Examples of non-Christian Moral systems.

Include "The Invisible Hand of the Market" as one of those supernatural beings, and I'll go a long way toward agreeing with you.

In the wise words of shallow Hal: If you had Wonder Woman, but the rest of the world did not believe in her, would it matter? Umm... Yes. Why is it ill-advised to teach other peoples morals from the Bible?

Get the Holy Spirit and do some studying yourself. It's so easy. Christianity is an individual process of growth. It's not something you can depend on others for. Yes. It's a pitty. But in a race, only one runner takes the prize. How do you know? I would say, "ask God", but you sorta have to believe he exists first. I don't remember. Probably on TV. Maybe it was that Kung Fu guy with the cop son that had that series... I donno. Nah... God and me, We're tight. He opens my eyes to truths my logic and reason could never find. But I am a very much a scientifically minded person. If my career in the Marine Corps doesn't work out, I'm considering post-graduate study in astrophysics. But I'm content to do whatever God has for me.You wanna talk about abandoning reason and logic, just look at the evolutionary theory! Muhahaha... It is also very true that as intelligence rises it becomes a source of arrogance. Haha... I told this story in some other post of how I disbelieved in Santa Clause. I was three or four and I told my mom I didn't believe in Santa Clause because he would have to practically be everywhere at once to visit all the houses on earth in one night and only God is everywhere at once.I think there is a VERY deep need in all of us for a relationship with our creator. When this need is fulfilled, there is nothing else on earth comparable to it. Words cannot describe it. And you don't know what you're missing until you have it. So people with low IQ's make mostly hurtful choices and people with high IQ's make mostly wonderful choices, eh?No, I don't think intellect has much to do with it. I've known some wonderfully sweet retarded people and some downright evil smart people. It all has to do with arrogance and humility. How do you know? The Bible hasn't changed. If you don't know what's in the Bible then how do you know they were following fundamental principles of the Bible??? Different from the countless pastor/teachers who unobtrusively teach true Bible doctrine to their congregations who live a wonderful peaceful civil life as invisible heroes. It was so encouraging when I went to the Christian college I go to, to meet people from all over the U.S. and even world who shared the same doctrines that I did and the same love, respect, and devotion to God and each other.Can't you see? If a person acting as a religious leader makes himself historically famous, that's probably a good indication he's not doing his job right. A religious leader's job is to communicate doctrine, not to start an arrogant crusade. Humbly study the Bible with the filling of the H.S. That doesn't mean EVERYONE followed this perverted form of Christianity. You don't hear about the remnant that carried on true Christianity just like today most people think Christianity is going to the church bowling alley for some fellowship and singing a few songs on Sunday. I don't know my history well enough to comment on him, however his 95 theses were definately a step in the right direction. I can't account for whatever his actions after that were.

I was just saying that no society has perfect equality. There always has been a hierarchy of power in which the uppermost level determines what is best for the whole society. The only case where this is not true is pure democracy where every person has an equal say on everything. But this breaks down rather quickly.

