DavidM, perhaps we are not far apart but I still feel very uncomfortable with your definition
I knew a guy who told everyone how much he loved his wife.
He said he was never happier than when he was a married man and his wife was wonderful.
Anumber of years into the marriage they broke up after the wife found out he had multiple other partners all through the marriage.
Did he really love his wife?
Did his wife ever really know him?
I love my wife.
She likes me to know and appreciate the things she likes
Her favorite color, favorite candy, any number of small things that make her that ONE special woman in all the world.
I could describe the way she laughs and smiles, I know her.
I need to do more than to TRULY know her, I love her fervently deep down in my heart.
Now if I told you her hair was blond, or if I called her Susie, it would not go over well.
Now if I told you her hair was blond, or if I called her Susie, it would not go over well.
I must know what she likes dislikes and I must know her characteristics.
In the case of the aforementioned wife, even though she had love for her husband was it real, since the man that she loved was not what he told her he was?
She loved an imaginary husband who never was what she saw him as.
No matter what she thought or BELIEVED it was not in TRUTH
She could have all the spirit and love but there was no truth in it, because her husband portrayed himself as something he was not. It does not matter how much spirit she had
It did not matter how many times he offered his lip service, his heart was far from his wife.
He may have even believed himself that he loved her. It was not true! His love was VAIN!
MT 15 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
God is Jealous over His own we must worship him in spirit and in truth
He is not interested in your lip service TALK IS CHEAP! He wants your Heart service!
We are to love him with all ourt heart soul and MIND!
So you may love with your heart, you may love with your soul, but f it is not in TRUTH it is VAIN!
2 Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perry wrote:
> ... if you want to open up the definition to include
> everyone who may use the name of Christ in the
> name of their Church, or may claim to believe in
> Him but does not, and says they follow Him, but
> do not, or claims that some strange alien jesus
> from Kolob is the same one as the is in the Bible,
> then you pretty much have lost the essence of what
> a Christian is, and anyone can then claim to be a
> Christian for any reason. At that point, the term
> becomes totally meaningless because you lose all
> distinction of what the word means. Under
> your definition, I understand why you may consider
> Mormons to be Christians. Under your definition
> my dog may be a Christian.
LOL. Well, maybe YOUR dog might be a Christian, but not just any dog. :-)
The term "Christian" as I have defined it does not lose all meaning. Only
those who profess an attempt to follow Christ would be included. This would
exclude Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. who do not see that
Jesus Christ holds such a prominent role in our lives.
I realize that my definition tends to follow a more academic one, whereas
yours is one that is used more of one within the religion of Christianity.
Following is a dictionary definition:
Christian
Chris·tian
noun (plural Chris·tians)
1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody who believes that Jesus
Christ was sent to the world by God to save humanity, and who tries to
follow his teachings and example
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Now, it may be that you might like the first part, and you might even add
the word "TRUE" and say that a Christian would be a TRUE believer in Jesus
Christ as savior. I tend to favor the latter half, especially as it says,
"who TRIES to follow his teachings."
One reason I like the broader definition is because we have other terms to
talk about TRUE believers. We can talk about being born again, about being
saved, about receiving the Holy Spirit, etc. Futhermore, I have found that
a Christian who is not born again is easier to talk with if I do not
constantly deny what he affirms to be true, that is, that he is NOT a
Christian. It is a better foundation for me to acknowledge that he is a
Christian, but that being a Christian does not save him. Considering that
churches often confuse the salvation and being a Christian issue by their
introduction of church membership, I truly think it is a better way of
discussing these issues. In other words, adopting a more popular definition
rather than an esoteric definition facilitates communication.
Mormons, like Roman Catholics, see the institution of their church as a
saving institution. I feel on much better ground acknowledging their
Christian foundation but denying that their religious institution has
anything to do with salvation. I suppose you would prefer to denounce their
Christian foundation, but I see that as creating a stall in the
communication process.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
