Well I hope you did learn your lesson young man!!

Most Christians will not post in this thread until:
1. The question is presented in a way that appears to be genuine and not a hand grenade with a taught finger on the pin waiting anxiously for a hapless victim to enter the trap.
2. The non-Christians make their debut, which they will, and spin their regular dose of negativity, picking and picking until someone answers...... then see Number 1 above concerning the hand grenade.

Schools all but finished now!
I have to wait until next spring to take my last class, microprocessors.
I've checked with 3 other schools so I coulds get it sooner, but none offer it till the spring semester, but Im down to 6 credits left!
Yay!!!

What a ridiculous question!!!

Chris·tian (krĭschən)
adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.


1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.


===============================================================

Christian, Charlie 1916-1942.

American jazz guitarist and blues singer. One of the first to amplify the guitar, he influenced its emergence as a solo instrument in jazz.

Two definition listings, and the second one is dead!
Take your pick!!

I'm glad for you.

I hated those classes only offered in the spring or I had one that was required but only offered every other spring.

but now you're almost done!!! Good for you.

Heya Fanta

I think the point she was trying to make is that whenever there are discussions going on in threads between Christians and non christians. Almost every single time you will see at least one person make the post.

Not all Christians are like that, you shouldn't catagorize us all together.

There have also been the people who say that some people who call themselves Christian are not real Christians. I know that JB has started up a thread before trying to find out what exactly a "Real Christian" is. I don't think anything definate came out of that thread either.

We all know what the dictionary definition of a Christian is but what she is getting at is does that dictionary definition apply to every Christian in the world, thus making the argument that not all Christians are like that null and void. Or do different Christians define themselves in different ways and fit into their own version of being a Christian.

I am kind of curious as to the other responses this thread will get as well even though I am assuming that no one is going to take it very seriously. :-(

That would be in their interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ!

ALSO, I will attempt to respect the differences and make them known when I point a finger. But I need to know what those differences are. Sorry, I am not a Christian, I could not possibly know why there are differences.

how come are u debating on religion nowadays?
i thought u were a politics debater only.

Just joking

Thanks
So how are you?

how come are u debating on religion nowadays?
i thought u were a politics debater only.

Just joking

I was a Christian for about the first 30 years of my life so I'm qualified to answer your question based on how I saw myself during those years.

I was a Free Methodist. We believed primarily in the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Although we didn't exactly denounce the Old Testament either. But everything was always viewed through the teachings of Jesus.

We primarily believed in a passive existence. We took Jesus as his word. The church I attended as well as my family believed that Jesus said not to push his word onto anyone who wasn't interested. We believed that he said to kick the dust from your feet and move on. We took that a bit metaphorically, simply meaning to change the subject and not dwell on it. We didn't take it to mean to walk away from non-believers. We took it to mean that we should respect their beliefs and not push ours onto them.

We also were proselytizers. We believe that when Jesus told his disciples to spread his word he was talking to a select few (his disciples). He wasn't telling everyone to do this. Therefore as mere believers we did not automatically feel that he meant for everyone to do this, but only those who felt a calling to. In other words, only those who felt a calling to become clergy. So from a mere believer's point of view as a member of the general congregation of the church we did not feel that it was our duty to proselytize the teaching for Jesus. Also, it was my own person understanding (maybe not that of the church), that Jesus was merely referring to his own teachings and didn't necessarily mean to teach the entire bible to people. Especially concepts from the Old Testament which he clearly objected to in certain cases. Such as an eye-for-an-eye, as well as the stoning of sinners which up until that point was considered to be the directive of the God of Abraham (if not a full-fledged commandment).

We also believe almost as the 'prime directive' was "Turn the Other Cheek". This was paramount and pretty much the foundation of the Free Methodist Faith (at least as taught in my local and church). Anymore I'm not even sure if all Free Methodists believe the same things. I have been in some Free Methodists Churches that were quite "Fire & Brimstone" in their teachings. Even my mother did not care for the way they preached and she was as devout a any Christian I have ever met. So already I was seeing differences in the behaviors of "Christians" even the with the same denomination.

So as a Free Methodist, I would describe myself as very meek, not in to proselytizing at all, and definitely turning the other cheek was seen as the "Prime Directive" of Jesus. Of course we also believed in the Golden Rule and brotherly love. That should be an automatic for anyone who claims to be a Christian.