I say; You then say; So you agree that the one word can be defined in many ways, yet at no time does christian mean more than one thing? Isn't that my point? Exactly, which is what I'm saying, yet - as you point out, they are two different things. Whereas you cannot show such an example for the word "christian". I'm not sure you're understanding what I mean by this. I ask honestly though, are you reading quickly or something? Yes Dan, which is my point! Because a brave man(2) and a carnivorous animal(1) are two different things, SO LION CAN be a word used for two different things. We can call it lion 1(carnivorous animal) - And lion 2(brave man), and obviously - the numbers one and two represent the different meanings. But christian???? How could you confuse it? Please tell me. So obviously we are defining two different meanings for the word lion in a brave man and a carnivorous animal. So you've just proved that lion can mean two different things! You do know that was my point - right? Just incase you don't, here's what I said; So, I mean - you seem to have a desire to disagree about what we seem to in actual fact, well....agree about. (I'm confused). Maybe you were trying to show some kind of scotsman type situation with the lion and brave bloke, but that's not even what I suggested. You see, this constant comedy is infact not a true representation of my postings. I'm all for a bit of fun but WHAT!!!!! Is that supposed to refute me??? Wiz, bang, smoke, confusion.....Must be an American thing.Okay... Now I'll try to please you Dan; So, I guess if you've corrected me then you even still have the following problems;Now. Since these two incorporate his teachings, and his teachings are peaceful, it only takes a child to see that "wickedness/atrocities" is a contradictive predicate to the definition. Furthermore, your logic boat has left the island; Red = fatal flaw. Yet fatal flaw doesn't always = red.You have failed logically. If a christian(a) is one who professes belief in Jesus Christ(b), then that does NOT mean one who professes belief in Jesus Christ(b) is neccesarily a christian(a). B doesn't equal A, yet A = B. So you are infact arguing the converse.To give you an example of your flawed logic, if a human(a), is defined as a person(b), does that mean the word person must always mean/be a human?
Why ofcourse not, person might mean "Physique and general appearance". So you can now see that one who professes belief in Christ, is not necessarily a christian, yet a christian is a believer in Christ.Now just so you don't think I'm making this up, here's another example I made back in May; logic it's called, we use it occasionally. So you see, I can be sarcastic, but it don't prove anything acting a wise ass, yet logic sure does.Now then, here's my chance to make a strawman Dan, like you did when you claimed I perceive, "common sense overrides the dictionary". Infact my position is that I don't need a dictionary to have common sense. But you, (cough, cough)....well,ahem..common sense is independent of the diccy, is that clear enough? So hey - enjoy your dic, if it gives you common sense.Surely you don't think logic is wrong and you are right? I suggest you argue with Mr Spock concerning this.Infact here's a test for you Dan. And if you don't answer, don't expect either a post to you, in retort.....Wise cracks are insufficient, in comparison to this post. Is two minutes a period of time?Yes or No answers please. If you don't give an answer, then no reply from me.^{PS --> I require a full and proper answer to this post. Any more sarcasm, and I won't respond.}This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-09-2004 08:48 AM

quote:

---

Get the Holy Spirit and do some studying yourself. It's so easy. Christianity is an individual process of growth. It's not something you can depend on others for.

---

Then why do you frequently bring up how there are so many other people who believe exactly the same as you?You have probably always been surrounded by lots and lots of people who believe as you do, probably especially your family.Your religion is Christianity because you were raised to believe it, just like most other Christians.Where one is born is the greatest determinant of what religion one will follow. Why do you think that is?You cannot discount communal reinforcement as contributing to your belief.

quote:

---

How do you know?

---

Observation.

quote:

---

I would say, "ask God", but you sorta have to believe he exists first.

---

EXACTLY! If there is no way to determine the right religion without being religious first, then you cannot make a real choice. At least, you cannot choose without being strongly biased by where you were raised, by whom, and whom you are around currently.

quote:

---

I don't remember. Probably on TV. Maybe it was that Kung Fu guy with the cop son that had that series... I donno.

---

So, you weren't raised in a family that practiced Buddhism, didn't know any Buddhists, didn't have any Buddhist temples in your town or nearby, didn't read any Buddhist writings as a child, correct?

quote:

---

Nah... God and me, We're tight. He opens my eyes to truths my logic and reason could never find. But I am a very much a scientifically minded person.

---

Uh, sure. You haven't shown any self doubt, really, in what you believe is true, which makes you quite UN-scientifically-minded.The scientific process is one of constsntly doubting and testing to make sure you aren't fooling yourself.You have not shown a propensity for this thus far.

quote:

---

If my career in the Marine Corps doesn't work out, I'm considering post-graduate study in astrophysics. But I'm content to do whatever God has for me.

---

You wanna talk about abandoning reason and logic, just look at the evolutionary theory! Muhahaha...[/quote]Yeah, why don't you get your PhD in Evolutionary Biology so you can overturn that silly Theory of Evolution once and for all. Of course, you will have to learn all about it, in detail, so that might be a bit too threatening...

quote:

---

It is also very true that as intelligence rises it becomes a source of arrogance.

