just said as if they’re some sort of gotcha or disprove my point. I literally cannot spell out this argument to you any more simply so, rather than assume you’re intentionally being dishonest or are arguing in bad faith (which I expect is exactly what you’re doing), I have to go with the only logical alternative which is that you are stupid and the point of this is just whizzing above your head while you look at the sky wondering.
He posts, without a single bit of irony.
The common sense definition of “a Christian” would certainly contain “a person” or “people” in it.
…and he doesn’t know what irony is.
There’s no such thing as a “common sense definition”, you absolutely vacuous moron.
Hmm, I wonder what this is then:
Christians (/ˈkrɪstʃən, -tiən/ ⓘ) are people who follow or adhere to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. They form the largest religious community in the world.[10] The words Christ and Christian derive from the Koine Greek title Christós (Χριστός), a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term mashiach (מָשִׁיחַ) (usually rendered as messiah in English).[11] While there are diverse interpretations of Christianity which sometimes conflict,[12][13] they are united in believing that Jesus has a unique significance.[12]
Cuz that sure doesn’t seem like the same dumb fucking shit you were spouting, and sure sounds a whole lot more like what I would think of as a definition before looking the fucking thing up.
I have no idea but it’s not a “common sense definition” or whatever bullshit you claimed. Looks like a Wikipedia entry to me.
All that to say that you have no counter so you moved onto the next bullshit straw man that you pulled out of your empty vessel. I’m done with your inanity.