Comment: I forgive you.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Sorry "b" (see in situ)

I forgive you.

Re:"There isn't a defined "Mohusk"."

If I define Mohusk as "an alias shared by the same person who uses the alias Granger", then that is a definition even if it's a wrong definition.

Re:"There is, however, a definition of a Christian. It is someone who believes Jesus of the Bible was the Christ, the sun/son of a deity. ... You accuse me of defining the scope of Christianity, but I did no such thing..."

The fact that you offer a definition of "Christian" doesn't mean what you offered is correct. The scope of Christianity that you've defined can be seen in your definition, as well as in your attempts to correlate nazi-ism with Christianity. Your definition doesn't correspond to the definitions given by the early church or the Bible. It doesn't account for forms of false Christianity like antinomianism which embraces sin or arianism which denies the deity of Jesus. I'm also not sure why you mention a sun in your definition. I'm not sure what is more absurd, the fact that you correlate nazi-ism with Christianity, or the fact that you would consider antinomians to be Christians. Come to think of it, by your definition, you would even include a certain Satanist I knew as a Christian. He believed that Jesus of the bible was the son of God and the Christ, but he didn't want to have anything to do with him, as he hated him and by his own admission only wanted to serve his own pleasures.

Re:"I merely pointed out the minimal necessity for the label. But, even if I had, why do you get to define it?"

I look to Christianity to define itself. That means letting Jesus and scripture speak to the matter and allow them to exclude antinomians, antisemites, etc. (i.e. anyone who brings a different gospel than the one preached by the apostles):

Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

The word 'accursed' is a translation of the word 'anathema'. For someone to be anathematized means that they are rejected by the Christians as non-christian.

Re:" The Germans of the 30's, as with the born-againers today, believed that they were true Christians and that committing genocide and atrocities was supported and justified by the Bible and their organized religions. "

The question is not whether or not people believe the Bible supports their views, but rather whether or not the Bible actually does support their views. Your thinking seems to be infected with some sort of relativism.

The nazi-minded anti-semitic racists I've heard about seemed to believe in a Jesus who was only great because he was the German son of a Roman soldier from Germany named Panthera(that is not the Jesus that true Christians believe in). Would you also consider them to be Christians? I do know of World war 2 era German soldiers who were Christians of some sort, but not necessarily supporting the nazi party or agreeing with or even knowing about it's evil practices. I assumed that you were not referring to those Germans who disagreed with nazi ideology when you are trying to say nazi's were Christian. They would consider themselves to be German soldiers rather than Nazi's, just as so many soldiers today support Ron Paul and consider themselves American soldiers wanting to defend the constitution despite being in the army of Bush and Obama fighting unjust wars.