scottstall

*sigh*

my definition of lie fits the verb intransitive (I believe thats verb intransitive at least...) Is it such a "bizaro" definition now that I'm using your own dictionary? Usually I won't make fun of peoples spelling or words (made up as they are) as long as I understand them and I feel like most people understand it, or at least the people I think that matter. Quoting me on "lier" when you know what I mean, they know what I mean, and I know what I mean, trying to use a typo to discredit me is childish. Wanting respect for your beliefs by acting childish is not a good way to get it.

As for dictionary definitions, lets look at why you should prefer connotations to denotations. The classic example, anxious.

"anx‧ious  /ˈæŋkʃəs, ˈæŋ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[angk-shuhs, ang-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. full of mental distress or uneasiness because of fear of danger or misfortune; greatly worried; solicitous: Her parents were anxious about her poor health.
2. earnestly desirous; eager (usually fol. by an infinitive or for): anxious to please; anxious for our happiness.
3. attended with or showing solicitude or uneasiness: anxious forebodings."

Hmmm, how fun! full of mental distress or uneasiness of fear of danger, and earnestly desirous, eager, all at the same time! So when I say "I'm anxious about my first day of school." What is it I exactly mean? I could be eager to make new friends. I could be worried all my teachers are horrible. I don't want to trip and make a fool of myself, but I think I may meet my highschool sweetheart! Maybe I mean all of the above, maybe anxious's definition needs to shift to "I think somethings going to happen, and I don't know if I'm worried or happy about it." If I wanted to be understood for either of those definitions, I'd use a word that has a well defined connotation, and connotation means public understanding. For an example of bad connotation, a theoretic car advertisement. "The new saab, it's cramped." (mind you, I don't even think I've been in a saab, so don't take my word) Cramped really doesn't mean anything but "severely limited in space" as according to dictionary.com, and severely can mean "rigidly restrained in style, taste, manner, etc.; simple, plain, or austere." It's just as valid a word as compact, which means "arranged within a relatively small space: a compact shopping center; a compact kitchen." But oddly, we all have this conception that cramped is bad but compact is good. I'd buy a compact car for the right price, but a cramped one? Nah. How about one thats rigidly restrained in style, taste, and manner in regards to space? Compact does tend to mean rigidly restrained in style, taste, and manner in regards to space... People have an expectation of words to mean certain things. You should talk according to that expectation.

anyways, at this point, I'm trying to close things up. I stated my purpose in speaking up, and it's fulfilled.

I'll do my best to answer your questions, and I'm not going to point out what I disagree with anymore.

Yup. Christian. As far as my understanding goes, protestant Christianity would even say your going to heaven. Nifty huh? A Christian is someone that believes Jesus is the messiah, and I do suppose for some odd reason messiah means divine birth or creation, not a true decendant of Adam and Eve, to me as well (and to most people...) Actually, that comes from most of the old testament as I've come to understand it. I've a feeling your giving a real world example, if not describing yourself, and this is going to go on about what exactly the prophecies of a messiah really meant. I hate to say it... but I don't actually care.

Let's examine where I'm coming from. I'm an atheist leaning agnostic, and I could look Richard Dawkins in the eye and say "your an agnostic" and when he goes "I'm an atheist" I'll say "You did say that there could be a God, it's just highly improbable, and he wouldn't be anything like what we'd imagine him to be. Do you still believe that?" Then again, I got that paraphrased quote off of him on a talk show, and he was rather on the spot. But if he professes belief in that... he's an Agnostic. Anyways...

I don't really care if you call yourself a Christian, just that you believe in defining a word in a way you want to and not clarifying is your right. Sure, its your right, but it'll also tear apart communications as we know them as soon as a good majority of people start doing it. Speak as the other person understands, or at least by a dictionary definition that they can look up later when they don't understand you. If you'd like to see the argument for why you should do that, I've stated it several times now, and not just in this post.

Unless you start representing the faith badly and it affects the esteem of my friends that are Christian, call Christianity what you want, call yourself a Christian, until other people start taking your definition seriously, and the definition of Christianity as I know it shifts into that of "orthodox christianity." Well, thats the evolution of language, and it's whats gonna happen eventually, probably, but it's generally a good thing to slow it down. Else you get situation when two people are saying the same word but meaning completely different things.

One of few spiritual places I feel comfortable in is the local Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, and the day its a Christian organization, or rather part of one is the day I will no longer feel comfortable there. On that same day, I've a good number of people I know that won't have a place to go to to comfortably express their spirituality anymore.

