I’m not a Christian or a follower of any of the religions of the book; I’m just a geek.
I think it’s an interesting bit of cultural thing to poke at too. If the stuff written down is to be trusted on this, the guy’s critics called him “son of Mary”. Probably because that was a pretty blatant insinuation that he was illegitimate. I find it interesting that the epithet survived and even seems to have become a point of pride in some ways; it reminds me strongly of the attempts to reclaim words like “queer” from the realm of insult.
Well C. S. Lewis pointed out in “A Horse and His Boy” with a particular statement about Aslan and Tash (i.e., God and Satan). In short, he noted that regardless of what one called their god, good people serve Aslan, and evil ones serve Tash. So, in that sense, yes, since you are following the way of the Lod, regardless of what one calls it, you are doing the work of a Christian. C’est la vie.
Of course, in the temporal sense, you don’t beleive and/or don’t haven’t learned the doctrine, thuis would not be considered a Christian in that sense.
Well C. S. Lewis pointed out in “A Horse and His Boy” with a particular statement about Aslan and Tash (i.e., God and Satan). In short, he noted that regardless of what one called their god, good people serve Aslan, and evil ones serve Tash. So, in that sense, yes, since you are following the way of the Lod, regardless of what one calls it, you are doing the work of a Christian. C’est la vie.
Of course, in the temporal sense, you don’t beleive and/or don’t haven’t learned the doctrine, thuis would not be considered a Christian in that sense. So we’re done here now?
Siege; I was reading the other thread during your exchange with RW. Here’s my 2 cents worth.
The subject of the thread was the definition of a Christian which is subject to personnel interpertation, otherwise, why have a discussion?
RW stated his opinion. Thats seemed to be the purpose of the thread. You disagreed, which is also the purpose of the thread. Then you asked him to stop stating his opinion becuase you and your friend the Wiccan find it offensive.
It seems to me that that is not the purpose of the thread. He wasn’t insisting that you and your friend were Christians under every definition of the word. He wasn’t demanding that you agree with his viewpoint. He wasn’t being rude. He was saying, “this is my opinion and I’m not not obliged to change it or stop stateing it simply because you don’t like it.” He was perfectly respectful about your right to see it another way.
You then accused him of purposely distorting the English language by haveing and defending his right to have that opinion. You even compared it to phyisical assault. {the hugging thing} He refused to allow you or anyone else define the word for him or force a definition on him. He is correct in doing that. In communication I think it’s importent to understand what a word means to the person you’re talking to, and their are widely recognized meanings for lots of words, however, since we were in a thread to specificly discuss the possible variations about the word Christian, it seems inappropriate to get upset when someone does exactly that. I think it’s been pointed out by several people that his viewpoint is a valid one. The paprable you listed above is one example.
I thought his use of the term pharisee was a little far out but he didn’t go there until after you and several others repeatedly hammered him and insisted he recant his opinion. He correctly refused to do so. Now I see you in this thread calling him names because he had the nerve to defend himself. Kinda unchristian aint it? Only my opinion.
Respectfully CD