<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 6 2003, 09:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 6 2003, 09:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It also took the Roman Empire 400 years after its "height of power" to fall. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In how far does that contradict my statement?
Anyway, Twex:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We assume, for a second, that you are correct and the Apostle rejected homosexuality only to differentiate Christians from the decadent culture surrounding them. Why, then, should this be a relic? Why shouldn't Christians 2000 years later, finding themselves again outnumbered in a culture where lewd displays of half-naked women, adultery, idolatry and public homosexuality are common, take St. Paul's piece of advice and condemn these practices to differentiate themselves from this general decline of morals?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's two of points to be made here, Moultanos poll, whether entirely correct or not, touching the more important one: Christianity has long ago stopped being the underdog. It is, on the contrary, the dominant western religion and has been for centuries. The aim behind said strong differentiation - the rejection of an assimilation into a different culture and thus also faith - ceased to be significant some 1500 years ago. Christianity isn't in the position of a young growing religion in need of defense against other, established faiths anymore - it <i>is</i> the established faith that has to 'worry' about losing parts of its following. Becoming more seclusive at this point wouldn't help the religion survive, it'd on the contrary amplify its decline by scaring parts of its following with more liberal interpretations of the faith away. Christians aren't 'outnumbered' - most people in our culture have still ties to the church. It can however <i>become</i> outnumbered by cutting them.
The second issue is that you are declaring a numer of contemporary issues, namely "half-naked women, adultery, idolatry and public homosexuality" as "general decline of morals". Now, it'd become a little tiresome to discuss whether each of these items necessarily constitutes a decline of morals, or is indeed a newfound honesty contrasting older (christian-influenced) bigotry, but in the case of homosexuality, this point has to be made. Homosexuality is not a new occurance, nor has there been a time in the last one and a half millenium when the Christian church(es) was (were) free of it (I won't get into a discussion about its demographically weak beginnings here). One could argue that our society is only now becoming mature enough to understand and accept the fact that heterosexuality is not normal, but only predominant, and that the public display of homosexuality is thus in the majority of cases not a sign of decay, but honesty, which is highly valued in the Christian as in almost any other morallic system. This would also seperate contemporary treatment of homosexuality from the Graeco-Roman way, where it was mainly used in a lewd manner, offering rough jokes and burlesque stories even within the religious myths.
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Sep 6 2003, 12:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 6 2003, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Um, well the US is 85% christian according to the last figures I heard.
Edit: make that 83%. <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...oll_010718.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The average Joe on the street considers himself a Christian for the most part, even if he doesn't know what that is. I'm sure if a Christian group conducted the same survey, with the same people, and explained what Christianity actually was, you'd have way different results. As Wheeee said, don't even get me started. 50% of the population doesn't even know what true Christianity is, yet 85% of them claim to be Christians, and 84.3% of all statictics are made up on the spot.
You know, I'm starting to get tired of quoting myself here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me drive one point home right at the start: None of us has a definite say on what is Christian and what not. Multiple billion people center their faith around the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. There's more than one set of philosophies surrounding these events, there's more than one opinion about the way into hell or heaven, and there's a few thousand possible and valid interpretations of any given verse. The fact that some of them might be new to you while you grew up with others doesn't qualify one as wrong or the other as right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nobody could <i>possibly</i> explain to someone "what Christianity is" because there hasn't ever been a consensus about that since the schism between Gonstics and Orthodoxes. Whether you like it or not, the "average Joe on the street" has as much the right of considering himself Christian as you, or me. Everything further about that point should be delayed until Judgement Day, when the guy with the final word on this promised to show up.
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Sep 6 2003, 07:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Sep 6 2003, 07:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We assume, for a second, that you are correct and the Apostle rejected homosexuality only to differentiate Christians from the decadent culture surrounding them. Why, then, should this be a relic? Why shouldn't Christians 2000 years later, finding themselves again outnumbered in a culture where lewd displays of half-naked women, adultery, idolatry and public homosexuality are common, take St. Paul's piece of advice and condemn these practices to differentiate themselves from this general decline of morals? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The issue isn't whether the "intentional split from the norm" was OK or not; the issue is about how the "split from the norm" is interpreted as something entirely different than its real aims.