So like in that other thread where the marine punches the atheist professor in the face for challenging God? All I can say is that marine didn't come from the same church I came from. We would never punch anyone in the face for any reason like that. I don't care if the professor was making fun of Jesus directly and claiming that his mother wears army boots. It wouldn't matter what the professor said. He wouldn't provoke a response from me. Probably not even a verbal response much less a physical response.

We weren't taught to 'defend' the honor of Jesus. No way. No how. We were taught not to deny him! That is not at all the same as defending him. According to the religion as I was taught it as a Free Methodist. There is absolutely nothing to 'defend' or become 'defensive' about. It doesn't matter what people might say about Jesus, or God, or the Virgin Mary. That's between them and God. It's not our place to defend God in that sense. We believed that God can defend himself (or keep track of other people's behavior). Or whatever he wants to do. It's not our place to judge other people and that include judging their opinions are comments about God. We can say that we disagree with them. But we're not going to get confrontational about it.

As a Free Methodist I was raised to believe in turning the other cheek, and to let God deal with the aggressive people.

Now we did believe in actual self-defense. We didn't believe that Jesus meant to never defend ourselves in practical matters. We were taught to avoid confrontation at all cost. But if avoidance is not an option, then self-defense is a reasonable response. We took the "Turn Your Other Cheek" to mean basically two things. Don't be defensive over petty things (where you draw the line for calling things petty is between you and Jesus). And also we took it to mean not to hold a grudge or seek revenge. If someone does you wrong. Forget about. Don't be seeking revenge.

I think a lot of people take the "Turn Your Other Cheek" to mean during an instantaneous confrontation. But we were taught that it means not to seek revenge. So if you go home and see your house was broken into and you no who didn't it, you don't running off to do something bad to that person to get back at them. Nor do you seek abnormal punish for them from the authorities. However, reporting them and seeking just and fair reimbursement for the damages would be just and fair. We didn't take "Turning the Other Cheek" to mean to completely ignore wrongs that are done against you. We simply took it to mean not to seek revenge or unjust punishments for the crime.

This post is getting too big Red, but I just wanted to say, that this is how I was taught to believe as Free Methodist. I later learned that many Christians do not think this way. There are Christians who think so radically different from this that it's hard for me to even imagine they read the same book.

In fact, having other Christians point out to me different interpretations of scriptures found in the very same book to support dramatically different views. Brought into question just how consistent the book really is?

And I think you know the rest of the story. I finally gave up on the book altogether as being totally and irreparably inconsistent on many levels. I can no longer call myself a Christian today because of this. In fact, I no longer even believe that Jesus died for the sins of man. So I'm totally removed from the whole religion now.

But this is what I was at one time.

For those who are curious, I still hold to much of the same philosophy that I've stated here. I moved from being a meek Free Methodist to becoming an equally meek Pantheist.

I know believe in the 12 Laws of Karma instead of the teachings of Jesus. But in truth there isn't hardly any difference at all between the 12 Laws of Karma and what Jesus taught. In fact, they are so close to being the same thing that I'm not convinced that Jesus actually was attempting to teach the 12 Laws of Karma. These laws of nature existed long before Jesus was born and were taught by Buddha among others.

http://thejourneyinward.net/karma/karmalaws.html

So even though I changed my fundamental belief in doctrine, my moral values haven't really changed much at all.

Just as a note: Unlike the 10 commandments of the Bible, the 12 Laws of Karma are not the commandments of a deity. They are considered to be the laws of nature not unlike the law of gravity, etc. It's just a description of the way life works.

I have always come here to read Miquel. While it is true I do not consider my religion open to debate, I often read with an open mind and try to learn from those better versed than I.
As of late I have noticed more than an intellectual and spiritual vigor in the debates which have always occurred in here.
As of late I have noticed an intentional antagonizing motivation, and it saddens me. So much so that on an occasion I have been unable to just watch. With these types of debates I can find no openness and therefore learning is reduced to a spectacle.
I feel a need to intervene, but unlike politics I do not possess the knowledge as you and others to get involved as deeply as I'd like. This is undoubtedly a good thing as well, since I also do not possess the restraint that others have.
At times of late, I have debated internally to just cease coming and reading all together!
Maybe that is best!