| 
Sorceress: Lets not waste time by arguing semantics. Obviously your definition of being a "Christian" is different than what my definition is, and is more different than the average definition of a Christian than my definition is. You should acknowledge such deviations from the norm when you present an argument.
In other words, you are claiming to be a Christian but by Christian standards you are not a Christian. This is the perspective from which I am dissagreeing with you. From your definition of being a Christian (which seems to be a person who can love two opposing religions) I do not dissagree that you are a Christian.
But this does not make you a "Christian" in the general and accepted sense of what a Christian is. This is because you do not subscribe to the belief that Christ is the one and only, that the bible is the end of knowledge, that all other religions are wrong and all non-christians are going to hell and are pagans.
To me, and this seems to be the only viable logical definition of a Christian, is an individual that believes in the teachings of the Bible. One of the core teachings is, you must adhere to these teachings and not absorb any other teachings that are contradictory. This is, to me, the core of being a Christian and one of the most defining characteristics.
Therefore, if you fail to satisfy that requirement, i do not consider you a Christian, and neither will most people (Christian or otherwise). It is therefore confusing and erroneous to call yourself a Christian, although I do understand that since you believe in some teachings of the Bible a better definition may be difficult to find.
"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
|