Let's say, that in the beginnings, Christianity rejected homosexuality as a way of separating from greek culture. The religion presented (justified) this idea to its followers by identifying it as God's directive. The thing is, this was the beginning of the religion; I don't suppose a religion could, after 2000 years, come up with a "new rule." If a religion came up with a "new rule" based on current social trends, it would just scream "we aren't a religion because we believe the original words of god, rather we are a social-political bloc."
(I'm being a bit confusing to understand here, sorry)
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--QuoteBegin--fo sheezy my neezy+Sep 6 2003, 03:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (fo sheezy my neezy @ Sep 6 2003, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...and explained what Christianity actually was... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait... didn't you say earlier in this very thread that you can't understand what christianity is, unless you are one? Er. One of the True Christians, following the One Proper Interpretation Of The bible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's say, that in the beginnings, Christianity rejected homosexuality as a way of separating from greek culture. The religion presented (justified) this idea to its followers by identifying it as God's directive. The thing is, this was the beginning of the religion; I don't suppose a religion could, after 2000 years, come up with a "new rule." If a religion came up with a "new rule" based on current social trends, it would just scream "we aren't a religion because we believe the original words of god, rather we are a social-political bloc."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, there's a difference between 'making a new rule up', which would indeed rob the faith of its credibility, and shifting emphasis from one rule ("Homosexuality is a sin.") to another one ("Tolerance is a virtue."). The LGCM website I quoted a few pages ago makes this point better than I could hope to.
Anyway, this'll be my last post for today. Good night.
Christianity: "The state or fact of being a Christian."
Christian: "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." Professes: "To affirm openly; declare or claim" Belief: "The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another"
Definition of Christianity. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Talesin+Sep 6 2003, 04:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Sep 6 2003, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--fo sheezy my neezy+Sep 6 2003, 03:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (fo sheezy my neezy @ Sep 6 2003, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...and explained what Christianity actually was... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait... didn't you say earlier in this very thread that you can't understand what christianity is, unless you are one? Er. One of the True Christians, following the One Proper Interpretation Of The bible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> nope, I said you couldn't argue the homosexuality point in relation to what this church did unless you were willing to lay a few ground rules, arguing from a christian perspective
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--QuoteBegin--fo sheezy my neezy+Sep 5 2003, 04:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (fo sheezy my neezy @ Sep 5 2003, 04:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...the fact of the matter is, it all comes down to this. If you are not a Christian, you cannot relate to what the Cathedral did.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So where is the line drawn, between needing to be christian to 'relate to' the actions of the church, and needing to be a christian to understand christianity?
Additionally, you did not answer my query. Who is to say what the christian definition of the bible is?
<!--QuoteBegin--Crazy_Monkey+ Sep 6 2003, 03:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crazy_Monkey @ Sep 6 2003, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Christianity: "The state or fact of being a Christian."
Christian: "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." Professes: "To affirm openly; declare or claim" Belief: "The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another"
Definition of Christianity. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is odd, as the g*y christian group fits that definition exactly. Making them christians, and placing the church squarely in the wrong.
I'm a Christian and I think what they did was wrong. I also think non-Christians have every right to judge what they did. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well, I'm with Talesin and Nem0 on this - we cant claim that these LGCM people arent Christians. Infact we cant debate anyones claim to Christianity, since there are many different interpretations of the Bible.
Nor do I feel the need to. God will do the judging, not me. Now I am very confidant based on the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, but no where does it say, if you sin, you cant be a Christian.
Strange, you would think that the Church would take a different view - AHHA, we have the sinners right where we want them, in church, now lets help them.
Not ARGH sinners sinners throw them out!
