What is a 'true Christian'?

That's a poor analogy. We're talking about people who think they're folowers of Jesus, not people who think they're Jesus.If you honestly think you are a follower of Napoleon, who's to say you're not? Napoleon, maybe. But other people who claim to be followers of Napoleon don't get to decide whether you are or not.

That would confirm or deny your claim of being a good athlete. Why can't you be a "true athlete" without being any good at it? I ask repeatedly and never get a good answer: What does it mean to "trust in Jesus"? Does it mean believing he was a real person, five-foot-nine with a beard and long hair? Or does it mean doing what He wanted you to do? Again, what does "relationship" mean? Does it mean saying, "I do, I do, I do believe in spooks," or does it mean doing thngs that He would like you to do?

What I'm saying is that it doesn't make any difference whether He's a dead spook or a fictional character. Neither prevents us from following Him. I keep pointing out (and you seem to keep ignoring) the fact that it isn't - in reality - only Christians (whether true or not) who demonstrate love for their neighbours. Why do you continue to repeat a mantra that is obviously false?

Nonsense. There's a whole spectrum from "bad athlete" to "mediocre athlete" to "pretty good athlete" to "really good athlete". Every player in the Major Leagues misses sometimes. By your standard, nobody on earth is an athlete. Nonsense. That's your definition, not "the" definition. This whole thread is about what the definition is. Your opinion is not a foregone conclusion.My opinion is that a true Christian is a follower of Christ, somebody who goes where He goes, does what He does; it has nothing to do with "communion".An athlete is what an athlete does. A Christian is what a Christian does.

Which brings us back to the perennial question (which you faith-only guys never answer): What is "the gospel"? Is it good news for you? A get-out-of-hell-free card? Or is it good news for mankind?If the universal gospel - good news for all mankind - is false, then yes, the calling is in vain. I don't want to go to heaven if there's nobody there but you faith-only guys. That's what I'm saying. The character "being alive" in us means living through us, doing what He wants done through us. It's what's done through us that counts, not the reason we do it.

You can be right about one thing and wrong about another. You can accept the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution and still have crazy idea about politics, for example. We have a couple of those people on this board.Does believing in a young earth automaticlly make you No True Evolutionist? No. It just means that your (unfounded) belief is false.

I make a distinction between big-C Christians who knowingly follow Christ and small-c christians who unknowingly (or even disbelievingly) follow Christ. It's a totally artificial distinction, I know - a kind of "code" - but I find it useful.I'm not a Christian by my own definition but I don't self-identify as either a christian or an atheist either. I is what I is.

I'm not taking any chances that Treasure Island is the word of God, so I take it literally. (The silver is still there, you know.)

Unfortunately, most Bible literalists wouldn't know a historical narrative if it sat down beside them in church. Is the talking snake part of a historical narrative? And yet we see creationists arguing the literal existence of "fountains of the deep". Or gravity. Or bacteria. Well, science has disproven much of the Bible. Maybe you just need to let go of the idea that the Bible is God's word.

Maybe my memory isn't perfect but I seem to recall Christians psychoanalyzing people's reasons for disbelief - such as because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions. I don't find it annoying, just funny.

Jesus would throw a moneychanger at them.

That's most likely a reflection on your ability to conceive rather than on your ability to hate. In general, human beings find it pretty easy to hate; it's built into us by evolution. The ability to rationalize hate away is also greater than the ability to rationally deal with our own hate.

That would be why there's no hate expressed on the Internet?