Is this a true Christian?

[Godscreated]

So we are what we believe we are, Rev, or is that limited to things that depend strictly on the imagination?

Its merely the sum of a title. The bare minimum definition is "follower of christ". If someone is a follower of christ, then he is a "true christian" regardless of all of the extra that others may add on.

An atheist may actualllly like christianity and respect it, while another cant stand it. Both are still "true atheists" if they are "without theism".

Without true dedication to Christ, accepting Him as Lord and savior, and allowing Him to work through one's life one can not be a "true christian."
One could draw a house and do a good job designing it, unless that person has a degree and follows the disciplines he/she is not an architect. So yes the extras are important, Jesus said, " you will know them by their deeds," what He was saying, without my guidance people can not do those things that would identify them as christians.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet judging by "my deeds", I'm a "true christian". That's the way superstitions go GC. They never end up working the way we thought they might. So what is it, do I not need Jesus, or can we not actually "know" by anyone's deeds?

[Aardverk]

I'm pleased to see that you are moving closer to my viewpoint renew. Your meaning is not very clear sometimes (typing errors I expect) but it would be petty for me to go through your errors point by point so I will resist temptation.

So you have problem with men/woman that are placing their lives on the line not to have a drink, was it mandatory that they do this, or was it an option?

It was optional for soldiers to drink before battle but it was the norm. Remember this was way before the days when we realised that alcohol impaired judgement and coordination.

I believe in nothing, I know what my current understanding is, and until a fact comes along to change this current understanding, then I will expand on what I know to be my current understanding.. understand.

I think I understand. That explains a lot

You really assume a lot about me, however I do have a wonderful vivid imagination and yes at times I need it to work over time, quite wonderful at times, you should try it, great things have come about with vivid imagination.

Except clarity perhaps.

Your comparison is in poor, perhaps this is where clarification needs to be inserted, his beliefs are not the beliefs of the god he is so called representing, he is lying through his teeth in a loud and obnoxious manner.

You and I do not know what the 'beliefs of his god' are so your judgement on that issue is patently questionable. I give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he was telling the truth as he perceived it. I don't believe in silencing anyone just because I disagree with them or dislike them. I defend your equal right to do the same thing outside a religious gathering, no matter how disingenuous and obnoxious they thought you were. I would then also think that you had the courage of your conviction no matter how foolish and obnoxious some people thought you were.

A belief is a thought, and to deter anyone from their thoughts is incomprehensive, there are ones who understanding when knowledge is being handed out, they are the same ones that know this man was full of nothing useful or educational. Should I assume you did?

Sorry, you've lost me again. I haven't a clue what you mean.

I am not denying the man of his free speech. He can freely speak all he wants, if he did it naked running down the street, alright. It is the content of his speech that is in question.

Excellent! We are in agreement. Why you criticised me for standing up for his right of free speech is beyond me. Yes, the content of his speech should certainly be questioned but not his right to speak and his bravery should not be disparaged just because we disagree with him.

One small clarification. Remember where I inserted the dictionary definition of 'Bigot'? If you look immediately above that definition you you will see a solid line. That line is automatically inserted if you make two consecutive posts. You may well see it when someone is replying to several people and no one else has made a post since your previous post. I was not deliberately aiming it at you; it just happened to be a separate post that became attached to my earlier post which was directed to you. It was for the benefit of those few people who were making bigoted statements and obviously didn't realise what they were doing.

---

Yet judging by "my deeds", I'm a "true christian". That's the way superstitions go GC. They never end up working the way we thought they might. So what is it, do I not need Jesus, or can we not actually "know" by anyone's deeds?

You scared me for a moment then Rhythm. I thought, 'Oh no, that means I'm still defined as a Christian too', but then I realised that I was not that evil. I'm sure you're not that bad in reality either.

[renew]

I'm pleased to see that you are moving closer to my viewpoint renew. Your meaning is not very clear sometimes (typing errors I expect) but it would be petty for me to go through your errors point by point so I will resist temptation.

Yes, I can agree petty is a good reference point.

It was optional for soldiers to drink before battle but it was the norm. Remember this was way before the days when we realised that alcohol impaired judgement and coordination.

From the beginning mankind knew exactly what alcohol does, tis why we like it so much, your back peddling on this one.

I believe in nothing, I know what my current understanding is, and until a fact comes along to change this current understanding, then I will expand on what I know to be my current understanding.. understand.

I think I understand. That explains a lot

Well I will assume you have not attained any further knowledge on a subject since you were what, a young adult?

You really assume a lot about me, however I do have a wonderful vivid imagination and yes at times I need it to work over time, quite wonderful at times, you should try it, great things have come about with vivid imagination.

Except clarity perhaps.

Come on AA, you can do better then that. Did you not just scold someone for childish manners? You know, the ones that think they know it all, are really annoying to the ones that do.

You and I do not know what the 'beliefs of his god' are so your judgement on that issue is patently questionable. I give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he was telling the truth as he perceived it.

