From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
David, "as I have defined it" is the way moral relativists justify sin. Lets define abortion as "removing an unwanted growth from the uterus" Now, abortion it is not murder, it is a mere medical procedure. Or how about defining "theft" as taking something from someone that has more than you do. (They probably don't need it anyway, and they have enough money to buy another one!) Robinhood apologetics.
It sounds like you have defined it that way to make non-Christians sound like Christians so they are more approachable. Then, the gap between where they are, and where you think they should be if they really were a Christian (my definition) does not appear as large as it is.
But, if the word "Christian" under your definition "does not lose all meaning", then doesn't that also mean it loses some of it's meaning? Why lose any at all? Why change the meaning and confuse people? Could you possibly be encouraging people who are not Christians (my definition), but think that they are saved because under your definition they already are "Christian". How many people do you think you have encouraged to travel the broad path by telling them they are Christian (your definition) when they are not (my definition)?
Perry
---------- "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.
