Atheist tells a minister they are not a Christian

Originally posted by Palynka
You missed the point of the whole conversation. I can provide you with a definition that would include him as a Christian.

Missing a point and disagreeing with a point are completely different. 😉

Originally posted by Badwater
Missing a point and disagreeing with a point are completely different. 😉

True, but it's still an interesting argument.

For example, robbie defined a Christian as "someone who practices the teachings of Christ". So, under that definition, (unless you believe it was a case of not practicing what you preach) one could say that Christ was Christian, despite being born in a Jewish society.

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, twhitehead, keep avoiding the point.

My apologies. I am not deliberately avoiding the point, I must be simply missing it.
Could you summarize the point for me so that I can get it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My apologies. I am not deliberately avoiding the point, I must be simply missing it.
Could you summarize the point for me so that I can get it?

Unless you address the specific beliefs of the theist you're addressing, claims about the label he's using are pointless. The argument that the label doesn't fit is just a fallacy of equivocation.

Originally posted by Palynka
True, but it's still an interesting argument.

For example, robbie defined a Christian as "someone who practices the teachings of Christ". So, under that definition, (unless you believe it was a case of not practicing what you preach) one could say that Christ was Christian, despite being born in a Jewish society.

"someone who practices the teachings of Christ" isn't a good definition, because what one think is practice, may another one be the opposite.

Example: There are christian cults worshipping snakes. They think they are christians because of this worshipping, others christians think they are crazy.

My definition is better: "Everyone beliveing in the truth of John 3:16 are christians. Those who denies John 3:16 is not."
This works in every language, in every culture.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"someone who practices the teachings of Christ" isn't a good definition, because what one think is practice, may another one be the opposite.

Example: There are christian cults worshipping snakes. They think they are christians because of this worshipping, others christians think they are crazy.

My definition is better: "Everyone beliveing in the tr ...[text shortened]... tians. Those who denies John 3:16 is not."
This works in every language, in every culture.

Deny what? The literal interpretation? Or a non-literal one? Which interpretation cannot be denied?

Always the same lack of coherence, Fabian. Attacking fundamentalists for literal views of some parts of the bible (e.g. creation), yet attacking other views for being non-literal when it suits you.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Originally posted by Palynka
Deny what? The literal interpretation? Or a non-literal one? Which interpretation cannot be denied?

Always the same lack of coherence, Fabian. Attacking fundamentalists for literal views of some parts of the bible (e.g. creation), yet attacking other views for being non-literal when it suits you.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I ask you Palynka: "Do you belive in John 3:16 as a truth?"
If 'yes', you are a christian.
If 'no', you're not.
Every other definition is more complex and not so 'sharp' as this is.

If you give me a better definition, then I adopt it right away.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I ask you Palynka: "Do you belive in John 3:16 as a truth?"
If 'yes', you are a christian.
If 'no', you're not.
Every other definition is more complex and not so 'sharp' as this is.

If you give me a better definition, then I adopt it right away.

you are confusing the variables of the equation with the equation itself, furthermore it is so deficient as it takes into no account the actions of the person professing Christianity. Why is this inadequate, for 'Christianity', is meant to be a dynamic force in a persons life and must have as a consequence some outward expression, not simply some passive belief, but then again, i dont know some of the Christians you hang out with.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If you give me a better definition, then I adopt it right away.

Oh dear... You haven't understood a word of what this discussion is about, have you?

Originally posted by Palynka
Oh dear... You haven't understood a word of what this discussion is about, have you?

Track my postings backward, and see where I hopped in.

Still searching for a definition better than mine.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are confusing the variables of the equation with the equation itself, furthermore it is so deficient as it takes into no account the actions of the person professing Christianity. Why is this inadequate, for 'Christianity', is meant to be a dynamic force in a persons life and must have as a consequence some outward expression, not simply some passive belief, but then again, i dont know some of the Christians you hang out with.

Look at my definition again and compare with your alternative definition.
It is debateble what "practices the teachings of Christ" really means. Do you include all practicings or do you mean some specific practicing? Do you mean that practicing 'walking on water' is important to call sombody a christian?
John 3:16 is crisp clear, isn't it?

It is crisp clear, because it includes all christians, and it excludes every other religion. I, for one, am excluded by this definition, as Dalai Lama. Hitler is included, the pope too.

Whenever I find a better definition that includes every christian and exclude every other, then please let me know. I'm activley searching for one.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Track my postings backward, and see where I hopped in.

Still searching for a definition better than mine.

😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Look at my definition again and compare with your alternative definition.
It is debateble what "practices the teachings of Christ" really means. Do you include all practicings or do you mean some specific practicing? Do you mean that practicing 'walking on water' is important to call sombody a christian?
John 3:16 is crisp clear, isn't it?

It is cris ...[text shortened]... hristian and exclude every other, then please let me know. I'm activley searching for one.

how is it debatable?

what is someone who practices medicine termed? a doctor

what is someone who practices mathematics termed? a mathematician

what is someone who practices football termed? a footballer

in each and every instance, the definition is determined, not be what these persons believe, not on how they interpret their practices, but by what they do.

If i believe that i am a mountaineer but do not climb mountains, how can it be said, in any sense of the word that i am a mountaineer? if i believe that i am a submarine commander, but have never set foot in a submarine, how can it be termed, in any sense of the word that i am a submarine commander? Can you see how fatally flawed your definition is? simple belief is never a definition for anything, especially as a definition of faith.

the superlative equation is this

adherent + what they practice = their definition

you shall readily perceive that the definition is not formed merely with beliefs, but with the outworking of those beliefs and is superior in every way.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how is it debatable?

what is someone who practices medicine termed? a doctor

what is someone who practices mathematics termed? a mathematician

what is someone who practices football termed? a footballer

in each and every instance, the definition is determined, not be what these persons believe, not on how they interpret their practice ...[text shortened]... rmed merely with beliefs, but with the outworking of those beliefs and is superior in every way.

"what is someone who practices medicine termed? a doctor" No not neccessarily. Medicine men in Africa are not considered being doctors in our western culture.

"what is someone who practices mathematics termed? a mathematician" No not neccessarily. A gambler is not considered being a mathematician.

"what is someone who practices football termed? a footballer" No not neccessarily. He could also be a commentator in TV.

In each and every instance, the definition is fuzzy and can be true or not true depending of context and individual experience.

Acording to your definition, only those who could practice christs teaching by walking on water can be concidered a christian. According to some individual reference. It's not crisp clear.

Mine is crisper. (*) Can you think of anyone denying John 3:16 a christian? Can you think of any non-christian that believs in John 3:16? Is there any gray area in between?

If you still dispute my definition, please comment it, or give me a better definition. Don't comment irrelevant things. I put a question to you. I've marked it with an (*). Please answer it, or avoid it and take critics for avoidance.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"what is someone who practices medicine termed? a doctor" No not neccessarily. Medicine men in Africa are not considered being doctors in our western culture.

"what is someone who practices mathematics termed? a mathematician" No not neccessarily. A gambler is not considered being a mathematician.

"what is someone who practices football termed? a ve marked it with an (*). Please answer it, or avoid it and take critics for avoidance.

your objections are nothing short of ludicrous and it shall be noted how you have completely avoided the part on why simple belief is never a good definition, this naturally answers the question marked with an asterisk. i need comment no further.