But I do disagree with something you said Talesin - Paul laid down some rules for dealing with sinners in the church. He said you MUST confront them, you cant just let them continue sinning. If they wont listen to you, you must get a brother and both of you confront them. If they wont listen to you and a brother, you must confront them as a congregation. If they wont listen to the congregation, than they must be asked to leave. Thats the advice given for confronting sinning Christians. If anyone knows the verse feel free to add it.
These LGCM people are Christians, they are just Christians doing the wrong thing.
EDIT Nem0 you have to be REALLY careful about using Christian morals and saying "they are doing the right thing morally ie being honest". There is a certain passage, and once again my appaling lack of Bible knowledge is letting me down, that rips into people who are honest about "evil". It goes along the lines of "Not only do they sin, the rejoice in their sin, they parade it before the world... and it goes on about just how much this infuriates God. He would rather they did it quitely and guiltily then flaunting to the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 4 2003, 06:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 4 2003, 06:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> 1 corinthians 6:18-20 18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
1 corinthians 7:19 19 circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.
Matthew 5:17-19 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until and heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." <!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, there's a difference between 'making a new rule up', which would indeed rob the faith of its credibility, and shifting emphasis from one rule ("Homosexuality is a sin.") to another one ("Tolerance is a virtue."). The LGCM website I quoted a few pages ago makes this point better than I could hope to.
Anyway, this'll be my last post for today. Good night. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm still waiting nem <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Hmm. Actually, does anyone have a New Testament quote that specifically defines homosexuality as a sin? As has been discussed previously (and explained to me by no less than two people), all Old Testament stuff was for the Jews only, and does not apply.
<!--QuoteBegin--Talesin+Sep 7 2003, 12:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Sep 7 2003, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm. Actually, does anyone have a New Testament quote that specifically defines homosexuality as a sin? As has been discussed previously (and explained to me by no less than two people), all Old Testament stuff was for the Jews only, and does not apply. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> still applies, we just won't get thrown into hell because we break it.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
It's not that the New Testament specifcally says "Homosexuality=bad" Or, at least, I've never read trhat part, but it does say <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven--Matthew 5:18-19 RSV<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Basically, this means all old testament laws still apply (which means that all christions should still eat kosher and all that, which they do not)
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Sep 7 2003, 12:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Sep 7 2003, 12:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's not that the New Testament specifcally says "Homosexuality=bad" Or, at least, I've never read trhat part, but it does say <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven--Matthew 5:18-19 RSV<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Basically, this means all old testament laws still apply (which means that all christions should still eat kosher and all that, which they do not) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->Matthew 15:3-8 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, "Honor your father and mother" and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have recieved from me is a gift devoted to God," he is not to "honor his father" with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men."
Matthew 15:17-20 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man "unclean." For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man "unclean"; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him "unclean."<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail--Luke 16:17<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; John 10:35<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are a few good things about being raised in the church. Yaya I know the bible!
Let me say this verrrryyyyy slowly, helped along with my friend the CAPS lock, so you may read and understand...
Ready. Thinking caps on children.
In the Old Testament, God gives the Jews some TRADITIONS, and God gives the Jews some RULES. To tell the difference, we have to study the oldest known sources we have, using both Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek language skills.
And from what we have gathered, the ban on pork is a TRADITION. The ban on homosexuality is a RULE. As Jesus said in the verses below - dont get too hung up on tradition fellas, its the rules that count, not the traditions. The TRADITIONS are for JEWS only. The RULES apply to everyone. Notice that their is nothing about pork in the 10 Commandments, nothing about ovulating women, nothing about two kinds of thread? Thats cause it doesnt contain TRADITIONS, only RULES.
Now I really hope that this clears a few things up for people here. So, let us have NO more of this "why arent the Christians upholding Jewish traditions as of the OT."
This is the THIRD time on this thread that I am posting it, and I seriously hope its the last time I have to do so.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Handy how some are classified as traditions (which may be freely ignored) and some are rules (which you must hold until the day you die, and ever after). Hmm. They're all in the bible... I *wonder* who decided which is which?
