Blurring the lines.

[Mister Agenda]

[Esquilax]

[Thumpalumpacus]

I honestly think you guys (those who are guilty of this) lable people christian in a straw man effort to devalue or defame the religion, inorder to make an easier arguement.

You're a True Christian®, right? Well, you defame your own religion, by your defense of slavery.

[Mister Agenda]

There is a very simple test to determine whether one is a Christian or not. 1st do the claim to be? 2nd do they follow the canonical teaching of Jesus Christ?

That's the made-up version of the test specifically designed to let certain denominations claim that certain other denominations are not actually Christians. My verson relies on the dictionary defintion of Christian.

Why are their requirements for atheism who has no rules, and no requirements for those who claim Christianity who does have rules?

There is A requirement for atheism (and theism), which is simply the definition. The definition of Christian is slightly more complex, but basically anyone who professes Christ and the value of his teaching is in the club.

You want it to be otherwise, solely for the authority you think it gives you to declare other denominations you disagree with 'not Christians'.

Now, Muslims aren't Christians. They too include the OT and NT but have an additional book on top. They think Jesus was a holy miracle-worker born of a virgin. However, they think he was a prophet sent from God, not actually the son of God or God incarnate. For this (actual) reason, Muslims are not Christians.

[robvalue]

I don't think we need to employ semantics in order to still point out that there's no evidence... of any of it...

I can point it out continually if it will help stop confusion in the future.

[Mister Agenda]

[Chas]

Just an open ended question.

What's with blurring the lines between those who claim Christianity and those who actually practice it? We've had a couple of recent examples of you guys assuming everyone who claims to be christian happens to be Christian just on their proclaimation. Why is this? I have brought up that Christ himself says in Mat 7 that not everyone who claims to be a follower is indeed a follower. What's more he even went so far as to say even some of those who do great things in His name are followers of Christ. But only those who do the will of the Father.

This means that a Follower of Christ is one who follows the instructions given to us to follow. Not anyone who just calls out 'Lord, Lord.'

I hope none of you think that God is bound by your understanding of some death bed effort on your part to keep you out of Hell.

A problem with this is the "actually practice it" part. There are so many interpretations of Christianity, who's to say which is actual and which is not?

Your question ends up going down the No True Christian™ rathole.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't think any of us really care.

If someone wants to call themselves a Christian I don't see what business it is of mine to doubt or question them.

You're right, however it's the business of the church and when someone who calls them self a Christian and we call them out, why is it you all jump on the bandwagon and question what we have to say?

GC

Because you change the meanings of words to suit your prejudices. I'm not a fan of Mormons (they add another layer of silliness to the silliness already there), but they believe Jesus was Christ and the son of God. The name of their church is 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints'. it's based on the life and teachings of Jesus (though elaborated on), and that's what makes a denomination Christian based on standard defintions.

[Godscreated]

As far as I'm concerned, these lines are drawn by the theists. And they draw more and more lines, until it's just a garbled mess.

From my point of view, don't know if most atheists agree, I couldn't care less what a theist calls themselves. Or whether other theists agree with their classification. To me it's like argueing over the colour of an invisible dog.

What does make me laugh is when people talk about "true" or "real" versions. All you've got is a book, that's as far as the reality of the myths goes. There is no "true" way to build a story about what is real and what is not, in a fictional but somehow real way. Just like there is no "true" way in which all the Harry potter characters actually existed. It's all made up. No one has the authority to say what is and isn't the best, or real, version of made up interpretations of reality.

The author of the Harry Potter series admits the books are made up, the writers of the Bible gave their lives in defense of it's truth, way big difference.

GC

[The Grand Nudger]

That's just another part of the myth GC. In any case, this "die for a lie" shit is pointless. Martyrs exist, that doesn't seem to convince you of the authenticity of their respective faiths, or engender any sympathy in you towards their cause.

Allah-hu-akbar, and have a nice day.