scottstall

Ahh. Then it's differing definitions of lying that is the problem.

To me, a lie doesn't have to mean you intended to decieve from the get go. Someone else can tell a lie in front of you, and you can lie by being passive. Lying to me is letting the other person walk away with a misunderstanding. You know that your definition of Christian is rather different than most peoples, but then again, I'm not exactly giving out stats here so you could ignore me. While I don't doubt you have no intent to decieve, anyone that's looked up your past posts and all, but you really can't expect that of everyone. You can't expect that of someone on the side of the street who overhears you saying "I'm a Christian, I believe in the teachings of Jesus." They're going to walk away believing something that is incorrect. If your not making attempts to fix that, to me, your lying. I'd be alot more hesitant to state that your lying if you identified yourself as a Unitarian Christian, rather than just Christian. Then, people would understand theres something a bit different, and those that need inquire would.

Oh, and every baptist I've known has identified the catholics as Christian, I don't know about the other way around. Considering I was raised bible belt baptist, I may know. Then again, could have just been the churches I attended. The definition of Christian I get time and time again, or at least of "your going to heaven" is being baptised, or communion, or whatever local flavor. Saying that Jesus has been accepted in your heart, and doing something symbolic, while saying it in public and never denying it. That's the protestant version, I believe. May be wrong on the never denying it parts, I've heard different from different preachers. From a baptist perspective as I understand it, the catholics have a little bit of false beliefs and maybe false idol worship depending on how you want to construe it, but they got the right idea. Should Jesus come down from heaven and start issuing conflicting commands with the pope, they're gonna side with Jesus.

What my point in speaking up was letting people know the UUA is not a christian organization. They are an everything organization. From what I understand they see the mark of a creator in everyone, and as long as you respect other people's religion, you respect their divine spark, you may attend freely.

It may. Usually with me, especially on a written out forum where I can proof read, I mean exactly what I say. Seeming to imply usually means your trying to interpret something from my post, when you don't exactly know where I'm coming from.

Oh. I can respect that, and its actually very Unitarian of you. A problem does arise when you start using your own custom definitions though on words that have pretty much been defined in popular opinion. If I were to decide communism means I believe in worker's rights, I suppose I could be a laissez-faire communist if people were ideal. As far as I understand, there is no such thing, and by stating that, people are going to get very confused. A much better word I could use is "minarchist" As soon as I start saying I'm a communist in public though, I'm willing to bet theres going to be some problems, and alot of political discussions where the other person ends up walking away going "You are not a communist..." But hey, I've got the right to define terms as I want, right?

Communication is about conveying words so that the other person understands. It doesn't really matter how you say something, what words you use, as long as the other person understands what you mean. I'm pointing out that people that just jumped in, and only read your first post, or even read all of them, are going to say that your not a Christian. Pretty much anyone of a major organized denomination, and I suppose if I had to define major organized denomination, I'd say anyone thats got a church they can go to and only run into people that have their beliefs, or are interested in them, that identifies themselves as Christian, is going to say, your not a Christian if you don't accept the divinity of Jesus. (yay run on sentences...)

To put things in perspective, the way your stating things, if you believed that Mohammed was a prophet of god as well and you believed in his teachings, you could be a Christian and Islamic at the same time. And Jewish. At some point there has to be a line of distinction, and I believe its popularly understood that the line of distinction for Christianity is in the divinity of Jesus.

Oh. In that case, your GLBT should add a H on it for heterosexual, and probably isn't for historical purposes, or the price of reprinting all the sign up papers, or just to make those that fall in the GLBT categories feel more comfortable that no, there aren't any homophobes here.

let me isolate a part of your quote for analysis. I usually don't like breaking up quotes as it leads to too much taking things out of context, but in this case I feel it neccesary and I feel I'm doing it responsibly.
From my experience in debate classes, I've learned that this is a common fallacious tactic. Your proving a degree, and when they agree with that, saying that then the whole thing must be right. Christian in nature doesn't mean a Christian organization, and I definitely disagree that a Christian organization can be composed of anything but Christians. In a Christian organization, you are either a Christian, or a visitor. Christian organizations are by definition made up of Christians, even to apply your own belief system, made up of people who define themselves as Christians and maybe not even eachother. I have a feeling though that you'd define a Christian organization as any that has a Christian nature. That's the logic you used a second ago, as I come to understand it.

*sigh* We're not speaking the same language, I'm afraid. You believe its everyones right to communicate as they understand the language, I believe it is everyones responsibility to communicate as the people that hear them would understand the communication. To me, I approach more the utility of language, the fact that language is meant to aid communication and communication breaks down when you define a word different than how people understand it. Relinquishing that responsibility of trying to communicate in a manner the other person(s) would understand is conciously lying. I feel I've proven my point though.

I've stated why you shouldn't say your Christian, what my definition of lying is, and as you state I have the right to define things as I will, what you are doing constitutes my version of lying I've the right to say your lying as much as I wish, and why these definitions and beliefs are good definitions and beliefs. I even approached the purpose of language and how if all were to follow as you lead, language wouldn't work. If your not accepting by now, it's because of a closed mind in my opinion. Have a good day, and I wish you well. I'll do my best not to be contrary for the sake of contrariness.

(please note that theres a link to the original article in Gilda's post above.)

According to that... a good number of Rabbi's would state that your Jewish, "you" just think that the idea's conveyed in the New Testament are good teachings and guides to go by. I'd be willing to bet that those Rabbi's would agree with that as well. Just not that Jesus was the messiah...

*sigh* I could keep on doing this forever, but I fear there isn't a point. Your not going to agree with me, and any audience if there was one gets the point.