It's not wanting "shit for free." It's about artificially limiting supply on something that is virtually limitless. We the people now have the means of production, and incorporated entities seek to remove our ability to use those means.
That is backward thinking. It is unfortunate that people who were accustomed to making a lot of money must now seek a new business model, but it will not stop the tide. Real artists will always make art and music regardless of fame or money. People will always pay for the experience of the live act, and eventually the temporary ability to sell a recording (which didn't exist before recordings, and will cease to exist because of the digital revolution) will be a distant memory.
Eventually, there may come a day when we are able to "digitize" food or medicine, and use technology to replicate it at virtually no cost, just like music. Many, many people will seek to artifically limit supply to continue the old models of business. These efforts will fail as well, because as soon as the people have the means to produce what they want and need for free, they will recognize that it is their right to do so.
You are seeing this in action. It is time for you and everyone else to begin accepting it.
I couldn't convince a teacher that the primary colors that they taught us in school are incorrect (Red, Blue, Yellow). But there are 2 sets of primary colors depending if they are pigments which absorb light (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow) or admit light (Red, Green, Blue).
Can you explain this to me? I've never heard that certain pigments admit light. What is this all about?
I have a girlfriend or wife.
You are like the person who insists that they are a vegetarian, and just happens to eat meat at every meal.
No, I am not. First of all, I am not a Christian, I'm just defending a viewpoint. Secondly, that's a terrible analogy. Your analogy would work if I said that someone in the Christian culture could exclusively go to a Hindu temple, pray to Hindu gods, and celebrate Hindu holidays while still accurately calling themselves Christian. But that's not what I said or meant, and that should be clear.
Your saying that posers and wannabes have completely Usurped the word Christian. Because by your definition, Atheists, Muslims and Satanist can be Christians too. It has no meaning when you say it because it no longer labels anything.
My definition is that someone who follows the teachings of Christ at least in portion and identifies themselves as Christian should be considered a member of the Christian faith and culture. A member of any of the other cultural groups you listed (atheist, Muslim, Satanist) could become a Christian as well, by identifying themselves as Christian, participating in Christian groups (including their own families), and being accepted by those groups.
I'm saying that faith is cultural, it's not a checklist.
I think your response was very even-handed, and I think you did cut to the essentials of the Christian belief system from an etic, objective point of view.
The only thing I take issue with is the idea that that is actually how the world works. Not everyone who calls themselves Christian will follow your formula. The culture of Christianity is much wider than the list of rules you made, and cultural affiliations are choices people make individually.
To tell someone they are not Christian because they don't believe in Hell, even if they go to a Christian church and were raised in a Christian family, celebrate Christian holidays, wear a cross, pray to Jesus, etc. is ludicrous.
If I were a Christian, I would hate you and see you as an incredibly bad person.
No, if you were the kind of Christian you apparently think most people are, you would hate me and see me as an incredibly bad person. The only thing your post does is define what you think a real Christian is. What you define as the basic tenets of Christianity are not necessarily the basic tenets to everyone else. It's a huge religion with many followers and many different interpretations.
There is no legislative body that defines MOST words. That doesn't mean that if you say you Tea-bagged someones daughter, that it doesn't mean a very specific act.
I'm simply holding that the true core tenet of Christianity is following the teachings of Christ, and not necessarily all of them, and not necessarily the teachings of all the other people who built their faith around him. More people who call themselves Christians will fit my definition than will fit yours. Doesn't that make it a better definition?
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein
