Hacker News Reader

Comment by aphantastic | Hacker News Reader

That’s a rather Euro-centric view of things (you’ll find the corresponding articles for the american continents are very different), but even still it’s missing the point. The question is whether this “critical mass” you speak of seeks to be a disciple of Christ (the group of people first ever referred to as “Christians”), not whether they have a particular interpretation of “God as depicted in the bible”.

It is, for instance, rather common to believe Genesis 1 is more of an allegory than an explicit recounting of God’s work, but that does not preclude someone from accepting Christ as their Lord and choosing to live as His disciple.

View on HN

I was specially referring to "Christians" as becoming a generic term for someone following a set of Christian values or belonging to a Christian group, even when they don't seek to be a disciple of Christ in any way shape or form.

I understand it goes against the very defintion of the term, but that's a thing.

I'm trying to steer away from my personal anecdotes, so for instance:

https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-a-Christian.html

> Unfortunately over time, the word “Christian” has lost a great deal of its significance and is often used of someone who is religious or has high moral values but who may or may not be a true follower of Jesus Christ. Many people who do not believe and trust in Jesus Christ consider themselves Christians simply because they go to church or they live in a “Christian” nation.

What a ridiculous argument. By this “logic” anyone could claim anything at all is “a simple for of Christianity” and you’d jump in to say “why yes, you see some people don’t view Christianity as meaning much of anything, therefore we can clearly argue it means everything!”

Suit yourself but I find this reasoning cyclically brain-dead.

Well, given the centuries and number of people and things around the globe that fit some kind of Christianity, yes I expect the meaning of the word to be pretty diluted.

That's the same logic regarding any concept at that scale ("American" would be the same case, there is a tight definition, but the wider usage has almost nothing to do with it)

To me that's just how language works.

Saying it’s diluted is one thing - I actually agree there. Saying that because it’s diluted, it actually means specifically “X” is totally different and indefensible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com