---

Actually, I find the opposite to be the case.Arrogance and ignorance are often found together in a person, while the more educated one becomes, the more likely one is to realize how much they still have yet to learn.A life of learning breeds a life of being open to learn new things and being comfortable with being new at something. A life of superstition and willful ignorance breeds rigidity and close-mindedness and discomfort with not knowing.Here's some actual stats to back up my claim about education levels and superstitious belief:Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

quote:

---

So people with low IQ's make mostly hurtful choices and people with high IQ's make mostly wonderful choices, eh?

---

No, no, no.Our intellects give us choices in the first place. We have the ability to reason, to think through things, to understand consequences.We don't always make the right or best choice, but, unlike other animals without our great big brains, we can think in very abstract terms about consequences and morality.

quote:

---

How do you know? The Bible hasn't changed.

---

Interpretations of it have changed.

quote:

---

If you don't know what's in the Bible then how do you know they were following fundamental principles of the Bible???

---

Why do you think I don't know what's in the bible?

quote:

---

Can't you see? If a person acting as a religious leader makes himself historically famous, that's probably a good indication he's not doing his job right. A religious leader's job is to communicate doctrine, not to start an arrogant crusade.

---

LOL!!!By this definition, Jesus, the most famous religious leader of all time, wasn't doing his job right.LOL!Also, what about Ghandi, the Buddha, Mother Theresa? These people are famous religious leaders. Were they all not doing a good job?

quote:

---

I don't know my history well enough to comment on him (Martin Luther), however his 95 theses were definately a step in the right direction. I can't account for whatever his actions after that were.

---

You mean you are a Protestant and you know next to nothing about the kind of man the father of Protestantism was?An incomplete education you've had, I see.Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting "After nuns were raped on the night of Holy Saturday 1525, Luther described Koppe, a burgher of Torgau who led the mob, as a 'blessed robber' and went on,'Like Christ, you have rescued these poor souls from the prison of human tyranny; you have done this at an epoc providentially indicated: at Easter'."In his burning hatred of the Catholic Church, Luther approved of the rape of nuns, thinking they were being "set free"."'Whenever the devil vexes you,' wrote Luther, 'immediately seek the company of men, or drink more deeply, or make jokes or sport, and behave more cheerfully. From time to time one must drink more deeply, joke or commit stupidities, and commit some sin out of hatred and contempt for the devil, in order that we may not give him any room and have qualms of conscience over the smallest matters, for otherwise we shall be conquered if we are too anxious not to sin. Therefore, if the devil says, "don't drink," I shall answer, "Precisely for this very reason I shall drink more deeply, speak with less restraint, carouse the more often, to mock and vex the devil who has set about trying to vex and mock me." Oh, if I could only designate some quite remarkable sin, to mock the devil, so that he should learn that I recognise no sin, and am conscious of no sin, we whom the devil so threatens and vexes must strike out of our eyes and understanding the whole ten commandments.'"Luther here advocates sinning in order to "vex the devil". How does that make sense?He also advocates forgetting the ten commandments entirely here. Do you agree with that?I suggest you do some reading on ol' Luther, and read something that isn't written by a cheerleader.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-09-2004 09:13 AM

To Hangdawg13: If you keep it to yourself, not at all.If you and two hundred other men all believe that each of you have Wonder Woman (while agreeing that there can be only one), and the bunch of yous regularly kill each other for asserting that they have The One, then yes, I believe we have a problem.If you force the education department to teach children that Wonder Woman is not only real, but is watching TV in your house, then yes, I think there is a problem.If you prohibit the education department from teaching physics because you believe that Wonder Woman does some physics-defying stunts, then yes, I believe there is a problem.If you repeatedly claim in public that you have Wonder Woman, but when investigated in depth, it was revealed that there is no evidence to suggest that your girl is Wonder Woman, then I guess you have taken the risk of misleading others with falsehood.Have I made my point yet? Depends on what you mean by "teach".If you use "teach" to mean "informing others of what you believe", then I believe that it is no less healthy than promoting any other religion.If you use "teach" to mean "broadcast to the public as the truth" or "change laws to accommodate the moral codes of the bible" or "judge others openly based on the Bible's moral codes" then you must ALSO give other religions (including cults and sects) the rights to do so as well. I guess it should be obvious why this is ill-advised.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

quote:

---

I was just saying that no society has perfect equality. There always has been a hierarchy of power in which the uppermost level determines what is best for the whole society.