Then since you do not have any knowledge on the matter then perhaps you should not give a opinion.

I don't believe in silencing anyone just because I disagree with them or dislike them.

I am most cofident this is not true, however, it is your own, do what you will.

I defend your equal right to do the same thing outside a religious gathering, no matter how disingenuous and obnoxious they thought you were. I would then also think that you had the courage of your conviction no matter how foolish and obnoxious some people thought you were.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, however, no need for it. I am sure the oaf needs your confidence more then I do. Have you wrote to him telling him how much you admire his courage?

A belief is a thought, and to deter anyone from their thoughts is incomprehensive, there are ones who understanding when knowledge is being handed out, they are the same ones that know this man was full of nothing useful or educational. Should I assume you did?

Sorry, you've lost me again. I haven't a clue what you mean.

Try reading it again, then one more time if needed, it may come and it may not. Don't really know what to tell you after that.

I am not denying the man of his free speech. He can freely speak all he wants, if he did it naked running down the street, alright. It is the content of his speech that is in question.

Excellent! We are in agreement. Why you criticised me for standing up for his right of free speech is beyond me. Yes, the content of his speech should certainly be questioned but not his right to speak and his bravery should not be disparaged just because we disagree with him.

There you go again with the bravery thing, okay, he is your big brave oaf, I get it. So freedom of speech, two votes, bravery one vote.

One small clarification. Remember where I inserted the dictionary definition of 'Bigot'? If you look immediately above that definition you you will see a solid line. That line is automatically inserted if you make two consecutive posts. You may well see it when someone is replying to several people and no one else has made a post since your previous post. I was not deliberately aiming it at you; it just happened to be a separate post that became attached to my earlier post which was directed to you. It was for the benefit of those few people who were making bigoted statements and obviously didn't realise what they were doing.

Oh, I see. So the solid line means you are directing a post to another, without defing who the other is, or simply a generic post. My apologies, I took it as part of the generic post that you wrote to me.

Truly, AA, I am terribly bored with this subject now. Do take care, and perhaps we will be able to discuss another topic at another time.

[Strongbad]

Well...my answer is thus:

If a person considers himself a follower of Christ, then he is a "true" Christian.

This includes the man in the video.

Who is NOT a true Christian? Every Christian whose beliefs differ from the Christian to whom the question has been posed.

[Aardverk]

You give me a bit of a problem renew as I am generally very reluctant to make generalised criticisms of people I haven't met but you do come over as a bigoted and rather ignorant child who clearly has little idea about grammar, history, human nature and psychology but I could be wrong. It could be that you simply dash off a reply whilst drunk or otherwise temporarily impaired.

From the beginning mankind knew exactly what alcohol does, tis why we like it so much, your back peddling on this one.

No, I'm not back-peddling renew, simply dealing with your ignorance. People did not generally know what effect it had upon judgement. For example, it is not many years since it was perfectly normal, the social convention even, to offer visiting car drivers 'one for the road' before they left. Whilst the good effects of alcohol have indeed been long know, the negative effects were less widely recognised.

You really assume a lot about me, however I do have a wonderful vivid imagination and yes at times I need it to work over time, quite wonderful at times, you should try it, great things have come about with vivid imagination.

Part of your problem is that you often do not understand what has been written and you therefore try to make a joke about it to cover up. I generously called it your 'vivid imagination' but in reality it is just your ignorance being exposed. The sad thing is, you probably have no idea just how unpleasant some of your ideas make you appear. Try talking to friends about your bigotry, if you have any friends.

Then since you do not have any knowledge on the matter then perhaps you should not give a opinion.

Yet another example of you failing to understand what has been written. I have given no opinions on 'the matter' renew and neither have you.

I don't believe in silencing anyone just because I disagree with them or dislike them.

I am most cofident this is not true, however, it is your own, do what you will.

You honestly could not be more wrong renew. Your instinct to suppress free speech is quite disturbing and..... "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Evelyn Beatrice Hall). Just because you are a bigot, that does not mean that other people are and think like you. My bet is that the vast majority of people on this forum stand up firmly for free speech and would entirely agree with my statement and Evelyn's statement (often mis-attributed to Voltaire).

A belief is a thought, and to deter anyone from their thoughts is incomprehensive, there are ones who understanding when knowledge is being handed out, they are the same ones that know this man was full of nothing useful or educational. Should I assume you did?

No, I still don't understand it. Maybe it doesn't say what you think it says. Try a spell checker and a grammar checker.

Oh, I see. So the solid line means you are directing a post to another, without defing who the other is, or simply a generic post. My apologies, I took it as part of the generic post that you wrote to me.

Your words have a whiff of sarcasm but the bizarre grammar makes it difficult for me to be sure. I'm not certain that you understand even now but keep your eyes open around the forum and you will see it happening lots of times.

[Aardverk]

'Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

The oaf in the video was exercising his rights and he had the courage to do so outside a gathering of his 'enemy'. I strongly disagree with him and thought him an obnoxious fool but I defend his right to do it as often as he wants to do it.

