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.
This is not about logic! Weāre discussing religion, for Peteās sake.
Itās not my definition, itās the definition of what it means to be a Christian from the source of the word. Itās literally in the name - Christian. Spouting Bible verses doesnāt make someone a Christian. They could be Jewish, after all! Believing in Jesus doesnāt 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 youāre intellectually lazy and because your logic only extends so far as immediately obvious āif a then bā situations doesnāt mean that thereās anything wrong with my argument.
The entire point of this thread is that āChristiansā arenāt using their own logic and definitions. They can say that āMike Johnsonā isnāt a Christian because theyāre 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 ānot a Christianā again.
by your definition nobody
Yet againā¦ itās not my definition. Christ was the one that defined what it means to be Christ-like. If someoneās actions do not reflect the actions of Christ, then theyāre not āChrist-likeā. I donāt understand how much more this can be spelled out for you.
Spouting Bible verses doesnāt make someone a Christian. They could be Jewish, after all! Believing in Jesus doesnāt 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 itās devastating to your bad argument. š„±
EDIT: I also think itās funny that you think ābelieving in Jesusā 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 didnāt skip anything. Itās literally the same argument as the āclaiming to be a golferā and āclaiming to be a musicianā arguments that you canāt 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 Jesusā 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 Jesusā 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 āChristianā wouldnāt include having to be a person. š
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 theyāre some sort of gotcha or disprove my point. I literally cannot spell out this argument to you any more simply so, rather than assume youāre intentionally being dishonest or are arguing in bad faith (which I expect is exactly what youāre 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 theyāre some sort of gotcha or disprove my point.
He posts, without a single bit of irony.
The common sense definition of āa Christianā would certainly contain āa personā or āpeopleā in it.
When did I ever claim that words meant anything in terms of whether someone was something?
It does not. Weāve already covered this. Are you mental? A claim to be something doesnāt make someone that thing. Do I need to keep repeating the āgolferā and āmusicianā examples? Iām not arguing in circles. You seem to be twisting yourself into knots, though.
Tell me you donāt understand the Vonnegut quote without telling me you donāt understand itā¦
Edit: Just as nonsensical - āClaiming to be a golfer has a lot to do with whether or not people consider you a golfer by the common understanding of the wordā. 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?
Iāve lost track of the post, but at some point you were saying someone canāt be a Jew if they deny the Commandments or something similar. Now, by your logic maybe a ādenialā 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 āa Christianā or ānot Christianā, 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, youād have to basically be God in order to determine which people were Christian. Rendering the definition pointless.
āClaiming to be a golfer has a lot to do with whether or not people consider you a golfer by the common understanding of the wordā. 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 arenāt a thing only when youāre actively doing it.
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.
This is not about logic! Weāre discussing religion, for Peteās sake.
Itās not my definition, itās the definition of what it means to be a Christian from the source of the word. Itās literally in the name - Christian. Spouting Bible verses doesnāt make someone a Christian. They could be Jewish, after all! Believing in Jesus doesnāt 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 youāre intellectually lazy and because your logic only extends so far as immediately obvious āif a then bā situations doesnāt mean that thereās anything wrong with my argument.
The entire point of this thread is that āChristiansā arenāt using their own logic and definitions. They can say that āMike Johnsonā isnāt a Christian because theyāre 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 ānot a Christianā again.
Yet againā¦ itās not my definition. Christ was the one that defined what it means to be Christ-like. If someoneās actions do not reflect the actions of Christ, then theyāre not āChrist-likeā. I donāt 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 itās devastating to your bad argument. š„±
EDIT: I also think itās funny that you think ābelieving in Jesusā 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 didnāt skip anything. Itās literally the same argument as the āclaiming to be a golferā and āclaiming to be a musicianā arguments that you canāt 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 Jesusā 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 āChristianā wouldnāt include having to be a person. š
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 theyāre some sort of gotcha or disprove my point. I literally cannot spell out this argument to you any more simply so, rather than assume youāre intentionally being dishonest or are arguing in bad faith (which I expect is exactly what youāre 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 āa Christianā would certainly contain āa personā or āpeopleā in it.
So words mean nothing again according to you, now only the actions count. Someoneās 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.
āWe are what we pretend to be, so be careful what you pretend to be.ā - Kurt Vonnegut
When did I ever claim that words meant anything in terms of whether someone was something?
It does not. Weāve already covered this. Are you mental? A claim to be something doesnāt make someone that thing. Do I need to keep repeating the āgolferā and āmusicianā examples? Iām not arguing in circles. You seem to be twisting yourself into knots, though.
Tell me you donāt understand the Vonnegut quote without telling me you donāt understand itā¦
Edit: Just as nonsensical - āClaiming to be a golfer has a lot to do with whether or not people consider you a golfer by the common understanding of the wordā. Oh really? I thought it was whether or not you play golf that determined if you were a golfer.
deleted by creator
Iāve lost track of the post, but at some point you were saying someone canāt be a Jew if they deny the Commandments or something similar. Now, by your logic maybe a ādenialā 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 āa Christianā or ānot Christianā, 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, youād 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 arenāt a thing only when youāre actively doing it.