---

No, that hasn't always been the case.Even in the cases where it has been true, the people in power did mot generate a new morality; they built on the moral sensibilities they already knew.

So long, then. I really tear you a new one in this post. Although in fairness to me, I resisted a lot of really good jokes, figuring they went a little too far. I'm tough, Mike... but I'm fair. It means that within the term Christian, there are many possible meanings. While each of those possible meanings are indeed separate things, they are all Christians, yes. I didn't know we needed it this simple. Catholic and Protestant. Happy? Two different things... both Christians. You ask if we can make up definitions outside the dictionary, and I point out that you're making up your own definitions, outside the dictionary. What's so untrue?At this point, I'm gonna go ahead and correct your highlighting. Two things you've missed: That "or" is important. As long as the person fulfills either half of this statement, they have fulfilled the requirement to be a Christian. Profess belief in Jesus as Christ? You're in the club. No other qualifiers. Following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus is not the same as following his actual life and teachings. This is why following his actual life and teachings is separated into another definition. Wickedness/atrocities are not excluded.If these explanations have to get any simpler, I'm gonna need to get some handpuppets. That's true. If all Christians profess belief in Jesus Christ, it does not automatically follow that all who profess belief in Jesus Christ are Christians. But the definition isn't saying that all Christians profess belief in Jesus Christ... it's saying that all who profess belief in Jesus Christ are Christians. That's what a definition does, Mike. IT DEFINES THE MEANING OF A WORD, IN THIS CASE, "CHRISTIAN".To put it very, very simply... When the word "lion" is defined as "brave man", the dictionary is saying that all brave men are lions. But the presence of other definitions shows that not all things that qualify as lions are brave men.Do you see now why your above logical example is based on a faulty premise? When the dictionary defines the word "Christian", they're saying that all things that meet one of those definitions are Christians.Hang on, I'll get the puppets. Maybe they'll help. You do? Well gosh Mike, you shouldn't be so shy about it. Sigh."My common sense doesn't override the dictionary... I just don't need the dictionary when I have common sense."Clap. Clap. Clap. Little hint, Mike. When you find that your perception of common sense is at odds with the dictionary definition of a word, chances are your perceptions are based on faulty assumptions. No. I think your logic demands ignoring facts in order to make it work. That would be a logical fallacy, Mike. Why yes, Mike. Yes it is.