<!--QuoteBegin--Talesin+Sep 7 2003, 01:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Sep 7 2003, 01:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Handy how some are classified as traditions (which may be freely ignored) and some are rules (which you must hold until the day you die, and ever after). Hmm. They're all in the bible... I *wonder* who decided which is which? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please give some verses. BTW,
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->Acts 10:9-15 (All verses I quote are from the NIV) About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals. as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." <!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CODE Matthew 15:3-8 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, "Honor your father and mother" and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have recieved from me is a gift devoted to God," he is not to "honor his father" with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men."
Matthew 15:17-20 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man "unclean." For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man "unclean"; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him "unclean." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When they doubt the Bible because they don't know that it clearly states something that negates what they would otherwise have thought contradictory, yes, I'd say it would change their minds.
<!--QuoteBegin--Talesin+Sep 7 2003, 01:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Sep 7 2003, 01:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Who is to say what the christian definition of the bible is?
<!--QuoteBegin--Crazy_Monkey+ Sep 6 2003, 03:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crazy_Monkey @ Sep 6 2003, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Christianity: "The state or fact of being a Christian."
Christian: "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." Professes: "To affirm openly; declare or claim" Belief: "The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another"
Definition of Christianity. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is odd, as the g*y christian group fits that definition exactly. Making them christians, and placing the church squarely in the wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Christian definition of the bible can only come from a christian, so here you go. (most christians i know agree with me on this one): The Bible is God's perfect unchanging Word to humans telling them of the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Both parts (old and new) are as important as the other. In order to <b>fully</b> understand the bible, you need to read it all and understand it all. The old testament is the back story, teeling us why we needed Jesus to come and save us. The new testament is the account of Jesus salvation and how we should change our lives when we believe.
As for the dictionary definition, I think it should be changed to (because lots of people believe that Jesus existed)
Christian: "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ <b>and</b> follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."
Who gets to decide? Interpretation gets to decide. You read it, you read other peoples studies on it, and then you tell me.
Find me someone who interprets it differently, show me their evidence and then we have something to argue about.
A hell of a lot of people have studied the Bible, both Christians, Jews and Professors of religion, and what are traditions and what are rules seem pretty clear to them.
With all the attacks on the Bible, I'm sure there must be something attacking the definition of Laws and Tradition.
I know Nem's gonna hate me for this, but the "definition" of Christianity does not comply with LGCM at all. Belief in someone (e.g. Jesus Christ) necessitates belief in their teachings, and what he taught was that the Bible was the truth, that Biblical laws will never change, and that we should *try* not to sin. What LGCM says is that "oh, but sexual immorality isn't really a sin...so let us keep doing it", which conflicts with the definition of Christianity.
Certainly, that someone considers himself a Christian doesn't make him one. If I considered myself to be a duck, I'm entitled to this opinion, but it would deprive the word of every meaning and function of communication. Some things are ducks and some are not.
It seems this problem is exclusively one of the Protestant community, though. Catholics can look up in the doctrines to see which speculations are allowed and fruitful, and which are <i>anathematized</i>.
But if you <i>deny</i> that anyone on earth has the last word on interpretation of the scripture, not even the Holy Trinity will hold as pivotal, binding link.
Are the Mormons Christians? According to that dictionary definition, yes, but even most Protestants will disagree. Although I don't know by which authority they dare to. Topic for a different thread, I presume.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know Nem's gonna hate me for this, but the "definition" of Christianity does not comply with LGCM at all. Belief in someone (e.g. Jesus Christ) necessitates belief in their teachings, and what he taught was that the Bible was the truth, that Biblical laws will never change, and that we should *try* not to sin. What LGCM says is that "oh, but sexual immorality isn't really a sin...so let us keep doing it", which conflicts with the definition of Christianity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And we're back at page 12.
