How to tell a real Christian from an imposter

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I was a Christian for several decades. You don't get amnesia when you stop believing, Stem.

That's what I'm saying, you'll tell me. I mean, like in the case of the OP, you'll be intentionally selective about what you decide to use in your determination, but at least you'll be dogmatic about it, huh?

It seems like you are saying that the OP was invalid. Is that correct? Can you be specific in how Buffalo was selective, intentionally or not, in his determination? In other words, defend whether the Mormon desire for vengeance is Christian or not?

[_The Nehor]

Of course this whole thread devolves into the standard stupid word change where the word Christian has devolved to mean "good" in some sense that is not well-defined rather then one who professes a belief in Christ.

As long as one accepts that bit of lunacy then the rest of the thread makes perfect sense.

You have to lower the standard of Christian pretty low to include Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, even without the usual doctrinal standards people try to use to define a Christian.

The standard is one who believes in Christ. That is what it means to be Christian. Are you arguing they don't meet that standard or are you continuing your inane assault on the English language to score rhetorical points?

[_Buffalo]

The standard is one who believes in Christ. That is what it means to be Christian. Are you arguing they don't meet that standard or are you continuing your inane assault on the English language to score rhetorical points?

You've lowered the standard so low so as to include Satan and his angels. Interesting. :)

[_stemelbow]

It seems like you are saying that the OP was invalid. Is that correct? Can you be specific in how Buffalo was selective, intentionally or not, in his determination? In other words, defend whether the Mormon desire for vengeance is Christian or not?

Sure. Joseph Smith was also known to forgive folks for mistreatment. When he was a young 24 or 25 year old father he was taken from a warm residence after his twin children were born, tarred and feathered. They say the exposure to the cold his children faced as a result of that invasion killed them. Yet, some of that attackers, who he was said to have recognized while hearing him preach the next day or something close to that, were welcomed into baptism.

There are other instances that he showed great compassion, and sincere forgiveness too.

How much of Stephen's life do we really know? Not much compared to Joseph Smith'. Its quite selective to take the one instance and compare it to the worst of Joseph Smith and then judge who is truly a Christian. maybe that's just me though. I don't know.

[_The Nehor]

You've lowered the standard so low so as to include Satan and his angels. Interesting. :)

I was using belief in the sense of "involving effort" to live by said beliefs. That is usually what is meant when one says one "believes in Christ". Nice try though.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

You have to lower the standard of Christian pretty low to include Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, even without the usual doctrinal standards people try to use to define a Christian.

The standard is one who believes in Christ. That is what it means to be Christian. Are you arguing they don't meet that standard or are you continuing your inane assault on the English language to score rhetorical points?[/quote]

Personally, I prefer the most inclusive definition possible, but the EVs have kind of ruined that for everyone. The standard has changed, for all intents and purposes, and you should know that. If you don't agree with the EVs on matters such as the trinity, works v. grace, and if Lucifer and Jesus were brothers, then you aren't a Christian. So you might want to change your response above to one that is germane to the discussion.

[_The Nehor]

Personally, I prefer the most inclusive definition possible, but the EVs have kind of ruined that for everyone.

Which is why I ignore them.

The standard has changed, for all intents and purposes, and you should know that.

The standard has changed....in their little subculture. I mostly ignore it too.

If you don't agree with the EVs on matters such as the trinity, works v. grace, and if Lucifer and Jesus were brothers, then you aren't a Christian.

I disrespectfully disagree with them.

So you might want to change your response above to one that is germane to the discussion.

So we have three definitions of Christian now

The traditional real one: One who professes belief in and claims to follow Christ.

The wishy-washy Evangelical one: One who agrees with that particular Evangelical on various doctrinal points.

The pointless Buffalo one: One who is good by some nebulous standard; pointless because we already have the word "good" to describe that and the definition was solely invented for rhetorical purposes.

[_Buffalo]

You've lowered the standard so low so as to include Satan and his angels. Interesting. :)

I was using belief in the sense of "involving effort" to live by said beliefs. That is usually what is meant when one says one "believes in Christ". Nice try though.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Ring any bells, Nehor?

[_The Nehor]

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Ring any bells, Nehor?

So because of that scripture you think you can defend your position that Christian means 'good'?

Wow........

[_Hoops]

Personally, I prefer the most inclusive definition possible, but the EVs have kind of ruined that for everyone. The standard has changed, for all intents and purposes, and you should know that. If you don't agree with the EVs on matters such as the trinity, works v. grace, and if Lucifer and Jesus were brothers, then you aren't a Christian. So you might want to change your response above to one that is germane to the discussion.

Which is a stupid and ridiculous claim, but don't let that stop you.