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

I feel I will respond to your post, because, despite the comedy, it is atleast a good post, worthy of the one I made. No. The point I am making is that infact the dictionary has a list of attributes, though they are all definitions with differences, the word "christian"....well,....ahem...still means ONE thing. Do we mean different things by christian Dan? If I say, "I am christian", - is it the same as me saying, "I am yellow"? I put it as lion 1 and lion 2 so that you could get what I am actually arguing Dan.You have to realize, I don't need the dictionary to "think" that a word like "christian" has one meaning, with many definitions,- obviously attributes, whereas a word like "lion" or "fine" might have more than one meaning. If I am wrong, SIMPLY SHOW ME the different examples of christian. Show me how everyone gets confused when I say, "I am a christian"!!! No no naughty boy...we are dealing with the word christian. So, can I use that logic when suggesting a creationist is indeed a scientist? Thanks !..., So let's look at it again; Why doesn't it give another definition instead of putting "or"? Obviously they are putting definitions in the same sentence eh!Obviously there is a need for a list of attributions within one sentence, or even in a list. Geez!! Then why is the religion based on his teachings. Common sense has left you, if you think christians don't listen and do what Christ says. So I disagree. No. You miss the bit of thought that comes after the "converse part" of my post. My WHOLE POINT is that it is incorporating MORE than just one who professes belief in Jesus Christ as it's definition of Christian - therefore making the converse essential to the point I am making.So it is NOT saying b=a. You are!!!! It is not saying that all who professes belief in Jesus Christ are christians OR!!! It would NOT incorporate those other definitions and/or incorporation of more explanations in ONE SENTENCE. You were right the first time when you said; UNLESS that was the ONLY definition/attribute noted. I hope you see what I mean because you came close to understanding how I am thinking there.If I define lion as "carnivorous animal that doesn't mean I am saying that all carnivorous animals, are lions. UNLESS that is the only definition given. Here's what I mean, ho hum;The earth is a planet would you agree?, yet all planets are not earth. Unless "planet" is described only as earth. SO earth can be defined as a planet but we must not use the converse and assume that the definition of earth means that all planets are also earth.In response to my question; "Is two minutes a period of time?"You answered; Now here is a seperate question; Is a period of time two minutes? Not necessarily!!!!If "period of time" is described as two minutes only then I promise to eat my socks. I'm only applying the same logic to anything I come across. like with christian and earth. So am I fair. Infact, I feel that my logic shows that I would more accurately describe you as coming closer to christian than a murderer would. And infact, I even admitted how impressive the "good works" of atheist are, in another thread. So hey, I prefer to spend etternity with a sarcastic goon rather than an axe murderer? Am I really in need of puppets because of my position?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-09-2004 10:57 AM

And, as always, the dictionary (and by extension, the English language) says different. The presence of multiple definitions, without any indication that they are in fact one definition, shows your statement to be false.So should I trust Mike or the English language... Mike or the English language... hm...Tough choice. Honest. Sigh. Is there a reason I should keep speaking to you after this little dodge?Regardless... another two examples of Christians that qualify as different things? Easy. The aforementioned axe-murdering nazi who believes in Jesus as Christ, and someone who actually follows the teachings of Jesus. This is pretty much spelled out for you in the definitions themselves, you just keep choosing to ignore it. Hey, I think a creationist is a scientist. In the same way I think Yahoo Serious is an actor. Y'know, he's really bad at what he does and deserves to be repeatedly mocked for his substandard, shoddy work. But still an actor. Now this is just adorable. You're actually trying to pass off the word "or" as evidence that both need to apply. Do we need to define "or" now, Mike? Because if so, I'm just gonna patiently wait while you take an English language course. (The need for that course would explain so much about this thread.)No, seriously. If we need to define "or", I'll wait while you take the course. Beats me. Are you saying that the organized religion has always followed Christ's teachings? Do we need to bring up the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the endorsement of the Holocaust, etc? You're not taking even the most cursory glance at history if you think they always do.Now we go in circles, you say they aren't true Christians, I say but they fit the definition, you say but Christians do what Christ says, I beat you over the head with the dictionary until the actual definitions of the word get utterly pounded into your brain, along with chunks of the dictionary itself. AND YOUR WHOLE POINT IS COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTABLE BY NATURE OF HOW A DICTIONARY IS USED. Learn how to use a dictionary.You've decided to assign the values of b and a as you choose, while completely ignoring what a dictionary is and does.When you define a word, you say "if it meets this criteria, the word applies." In other words, anything that meets the criteria can be described with this word. In the phrase "all a are b", a is the definition, b is the word.Anyone who believes in Jesus as Christ is a Christian.This is as simple as it gets without the puppets, Mike. Don't make me use the puppets. No, Mike. The presence of other definitions for the word Christian increases the possible applications of the term Christian, not of those who believe in Jesus as Christ.I can't believe I just had to explain that. This is like a Twilight Zone episode or something. Wish him into the cornfield, Dan. Wish him into the cornfield. Not automatically, no. Your point is? You're misassigning values when it comes to Christians. Whipping out a parallel where the values are correctly assigned is irrelevant. For believing that atheists don't necessarily deserve to be tortured until the end of time? No. For trying to assign your own definitions to words, and then complain when people point out that your definition is at odds with the English language? Oh, yeah.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 07-09-2004 11:27 AM