Who would like to deny him, and therefore you and me, that same right?

[renew]

You give me a bit of a problem renew as I am generally very reluctant to make generalised criticisms of people I haven't met but you do come over as a bigoted and rather ignorant child who clearly has little idea about grammar, history, human nature and psychology but I could be wrong. It could be that you simply dash off a reply whilst drunk or otherwise temporarily impaired.

AA, I do hate to see you in such despair of not really knowing or being wrong. I know words would not soothe your soul or bring you comfort. So there is nothing more I can do for you.

From the beginning mankind knew exactly what alcohol does, tis why we like it so much, your back peddling on this one.

No, I'm not back-peddling renew, simply dealing with your ignorance. People did not generally know what effect it had upon judgement. For example, it is not many years since it was perfectly normal, the social convention even, to offer visiting car drivers 'one for the road' before they left. Whilst the good effects of alcohol have indeed been long know, the negative effects were less widely recognised.

LOL, AA OK. It's all yours, do what you will with it. I will say the goverment is making good money off these negative effects.

Part of your problem is that you often do not understand what has been written and you therefore try to make a joke about it to cover up. I generously called it your 'vivid imagination' but in reality it is just your ignorance being exposed. The sad thing is, you probably have no idea just how unpleasant some of your ideas make you appear. Try talking to friends about your bigotry, if you have any friends.

AA, seriously, I swear you would pull my hair if you had the chance. When one acts as you do I cannot help but be kind, due to I know that it is you self expressing and trying to heal by placing your shortcomings on another. I can say though it is an unhealthy practice.

Yet another example of you failing to understand what has been written. I have given no opinions on 'the matter' renew and neither have you.

Your right AA, I do fail miserably when it comes to understanding what you write and I am just fine with that.

You honestly could not be more wrong renew. Your instinct to suppress free speech is quite disturbing and..... "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Evelyn Beatrice Hall). Just because you are a bigot, that does not mean that other people are and think like you. My bet is that the vast majority of people on this forum stand up firmly for free speech and would entirely agree with my statement and Evelyn's statement (often mis-attributed to Voltaire).

Okay, then the next time your big brave oaf stands up and talks I expect you to be there beside him telling everyone "I disapprove of what he says, but I am standing here beside him and will defend him to the death'. Dress nice for the occasion.

No, I still don't understand it. Maybe it doesn't say what you think it says. Try a spell checker and a grammar checker.

Since you are quite sure that correction is needed, then perhaps you can use it as a challenge of some sort, a puzzle perhaps.

Your words have a whiff of sarcasm but the bizarre grammar makes it difficult for me to be sure. I'm not certain that you understand even now but keep your eyes open around the forum and you will see it happening lots of times.

I am surprised that it took you this long to figure out the sarcasam in my post.

Are we done yet?

---

and AA...using your post as practice really helped in mastering the quote and edit features. Thank you.

[Aardverk]

.....and AA...using your post as practice really helped in mastering the quote and edit features. Thank you.

You're most welcome renew. I'm always glad to help out when I see someone struggling. I'm pleased I could give you a bit of light practice before you try to cross swords with the big boys and girls.

I hope you enjoy it here.

[reverendjeremiah]

Well...my answer is thus:

If a person considers himself a follower of Christ, then he is a "true" Christian.

This includes the man in the video.

Who is NOT a true Christian? Every Christian whose beliefs differ from the Christian to whom the question has been posed.

That was pretty uch the context of this thread. It even goes a bit further. We are not mind readers, so we only have someones words and deeds to base such things on.

---

So we are what we believe we are, Rev, or is that limited to things that depend strictly on the imagination?

Its merely the sum of a title. The bare minimum definition is "follower of christ". If someone is a follower of christ, then he is a "true christian" regardless of all of the extra that others may add on.

An atheist may actualllly like christianity and respect it, while another cant stand it. Both are still "true atheists" if they are "without theism".

Without true dedication to Christ, accepting Him as Lord and savior, and allowing Him to work through one's life one can not be a "true christian."
One could draw a house and do a good job designing it, unless that person has a degree and follows the disciplines he/she is not an architect. So yes the extras are important, Jesus said, " you will know them by their deeds," what He was saying, without my guidance people can not do those things that would identify them as christians.

So, in other words, a "true" christian is someone who is like you. And a "fake" christian is someone who isnt exactly like you?

Jesus also said that "signs" would be shown by those who follow him.. Such as faith healing and such. Jesus also said to give away all of your possessions in order to follow him. If a man asks for your coat, give him your shoes. If a man asks you to walk a mile, give him two. Jesus also said if you do not hate your entire family and even yourself then you cannot be a follower of him.

Do you heal people by touch? Did you give all f your possessions to the poor? Do you hate yourself and your family? According to Jesus himself you arent a true follower.

But just because you dont agree with EVERYTHING Jesus demands, does not make you any less of a follower of him, obviously...you pick and choose what you wish to follow about Jesus.