What is a 'true Christian'?

Sure did. You basically said a YE is antithetical to the ToE. I then said a Christian who denies Christ's resurrection is likewise antithetical to Christianity. Thus "To deny His resurrection is to deny His whole purpose for coming to Earth in the first place." That's directed at any Christian who thinks the resurrection is optional.Basically you had butted in on my post to ringo. I was giving a better analogy than my Napoleon one. The original post (message 6) was in response to Catholic Scientist, who claimed anyone can call themselves a Christian, if they honestly think they are one. I've discovered from CS that he doesn't believe the resurrection is vital to Christianity.Never mind.

There's plenty of conflict with that argument, right in the first chapter of Genesis alone. If you can't trust the first chapter, then the rest becomes suspect, from that mindset anyways.But you could still make it work like you say, as long as you held onto the deity of Jesus Christ - that He died for our sins and was raised again, conquering death (call it holy abiogenesis if you like).It's risky though, because it's like building a house on very loose sand. Not recommended.

Did I deny the resurrection or say it was optional? No moron. And did you note his explanation makes you look even more like an idiot given that he says he is addressing Catholic scientist's post. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So any conflict is between YEC-literal-Genesis and evolution. If one instead considers the bible to be god's teachings as transcribed and interpreted by humans (as many/most Christians do) then there is no inherent incompatibility.Case closed...?

You may have too many discussions going on to keep up. You missed the most important part of my inquiry.The bible, faceman ... the bible. Is belief in the literal words of the official canon a requirement for being a "true christian"?And if so, then I repeat: Which bible? Which language? Which interpretations? To be a "true christian" you must also be a biblican and worship the bible too?I got the christ part. Please address the bible part.

You would still be wrong about the age of the earth. To my view the possible validity of a specific worldview is inversely related to the amount of objective empirical evidence that needs to be denied in order to maintain beliefs in a consistent manner.This can be pursued further at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 No, not by just saying so, it has to come from understanding and an integration of the information into the worldview.Not a true dichotomy, but certainly it creates cognitive dissonance. Can you believe something that must be false (a young earth)?Christianity didn't die when the Earth was no longer believed to be the center of the universe did it?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : worldviewEdited by RAZD, : cd, link

I think a True Christian is easy to spot. True Christianity in all of it's Glory!

I think we all could be a bit nic er to each other and refrain from any name calling. Forum GuidelinesAddress the issues and not the person.Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

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.

Certainly, because your considerations contradict your definition. Only if I assume that you haven't made an error.

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 can respect that. And I'd maybe even join you in calling him one.I was sticking to my definition because of the more dictionary aspects, because I thought that's what the thread was asking. How would you change your definition if you were going more for that dictionary one?Now that I think about it though, depending on what we're supposed to mean by the True part of it, you could be right that we should be considering the qualifying essence more than the dictionary aspects.Either way, both of ours are better than the definition quoted in the OP. Whew, okay, I thought you were talking about actually getting pissed off at me. I don't recall ever actually trying to piss you off, so if you had pointed out something in particular that I said then I prolly would have apologized.

I'd have left off the "knowingly or unknowingly." If we'd been sitting in a pub, I could've just socked you in the arm in a manly man kinda way.

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.