scottstall

Correct, by my own definition and probably any definition anyone can find, I've one of the strictest definitions of lying I know of. The interesting thing about this definition is you can't say "He lied to me but I didn't believe him." You have to say "He tried to lie to me."

The most discussed subject is more the definition of a Christian, not the deity of Jesus. I won't argue if Jesus was immaculately conceived or not. If you don't convince them, you wasted your time, if you do, you just instilled existential depression. I know I was happier when I had faith, things would always turn up, I could get hit by a bus, it's still all good. Now, the quality and worth of my life is dictated by today, and every day afterwards.

And to lizra, every time I hear about a happy atheist, It makes me very happy myself. I'm not worried about non-existence, I'm not worried about hell or other local forms of torture, I'm worried that god does deserve praise, and I'm not giving it to him. Kind of weird, I'd say.

I didn't have to make a lie into something that occurs in the listener's mind, and you've not brought up why my bizarre definition is bad. We've also been arguing a hypothetical for awhile thats not been clearly defined, ever since I apologized for saying you were lying (funnily enough, the first person to say a version of the word lie was you now that I look back. I said "intentionally leading to a false conclusion." Which was just as much as wrong as what I apologized for. You said from that I was calling you a liar, which tends to indicate you believe intentionally misleading someone makes someone a liar.)

Which is related to...
[Quote=Gilda]I was disagreeing with your meaning of the word. I didn't mock the spelling.[Quote]

Yes, I do apologize. When I see a single word quote with a typo, I assume someone's mocking me. I should have 'control-F' 'd to have looked to see if I had actually made that typo.

[Quote=Gilda]Is this a common tactic of yours, name-calling in a debate?[/Gilda]

This isn't a debate. If this were a debate there'd be a judge or few, who'd represent an interested parties without a clue, and there'd be a referee who'd be guarding for fallacies, unless were going to do purely persuasive. And there'd be some premise's, and dictionary.com isn't cutting it as a dictionary. I'd make a statement, and give an argument for it, or you would, whoever decides to go first. If your not willing, I'll start with "I think therefore I am." If you accept that, no contest, it'd become a premise for the next statement, which you'd get first pick to make a statement. Nor is it name calling per say, I said acting childish, not your a child. And I gave an argument for why it was childish. The whole argument is false though, with a false conclusion as well, as it's based on a misunderstanding. You weren't mocking my spelling, you typo'd what I thought was a single word quote of mine, not brought attention to a typo I made. You were just indicating you meant my definition of lie, not yours.

Ahh, just curious. Still haven't gotten a definition of Unitarian Christian, and from what I read around, it seems to be a bit of a pascal's wager.

[Quote=Gilda]Really? You seem to care enough to keep posting in this thread and telling me I'm not a Christian.[/Gilda]

Me? Yeah, I listed why I posted once it appeared this wasn't going to get anywhere, why I keep posting is mostly damage control on what I feel is misrepresentations of things, and when you calling yourself a Christian is actually going to affect me. At this point though, I feel vindictive, and I'm holding it back. I've actually stepped away from this post several times, and it's on it's third incarnation, I just watched serenity (movie) again, and now this feels more like a dance of sorts.

[Quote=Gilda]Well, I've never said that now, have I? You keep saying that and attributing it to me, but at no point did it actually become what I've said.

Where was I unclear about my religious beliefs?[/Gilda]

this is in regards to "just that you believe in defining a word in a way you want to and not clarifying is your right."

Yes, actually. You can interpret Christianity as what it means in your life, and you expect the respect for no one to tell you what Christianity is. Is it actually such a horrid jump in logic, the word is inference, to say if you can interpret Christianity as what it means in your life to communicate "I'm a Christian." without clarifying? You are telling the truth, but in current society it's going to lead to other people assuming things that aren't true. Interesting isn't it, my definition of true is most likely your definition as well, and you can tell truth's but end up lying. I can say true things and lie intentionally as well. Most people call that manipulation, or deceit.