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

Dan, I promise that I did not go back in time and create this post,here but could I request that you read it? It's not very long, and notice the date I made the post. I know you feel I am just "making" my own definition or abusing the dictionaries ones, but hopefully you can see from the link that my own definition was far greater than anyone elses in the history of man. Ahahahahaha! ROFL. So tell me Dan, if I am not a catholic or a protestant, yet I am christian just HOW is catholic/protestant important to the word christian? Can we use me as my example, cos I really am neither! So, if I say to you I am "christian", I guess there is a bg struggle in your mind and you get all confused as to what I am. Then why doesn't it say "one who professes belief in Jesus Christ" as it's only definition.Also, you disregard my logic by saying it's not appilicable, and have not even addressed/refuted an ounce of it. You have to show me that I am wrong about earth being a planet.Also, you said yes to two minutes being a period of time, yet surely you can see that not all periods of time are two minutes. Should I abandon this logic cos you say I am at odds with the english language? And just how am I at odds, I've used the dictionary correctly, and it notes a number of definitions for the one group we call "christian".You failed to address the earth and planet example, and so I guess I should stick to logic then.I now require that you prove that a period of time is always two minutes.However, you can realize your error and note that you infact said that all who profess a belief in Christ are christian. Therefore, by your own logic, I should conclude that all periods of time are two minutes. Wow. I've always wanted to be a scientist. Thanks! I thought it would never be that an evo would admitt this! What a victory. roflmao. Listen. If you think someone who says "I am christian" and goes and kills someone/rapes etc, IS a genuine christian rather than taking the piss out of real christians by saying he is, then that's up to you. Meanwhile I'll say he's a fake and stick to logic, and what I said in that link. I see you think the definition comes first (a). So I guess dictionaries aren't useful by your logic. You have to define christian remember, you have to say a christian is......a - But I don't need to remember, as I would be asking what (a) is, which seems to be ruled out by your comments."Learn how to use a dictionary" is none - answer, to the in-depth logic I have shown. If the best you can do is insult me, then that speaks volumes about your ego, but doesn't suffice as a refutation.It's all very well to keep acting a goon and trying to make me look silly. But I find a truly intelligent person, needs not endeavour such egotistical nonsense. I hope your pride's intact, as long as you realize, that "learn how to do this, or I'll get my puppets out" doesn't even begin to touch the tip of my iceburg. Are you saying that my definition, is not at all similar to the dictionaries? Maybe you should read that link. This is all evasive posting from you Dan. You concentrate on making out I'm failing to comprehend the english language and can't use a dictionary, without infact saying anything that proves your point.If you think acting a comedian will somehow remove my logic then hec, keep laughing.....but I think that you're just trying to make me look bad/silly. That in itself will only prove your intentions. And all this despite my comments of how an atheist might even be more christian. I must ask why you attack me so?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-09-2004 11:56 AM