When you misrepresent that organization, I do care. Well, thats been fixed. You didn't "say that" even though thats what it says is that the UUA is a Christian. A better use of semantics would be you didn't "mean that" but I think everyone got the point, once I pointed out that the UUA is not a Christian organization. Before that, I'm not so sure as the original poster who may or may not have heard to of the UUA, would expect a UUA fellowship to be teaching from the bible and only the bible.

Misrepresenting Baptist beliefs (namely, that Baptists don't think anyone but a baptist is Christian) affects me in the way that I don't like seeing lies perpetuate. Well, now you know. It also affects me in a sentimental kind of way, as I was raised baptist and I don't want to see them misrepresented. Just a side note as well, I don't know if this is mainstream baptist belief, but baptizing to the baptist preachers I've known is ceremonial. It's a traditional part of publicly declaring your faith, and it's symbolic of washing the sin from yourself as you take Jesus into your heart. Declaring your faith is enough, to them, and by them I mean the few preachers who've told me that that also state they represent mainstream baptist christianity, at least.

Oh, and if your going to say I'm hitting a logical fallacy, it's actually logical fallacy to say the burden of proof is on me. You said "what you've done is a textbook example of the no true scostman fallacy" I said no, it's not, because of this. You said yes it is, this is what the classical example is... Note that part of the example where it goes "no scotsman puts sugar..." then "no true scotsman."

He switched terms, or rather added a modifier! They're talking two different connotations at first, one being the public expectation for scotsman to mean someone who acts like he's Scottish, and the other to be someone who's born Scottish. Funny how a connotation can also be a denotation, huh? The connotation of a Christian I believe can be popularly defined, as common practice, like I stated above, is to find the common ground in a label when trying to define a label, if it's not defined by the creator of that label. Argue why thats a bad definition, or a bad practice, I'd recommend going down the path of its a bad definition because it's not in a dictionary, it's just a sort of greatest common factor, as noted by someone who's experience with denominations of Christianity to be limited to the bible belt.

(looking at any readers, the very very patient readers...) I'm doing my best to be through with this. I'm sorry. This is tempting me too much, I tend to treat the contrary with contrariness, in hopes that one day the contrary realize they don't want to be treated this way, so don't treat others this way.

"I'd guess that more than 50% of Christians believe that baptism is neccesary to being a Christian..." You sound like the kind of person that doesn't like stepping into traditional churches, or talking to people that believe your going to hell. You sure don't seem to like to be told your not a Christian. I've attended regularly a few different denominations, and by regularly I'd suppose having gone a least once a month for three months, one Mormon, three or more baptist, and a single methodist. Of each of those denominations specifically listed, I talked to someone in depth who I'd qualify as a true believer (someone who practices what they preach) that goes out of their way to see what exactly it is they just agreed to believing, or the preacher him/herself, who I didn't know very well but I'd hope is what I'd call a true believer. The majority of them, if not all would say baptism is not necessary to being a Christian, but some them would say its necessary to get into heaven. In fact, the only reason I'm not saying all is I'm not sure of the Mormon's point of view. Being Christian and going to heaven... two different things. I wouldn't guess "more than 50% of Christians believe that baptism is neccesary to being a Christian..." on my experiences, and I'd guess I've had more experience in Christian denominations than you. Then again, this is kind of like guessing penis sizes between guys to see who's superior. It doesn't really matter, and should I get a ruler?

"... yet there are people who identify as Christian who haven't been baptised." Quite a significant amount actually, enough so that my definition includes them.

"Catholics and several Protestant denominations baptize through sprinkling at birth..."
Yup. I can speak from the Protestant side, and I'm assuming you know what your talking about when you talk about Catholics. Then again, you did say that baptists don't think catholics are christians...

"while a relative minority believe that only full immersion is true baptism."
Yup, I'd agree with this as well. Wait a second... I wasn't talking about the definition of baptism now was I... Sounds like a Straw Man, luring an audience to go Christians can't agree on baptizing, how can they agree on anything? When in fact, they do.

"Some believe in an age of responsibility, while others don't. "
Yet all of those denominations you've listed believe in Jesus as the messiah... seems like a good way to define Christianity to me. Can't get a good definition of baptism by finding common ground in the connotation, but Christianity itself, yes you can! Or at least I seem to be able to. Humble. Must be humble... Anyways, since there's no good connotation for baptism go with the denotation.

"bap‧tism  /ˈbæptɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bap-tiz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Ecclesiastical. a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church."

Ceremonial, that word sticks out to me. In other words, it doesn't have to happen. initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church. I have this odd feeling that you don't believe you have to go to church to be a christian... public declaration of faith can happen in times square. And then you just don't deny it. Hopefully.

