dorfman writes:
It seems no one can figure out that what Christian is, it's as defineable as what American is, or Koranist, or - or - or.......
well...in one sense, definitions are what an individual makes them out to be. I can say that my car is a horse and call it as such. (It even has horsepower!
) but I always like to consult Noah....Webster, that is!
Websters writes:
def”i”ni”tion \'de-f-"ni-shn\ n 1 : an act of determining or settling 2 : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group; also : the action or process of defining 3 : the action or the power of making definite and clear : clarity, distinctness
funkaloyd writes:
I'm not saying that there's no way to define "Christian", just that Faith's definition is, well, wrong. And to demonstrate that I'm not just fashionably disagreeing with Faith: Jar's definition is wrong, too. One can ascribe a high status to Jesus and/or his teachings without considering him to be the Saviour/Christ and still be considered a Christian, though the wording might not quite fit.
And in the fine tradition of debate, I consider your definition to be wrong. If you don't allow the Spirit to change you, you are not a Christian....the very action of "ascribing high status" to anything or anyone shows that you yourself are still choosing your deities rather than being chosen by them.(Him) For all practical purposes, however, and for the sake of argument, there IS no way to prove or define anything except by common agreement. (common union...communion! Gosh what a concept!
This message has been edited by Phat, 11-29-2005 06:39 PM