Izzy wrote: > I think you must realize that most of us (I think) > use the term Christian to mean someone who > sincerely follows Christ.
Many Christians use the word in this way, yes, I realize that, but the problem is that all the Christians keep pointing fingers at each other and claiming that the other Christians are not "REAL" Christians. Those who think they are sincerely following Christ always have fingers pointed at them from others claiming that they are not sincerely or truly following Christ. The Roman Catholics point fingers at various Protestants, the Protestants point fingers at the Roman Catholics and even other Protetants, the Protestants point fingers at the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists, ad nauseum, Christians all claiming that the other Christians are not really Christians. (Just look at this list, where Dave Hansen professes to be a Christian, but some others will say he is not a Christian. I remember one TruthTalk poster who said that while Dave Hansen was sincere in his attempt to follow Christ, he was not truly following Christ.) Then we have the world who basically recognizes all of them as "Christians" in the sense that they all claim to be Christians and practice a religion wherein they all sincerely think they follow Christ. Now when you add to the mix that most Christians claim that we cannot judge who is saved and who is not, then you have the situation where nobody can safely conclude who is a Christian and who is not. Is the pope a Christian? Not according to some Christians. Was John Calvin a Christian? Not according to some Christians. Was Martin Luther a Christian? Not according to some Christians. Is Billy Graham a Christian? Not according to some Christians. Is Jerry Falwell a Christian? Not according to some Christians. Is George Bush a Christian? Not according to some Christians. Is Jimmy Carter a Christian? Not according to some Christians. Are the priests who have sex with children Christian? Not according to some Christians. Are any Roman Catholic priests Christian? Not according to some Christians. You name me any Christian, and I suspect that I would be able to find another Christian somewhere that claims that person is not a real Christian. I'm sick of religion that fights over who gets to be in the real club. Christianity for most is an elitist club, whether they want to admit it or not. The sum of it all is that the term "Christian" becomes meaningless if anyone can balk about someone else not being a "REAL" Christian whenever they disagree with them. I think a more meaningful definition is that found in the common dictionary. My Encarta World English Dictionary has the following definition: "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." Of course, the Mormons and the Hitlers of this world, and every pope in the Roman Catholic Church, every Catholic for that matter, and all the Protestants, etc., they would all fit this definition of "Christian." Nevertheless, it makes the term at least meaningful without having to add modifiers like "REAL" or "TRUE" and then trying to define what those modifiers mean yet at the same time claim that nobody but Jesus can decide who is a "true" or "real" Christian. Izzy wrote: > You have not given me a better word > to use yet...do you have one? Sure, I have plenty of better words. How about a believer? How about someone who has been born again? How about a man full of the Holy Ghost or a woman full of the Spirit of Christ? There are plenty of better words, and these other words are used much more frequently in the Bible than the word "Christian." In other words, use the term "Christian" in a generic sense that includes false disciples of Christ, but use these other terms when you want to specifically indicate that you accept them as being of God. If a person asks me if someone is a "Christian," I don't necessarily respond the same when they ask me if that person is a "believer" or a "brother in Christ" or if they are a "born again believer." While I recognize that Hitler was a Christian, I would never call him born again, nor would I say that he was a man full of the Holy Ghost. Hitler was a man filled with hate, as his own words admit. Hitler hated Jews and Marxism and democracy. Izzy wrote: > In MY book, Hitler was NO Christian! No Christian today wants to claim Hitler as part of their group or their club, but when he was alive and leading Germany, millions of Christians supported him and even sought his autograph. Pope Pius XII had initiated a tradition of celebrating Hitler's birthday every April 20th. One can only speculate what the Christian stance would have been if Hitler had won his warring campaigns, but seeing that he lost, nobody wants to side with a loser. Mein Kampf was written back in 1924 when Hitler was put in prison after many of his comrads were executed. The book was there for many years, showing plainly his agenda of hate. Why were so many Christians silent BEFORE Hitler rose to power, having this book there before them, but after the war, they no longer are silent? Looking at the situation with Iraq, I guess the world hasn't changed much. Hindsight is always 20-20, hmmm? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA ---------- "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.