"There are a lot of Christians out there who believe that their particular brand of Christianity is the one true one."
Indeed, and there are a lot of Christians who think people are just being too strict about denominations, and everyone who believes in Jesus as the Messiah will go to heaven. There are a lot of people that think they're Christians saying that you can go to heaven just by good deeds, even not believing in Jesus as the messiah at all, and a lot of people that think if you've never heard the name Jesus, you go to heaven if you did good deeds, or maybe purgatory. A lot of them aren't really sure what happens then. There are a lot of people that hope you can just accept Jesus into your heart and do whatever you want, and a lot of people on death row suddenly convert, hoping to ameliorate for past sins. Christian when convenient, is what I'd say. Lets stick with significant majority, significant minority, so on so forth. Do remember, majority doesn't mean 50%+, it can mean 30% when noone else agrees to anything at all.


Again, on a different note
"There are a lot of Christians out there who believe that their particular brand of Christianity is the one true one. I don't happen to believe that.."
I'm glad you don't think a lot of Christians are right. Honestly, it brightens my day. (/sarcasm) I've already stated that I don't agree with you calling yourself a Christian, and why. Provide an argument with why my "why" is wrong, then I'll call you a Christian. I did in fact provide an argument with why my "why" is right, I've satisfied my burden of proof. Don't say "but there are alot of people that will say I'm not a Christian, and I don't agree with them, but I respect their belief, and I expect it back." Why, exactly should I respect your belief? And by respect, I'm using

"deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges;"

from dictionary.com

Sure, you have the right to believe something wrong, and to say something wrong, and to be called on it at every opportunity. You have the right to teach your kids something wrong, and start a cult. You've already stated or at least it appeared to state, because stating isn't saying anymore, you can define being a Christian as you want, anyone who wants to say "I'm a Christian" is a Christian now, as everyone must respect everyone else's belief of what the definition of a Christian is. Furthermore, you have the right to say "oh, you agree with Jesus and how he treats people? Your a Christian!" and when they contradict your definition of what a Christian is, they have to respect your right to call them a Christian. Let's define communism as believing in worker's rights again. I don't know many people that aren't communist all of a sudden. When I start calling them communist, I expect to be sued for slander. With right comes responsibility, and you can say theres a moral responsibility to do your best to talk as other people understand. I don't feel like explaining the concept of objective morality to you at the moment, but I recommend you look into it. I gave the argument for why it should be objectively moral to speak in terms others understand above. I'll do it again. If I should decide that communism means "worker's rights" then I could say I'm a laissez-fare communist under ideal circumstances. When I just go "Oh, your a republican? I'm a communist!" And we have a great little political discussion going on under ideal circumstances, thats going to involve me being told "your not a communist." Under bad circumstances, they may go "idiot" and walk away. The republican could be a casual acquaintance, and decide anyone who can't see the problems with communism isn't intelligent enough to be my friend. I just lost someone that could be valuable in my life. Under worse circumstances, someone who hasn't a clue what communist means may hear me say "I'm a communist" to the republican, do some research looking only at communist propaganda that comes off as neutral, and suddenly, become a communist, heartened to the cause because of someone on the street misrepresenting them self. Ever think you going "I'm a Christian" on the side of the street could be overheard by a stranger, who lives in a very catholic community and is just visiting? They go back home, research into Christianity by visiting the local Christians, which in this case are Catholics, and end up tithing 10% of his income for the rest of his/her life? But you don't care about what stranger's think or hear. Is that what you said?

That's where my respect comes in. I have enough respect to communicate clearly, to argue my points logically, and to listen and to acknowledge your arguments from my perspective, trying to be as objective as possible. I have enough respect to come out and apologize when I'm wrong... I did above, in fact. This doesn't satisfy you. It appears you'll be satisfied when I call you a Christian simply because you want to be called a Christian. When I call anyone a Christian that wants to be called a Christian. No. Anyone who emulates the way Jesus treated other people because they think it's the right way to treat people does not suddenly earn the right to be called a Christian, nor should they be called a Christian. You could teach Christianity without mentioning Jesus's name then. There is a line that can be drawn, and should be drawn, for the sake of communication. I supplied an argument why there needs to be a line, where the best place to put it is, and now you supply one where there doesn't need to be one, or I put it at the wrong spot; refute my argument.

Anyways, on an objective note...
Anyone else think its funny that the theist posting in the thread titled
"'Why do atheists get so outspoken and militant?' In this thread I do just that."
Is getting huffy when people disagree with him? Admittedly, telling someone they're not Christian is a touchy subject, but if I were a theist posting in a thread thats going to attract militant outspoken atheists to a common cause, being militant and outspoken about atheism, I wouldn't even state what I believe unless I really really couldn't help it. Kind of like not antagonizing the people who are pissed off and have guns (logic, I'm looking at you.)