Posted: Apr 25, 2017 3:48 pm
by PensivePenny
Well.... if the "No true Christian" argument is going to be revived.... :)

Theropod, I wasn't particularly put off by how you define "christian." It was mostly just unexpected and I didn't know how to respond. It wasn't and isn't a point of contention suitable to this thread, but only for the sake of clarity...

I see defining the word "christian" the same as defining any other word... over time, those words change in meaning because of what is commonly accepted by the general population. Sometimes those definitions are flat out mistakes that meme their way through generations. Eventually all words evolve and the meanings can be something different. That isn't to say we should allow any old definition anyone wants to apply as a valid one. It means that definitions aren't what they are in the dictionary, rather the opposite, society dictates the definitions and dictionaries attempt to codify those changes.

But, as proudfootz said, what the word means to YOU is your prerogative. I accept and support that too. I'll base my understanding of the word on what society at large accepts. Jim Jones, to my knowledge isn't accepted by the vast majority of christians as christian.