You asked how there could be two types of Christian. The fact that there are even more types than the ones I gave you does not help your assertion that there is only ONE definition for Christian. BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF CHRISTIAN, YET CALLING ANY ONE OF THEM A CHRISTIAN IS EQUALLY VALID. Sometimes they can overlap, sometimes they don't. Much like the Scotsman who has sugar and his porridge, and the Scotsman who doesn't. Why is it so hard for you to even look directly at this incredibly simple idea? See my previous post. I explained to you why your logic was misapplied. Repeatedly. At length. As simply as any person can make it. And you respond by clapping your hands over your ears and saying, "you haven't refuted my logic." The time for diplomacy is over.You're an idiot.I am not asking you to abandon logical rules. I am saying that you are misapplying the terms within that logical rule. I explained why to you already. Go read it. No you haven't. This has also been explained to you as simply as possible. See above, re: you being an idiot. Once more, Mike. You are saying that the dictionary tells us that all Christians believe in Jesus as Christ, and that it does not follow that all who believe in Jesus as Christ are Christians. The logic is sound; the terms are not.Because the dictionary is not telling us that all Christians believe in Jesus as Christ. (Although that may happen to be the case.) The presence of multiple definitions shows us that this is not the case, that there are different ways in which one can qualify as a Christian.Therefore, what the dictionary is telling us is that all who believe in Jesus as Christ are Christian. This does not require flipping the statement around to say, "Aha! If all Christians believe in Jesus as Christ, then all who believe in Jesus as Christ must be Christians!" because the statement "all Christians believe in Jesus as Christ" NEVER ENTERS INTO THE FREAKIN' PICTURE.I am not arguing the logic. I am arguing the base assumption on which the logical conclusion is founded.So to sum up, you're just being an idiot. Amazing. Mike is ignoring a big chunk of a paragraph in order to make his point.Go figure. No, they're quite useful. I have to define Christian. Gee, this book will tell me what it is. Hey, look. This book says that the word Christian encompasses all people who fit one of these descriptions! Great, all people who believe in Jesus as Christ are Christians!For most people, this is an incredibly simple process. You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty with it, though. So... what, it's somehow my fault you look silly? In the same way that this: Would be similar to what you just said. Sure.When you ignore what you don't want to hear, it's so much easier to make your point, isn't it?

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

No Dan, "you're an idiot" won't remove or refute logic itself. Nor will it get me heated, like you have become. It's okay to become heated because you are frustrated cos you can't refute this. I understand that. You agian fail to understand. I am not saying there is one definition, I am saying there is one meaning, with a few definitions or attributions. There's a difference. I have shown it. Just the SAME as the earth is a planet, but a planet is not necessarily an earth. Even if you say there are two types of christian, the dictionary doesn't include protestant or catholic as a definition of christian, like it included "brave man" for lion. So they are meaningless to the word christian. A catholic is a catholic, and a protestant is a protestant.If a christian is one who professes belief in Christ ONLY, then I will agree that one who professes belief in Christ is ALWAYS a christian. In the same way, I will agree that all planets are earth, if earth is described as simply, "a planet" ONLY.So then, logically; "one" definition OF many will not fully describe a christian. One who believes in Christ, or says he does, might not be a christian because christian ALSO is defined as one who follows his teachings. Obviously my own definition is more clear about that truth. But all I'm saying is that all of the definitions are required.Also, I DID notice you switched it from "one" to "all" and now what, it isn't "all"? Yet YOU said; So I'm glad you can see that one who professes it, might well not be it, and that the logic is sound. I agree that it may well be a simple process to say b = a. Because it might fit a given situation, LIKE IF a christian was described only as a professor. Lol. No. Read carefully, I said you are trying to make me look silly.I fI have ignored anything please give an in-depth explanation.I think you are saying that one is described as a person who professes belief in Christ. It's very easy to say, "but surely that's silly, just look how simple b equaling a looks". But logic proves that the converse is true.If a description of christian is given as a person who professes belief........, then you would automatically think that surely then, that one who professes such and such, is a christian. BUT! the contra-positive is infact, "No believing in Christ = no christian". So what we are doing, is breaking down a situation that might appear simple.AHAHAHAHAHAThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-09-2004 01:51 PM

Perhaps we should think of it like this:A person born in America is an American. Let's say this American grows up and becomes an ambassador to France. While in working in France the ambassador stops representing the American foreign policies determined by his authority in the government, but instead makes up his own stuff as he goes along. Perhaps, he even acts compeltely irresponsibly or even criminally and starts shooting people from the window of the Embassy. Is he still representing America to France and the rest of the world? NO!Similarly, a person who believes in Christ is a Christian. If he stops representing Christian polocies to the rest of the world, he is no longer representing Christ to the rest of the world.A person may be a Christian by re-birth, but fail as an ambassador for Christ."Then I will boldly make known the mystery of the gospel for whose sake I am an ambassador in chains desiring to declare it as boldly as I should."I think this is a pretty straightforward way of thinking about it.