Freedom of Religion

[Abracadabra]

So, if all religious traditions would be on shaky grounds (those that you chose)...why would you decide that these should be grounds for criticism? It would seem to me that this is an area of parity in every case. No one can agree who their fairy was, and what he is supposed to have said in the myth.

Before we go off on a tangent turning this into a vague abstraction concerning all possible religions, may I go back and summarize a bit about the actual points that I was addressing concerning the "definition" given for a "Christian"?

The definition that was offer was:

Chris·tian noun \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\
Definition of CHRISTIAN
1a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

I suggested that this particular definition for this particular religion is a bit meaningless.

I would also even argue that it's a false and incorrect definition (even if it came straight out of a dictionary)

The real basis for Christianity is a belief that Jesus was "The Christ".

In other words, it's a belief that Jesus is a continuation of the fables of the God of Abraham and is the Son of that God.

Therefore to even define a "Christian" as merely one who professes a belief in the teaching of Jesus Christ is a bit misleading.

Although, I must confess they did state "Jesus Christ.

That very notation right there is a bit misleading and actually improper speech.

Christ is not Jesus' last name. It's a title that has been given to him that implies that he was indeed the Son of the God of Abraham.

So in truth the definition given above should truly read:

"1a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus as the Christ, the only begotten Son of the God of Abraham."

In other words, this definition is already assuming that the person not only believes in the teachings of this man, but that they also already believe that this man is indeed "The Christ" the only begotten Son of the God of Abraham sent to be the sacrificial lamb of this God.

So the definition is a bit misleading already and assumes far more than it appears to be suggesting.

In other words, it doesn't say that a Christian is simply anyone who professes to believe in the teachings of "Jesus", but instead it says that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus was "The Christ".

Because of that, this definition actually requires that a person believes far more than just the teachings attributed to the man called Jesus, they must also believe in all the other rumors about this man that claim that he was the special Son of God sent as a sacrificial lamb.

In other words, they must also believe that Jesus was "The Christ".

So the definition is highly misleading and assumes far more than it appears to actually be stating. Simply because they already call Jesus "Christ" in their definition.

My original point stands:

My original point is that it's meaningless to try to make a religion out of Jesus alone. Jesus is nothing in a sense of divinity outside of being the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham.

To claim to be a follower of Jesus without being a lover and follower of the God of Abraham is utterly meaningless.

To worship Jesus is to worship the God of Abraham.

Therefore a "Christian" must necessarily worship the God of Abraham and love him with all their mind, heart, and soul, just as the Old Testament demands.

To claim that they are merely "followers of the teachings Jesus" is a gross misrepresentation of what Christianity actually demands.

They must first be believers in the Old Testament and LOVERS of the God of Abraham.

If they aren't that, then any respect they might have for Jesus is a moot point.