It is impossible for Jesus to make statements about the Bible, because, get this, it didn't exist during his lifetimes. The belief that the Bible is a pefect work created by divinely inspired people can not be founded on the Bibles teachings - don't bring Matthew 5:17-19 up yet again in this regard, he can not possibly apply that statement on a book created after his death. Thus, you can not convince people with doubts in the perfection of the Bible by biblical arguments, which are the only ones we can find a consensus about due to the fact that much of our logic stems from our interpretation of the Bible - See Sams and Rines discussion about the sky as body of water as described in the Genesis as example. This in turn means that your definition will never recieve full acceptance even amongst the most ferious of believers, which in turn lets it cease to be a definition, not to mention that I remember a little verse about being judgemental being a bad thing. Stop and accept that you can not tell people they're not Christian.
Comments
In how far does that contradict my statement?
Anyway, Twex:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We assume, for a second, that you are correct and the Apostle rejected homosexuality only to differentiate Christians from the decadent culture surrounding them. Why, then, should this be a relic? Why shouldn't Christians 2000 years later, finding themselves again outnumbered in a culture where lewd displays of half-naked women, adultery, idolatry and public homosexuality are common, take St. Paul's piece of advice and condemn these practices to differentiate themselves from this general decline of morals?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's two of points to be made here, Moultanos poll, whether entirely correct or not, touching the more important one: Christianity has long ago stopped being the underdog. It is, on the contrary, the dominant western religion and has been for centuries. The aim behind said strong differentiation - the rejection of an assimilation into a different culture and thus also faith - ceased to be significant some 1500 years ago. Christianity isn't in the position of a young growing religion in need of defense against other, established faiths anymore - it <i>is</i> the established faith that has to 'worry' about losing parts of its following. Becoming more seclusive at this point wouldn't help the religion survive, it'd on the contrary amplify its decline by scaring parts of its following with more liberal interpretations of the faith away.
Christians aren't 'outnumbered' - most people in our culture have still ties to the church. It can however <i>become</i> outnumbered by cutting them.
The second issue is that you are declaring a numer of contemporary issues, namely "half-naked women, adultery, idolatry and public homosexuality" as "general decline of morals". Now, it'd become a little tiresome to discuss whether each of these items necessarily constitutes a decline of morals, or is indeed a newfound honesty contrasting older (christian-influenced) bigotry, but in the case of homosexuality, this point has to be made.
Homosexuality is not a new occurance, nor has there been a time in the last one and a half millenium when the Christian church(es) was (were) free of it (I won't get into a discussion about its demographically weak beginnings here). One could argue that our society is only now becoming mature enough to understand and accept the fact that heterosexuality is not normal, but only predominant, and that the public display of homosexuality is thus in the majority of cases not a sign of decay, but honesty, which is highly valued in the Christian as in almost any other morallic system.
This would also seperate contemporary treatment of homosexuality from the Graeco-Roman way, where it was mainly used in a lewd manner, offering rough jokes and burlesque stories even within the religious myths.
Edit: make that 83%. <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...oll_010718.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The average Joe on the street considers himself a Christian for the most part, even if he doesn't know what that is. I'm sure if a Christian group conducted the same survey, with the same people, and explained what Christianity actually was, you'd have way different results. As Wheeee said, don't even get me started. 50% of the population doesn't even know what true Christianity is, yet 85% of them claim to be Christians, and 84.3% of all statictics are made up on the spot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me drive one point home right at the start: None of us has a definite say on what is Christian and what not. Multiple billion people center their faith around the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. There's more than one set of philosophies surrounding these events, there's more than one opinion about the way into hell or heaven, and there's a few thousand possible and valid interpretations of any given verse.
The fact that some of them might be new to you while you grew up with others doesn't qualify one as wrong or the other as right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nobody could <i>possibly</i> explain to someone "what Christianity is" because there hasn't ever been a consensus about that since the schism between Gonstics and Orthodoxes.
Whether you like it or not, the "average Joe on the street" has as much the right of considering himself Christian as you, or me. Everything further about that point should be delayed until Judgement Day, when the guy with the final word on this promised to show up.
The issue isn't whether the "intentional split from the norm" was OK or not; the issue is about how the "split from the norm" is interpreted as something entirely different than its real aims.
Let's say, that in the beginnings, Christianity rejected homosexuality as a way of separating from greek culture. The religion presented (justified) this idea to its followers by identifying it as God's directive. The thing is, this was the beginning of the religion; I don't suppose a religion could, after 2000 years, come up with a "new rule." If a religion came up with a "new rule" based on current social trends, it would just scream "we aren't a religion because we believe the original words of god, rather we are a social-political bloc."
(I'm being a bit confusing to understand here, sorry)
Wait... didn't you say earlier in this very thread that you can't understand what christianity is, unless you are one? Er. One of the True Christians, following the One Proper Interpretation Of The bible.
Actually, there's a difference between 'making a new rule up', which would indeed rob the faith of its credibility, and shifting emphasis from one rule ("Homosexuality is a sin.") to another one ("Tolerance is a virtue."). The LGCM website I quoted a few pages ago makes this point better than I could hope to.
Anyway, this'll be my last post for today. Good night.
Christian: "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."
Professes: "To affirm openly; declare or claim"
Belief: "The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another"
Definition of Christianity. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Wait... didn't you say earlier in this very thread that you can't understand what christianity is, unless you are one? Er. One of the True Christians, following the One Proper Interpretation Of The bible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
nope, I said you couldn't argue the homosexuality point in relation to what this church did unless you were willing to lay a few ground rules, arguing from a christian perspective
So where is the line drawn, between needing to be christian to 'relate to' the actions of the church, and needing to be a christian to understand christianity?
Additionally, you did not answer my query. Who is to say what the christian definition of the bible is?
<!--QuoteBegin--Crazy_Monkey+ Sep 6 2003, 03:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crazy_Monkey @ Sep 6 2003, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Christianity: "The state or fact of being a Christian."
Christian: "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."
Professes: "To affirm openly; declare or claim"
Belief: "The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another"
Definition of Christianity. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is odd, as the g*y christian group fits that definition exactly. Making them christians, and placing the church squarely in the wrong.
Nor do I feel the need to. God will do the judging, not me. Now I am very confidant based on the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, but no where does it say, if you sin, you cant be a Christian.
Strange, you would think that the Church would take a different view - AHHA, we have the sinners right where we want them, in church, now lets help them.
Not ARGH sinners sinners throw them out!
But I do disagree with something you said Talesin - Paul laid down some rules for dealing with sinners in the church. He said you MUST confront them, you cant just let them
continue sinning. If they wont listen to you, you must get a brother and both of you confront them. If they wont listen to you and a brother, you must confront them as a congregation. If they wont listen to the congregation, than they must be asked to leave. Thats the advice given for confronting sinning Christians. If anyone knows the verse feel free to add it.
These LGCM people are Christians, they are just Christians doing the wrong thing.
EDIT Nem0 you have to be REALLY careful about using Christian morals and saying "they are doing the right thing morally ie being honest". There is a certain passage, and once again my appaling lack of Bible knowledge is letting me down, that rips into people who are honest about "evil". It goes along the lines of "Not only do they sin, the rejoice in their sin, they parade it before the world... and it goes on about just how much this infuriates God. He would rather they did it quitely and guiltily then flaunting to the world.
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
1 corinthians 6:18-20
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
1 corinthians 7:19
19 circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.
Matthew 5:17-19
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until and heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, there's a difference between 'making a new rule up', which would indeed rob the faith of its credibility, and shifting emphasis from one rule ("Homosexuality is a sin.") to another one ("Tolerance is a virtue."). The LGCM website I quoted a few pages ago makes this point better than I could hope to.
Anyway, this'll be my last post for today. Good night. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm still waiting nem <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
still applies, we just won't get thrown into hell because we break it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven--Matthew 5:18-19 RSV<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, this means all old testament laws still apply (which means that all christions should still eat kosher and all that, which they do not)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven--Matthew 5:18-19 RSV<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, this means all old testament laws still apply (which means that all christions should still eat kosher and all that, which they do not) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->Matthew 15:3-8
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, "Honor your father and mother" and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have recieved from me is a gift devoted to God," he is not to "honor his father" with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
"These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men."
Matthew 15:17-20
"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man "unclean." For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man "unclean"; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him "unclean."<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; John 10:35<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are a few good things about being raised in the church. Yaya I know the bible!
Ready. Thinking caps on children.
In the Old Testament, God gives the Jews some TRADITIONS, and God gives the Jews some RULES. To tell the difference, we have to study the oldest known sources we have, using both Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek language skills.
And from what we have gathered, the ban on pork is a TRADITION. The ban on homosexuality is a RULE. As Jesus said in the verses below - dont get too hung up on tradition fellas, its the rules that count, not the traditions. The TRADITIONS are for JEWS only. The RULES apply to everyone. Notice that their is nothing about pork in the 10 Commandments, nothing about ovulating women, nothing about two kinds of thread? Thats cause it doesnt contain TRADITIONS, only RULES.
Now I really hope that this clears a few things up for people here. So, let us have NO more of this "why arent the Christians upholding Jewish traditions as of the OT."
This is the THIRD time on this thread that I am posting it, and I seriously hope its the last time I have to do so.
Please give some verses. BTW,
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->Acts 10:9-15 (All verses I quote are from the NIV)
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals. as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CODE
Matthew 15:3-8
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, "Honor your father and mother" and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have recieved from me is a gift devoted to God," he is not to "honor his father" with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
"These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men."
Matthew 15:17-20
"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man "unclean." For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man "unclean"; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him "unclean."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really hate having to quote myself.
<!--QuoteBegin--Crazy_Monkey+ Sep 6 2003, 03:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crazy_Monkey @ Sep 6 2003, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Christianity: "The state or fact of being a Christian."
Christian: "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."
Professes: "To affirm openly; declare or claim"
Belief: "The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another"
Definition of Christianity. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is odd, as the g*y christian group fits that definition exactly. Making them christians, and placing the church squarely in the wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christian definition of the bible can only come from a christian, so here you go. (most christians i know agree with me on this one): The Bible is God's perfect unchanging Word to humans telling them of the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Both parts (old and new) are as important as the other. In order to <b>fully</b> understand the bible, you need to read it all and understand it all. The old testament is the back story, teeling us why we needed Jesus to come and save us. The new testament is the account of Jesus salvation and how we should change our lives when we believe.
As for the dictionary definition, I think it should be changed to (because lots of people believe that Jesus existed)
Christian: "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ <b>and</b> follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."
Now try to include the LGCM in there.
Find me someone who interprets it differently, show me their evidence and then we have something to argue about.
A hell of a lot of people have studied the Bible, both Christians, Jews and Professors of religion, and what are traditions and what are rules seem pretty clear to them.
With all the attacks on the Bible, I'm sure there must be something attacking the definition of Laws and Tradition.
It seems this problem is exclusively one of the Protestant community, though. Catholics can look up in the doctrines to see which speculations are allowed and fruitful, and which are <i>anathematized</i>.
But if you <i>deny</i> that anyone on earth has the last word on interpretation of the scripture, not even the Holy Trinity will hold as pivotal, binding link.
Are the Mormons Christians? According to that dictionary definition, yes, but even most Protestants will disagree. Although I don't know by which authority they dare to. Topic for a different thread, I presume.
And we're back at page 12.
It is impossible for Jesus to make statements about the Bible, because, get this, it didn't exist during his lifetimes. The belief that the Bible is a pefect work created by divinely inspired people can not be founded on the Bibles teachings - don't bring Matthew 5:17-19 up yet again in this regard, he can not possibly apply that statement on a book created after his death.
Thus, you can not convince people with doubts in the perfection of the Bible by biblical arguments, which are the only ones we can find a consensus about due to the fact that much of our logic stems from our interpretation of the Bible - See Sams and Rines discussion about the sky as body of water as described in the Genesis as example.
This in turn means that your definition will never recieve full acceptance even amongst the most ferious of believers, which in turn lets it cease to be a definition, not to mention that I remember a little verse about being judgemental being a bad thing. Stop and accept that you can not tell people they're not Christian.