[Quote=Gilda]I notice you disregarded all of my sources that list definitions of "Christian."[/Gilda]

The only source you listed that I assumed had a definition of Christian was www.dictionary.com, and I gave my reasons for disregarding it. I'll repeat them.

You seem to continually try not to contest my reason's why talking as other people would understand is good.

[Quote=Gilda]Why would my using a slightly different definition of "Christian" hurt the self esteem of anybody? I'd like to note at this point that I've been saying all along that I'm not defining what it means to be a Christian for anybody but myself.[/Gilda]

Your definition of Christian and the inference made from it that you can communicate your a Christian without clarification contributes to the breakdown of communications. As dictionaries are actually just reflections of popular understandings of words, the fact that American Heritage Dictionary definition number 2 of a Christian...

"One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."

Tends to indicate there are indeed a good number of people believing this, and they're making an impact on societies understanding of the word Christian. Being a Christian doesn't require you to follow a religion anymore. Since a good deal of my moral's stem from a baptist background, it won't be very hard for other people to argue I'm a Christian from this "objective" source of knowledge now. Christianity becomes a philosophy, and a religion. Buddhism hit's this all the time, and every time I hear someone go "I'm Buddhist" and I can't judge by context, I have to ask what they mean.

[Quote=Gilda]If meanings are slightly different, as is very common, people will likely have no problem communicating.[/Gilda]

Yes. Meaning's aren't slightly different in public though if you go "I'm a Christian." when not believing in Jesus as the messiah. You need to clarify yourself, each and every time, and I honestly don't expect that of anyone.

[Quote=Gilda]I agree on all points. I'd like to point out at this point that I haven't said that the UUA is a "Christian Organization", only that there are Unitarian Christians, and that UUA is partly Christian, which a quick glance at their official web site's reference to Jesus and whether UUAs are Christians will confirm.[/Gilda]

You said "Many Christians are fine with hmosexuality and gay weddings. UUA, MCC, and Episcopaleans, for example."

I said...

"And by this sentence, you are actually literally meaning that the UUA is a christian. You can actually replace the organization names with proper names. Since that doesn't make sense, the next logical assumption is that the UUA is a christian organization. Ask yourself that if you've never heard of the UUA, and you read that, would you walk away believing that they're a christian organization? I would. Hence, I feel the need to speak up, to prevent them from being misrepresented. I know alot of people that wouldn't be going to the local fellowship should they believe it was a christian organization. I know alot of people that go because they aren't trying to make them believe in anything Jesus said, much less, he is the son of god. Those people, should they have read that sentence, wouldn't be going to our local fellowship, if they made the same inference that I did."

You haven't contested that, yet.

[Quote=Gilda]I haven't misrepresented my church (a Unitarian Universalist Church) or religious organization (UUA) in any way. I've not said that they are a Christian organization--this was something you've been attributing to me repeatedly which I have not said. For the record, I said that there are Christian Unitarians (confirmed by my link above) and that the UUA is a partly Christian organization (also confirmed by my link above).[/Gilda]

Supply an argument people hearing their first bit of the UUA reading "Many Christians are fine with homosexuality and gay weddings. UUA, MCC, and Episcopaleans, for example." walking away with the impression that the UUA is a Christian organization isn't going to happen, and then you haven't misrepresented the UUA. I wouldn't have mentioned it if I hadn't have thought there was a problem. And indeed, you didn't say that at all, it just appears to be what you meant. I'd like to clarify that the UUA is also a partly Satanic organization, as any member of the Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey, is welcome like any Christian, and there are most likely followers of Satanism therein.

[Quote=Gilda]I have to ask, are you just making this stuff up? This is the second or third time you've accused me of this, and I have not said anything anywhere close to that.[/Gilda]

Nah. It's a problem with when I hear protestant, I think baptist, and I sometimes don't catch myself. It's based off of

Which I'm not sure is true but since many is such an ambiguous word I can't really dispute.

That does appear to be mocking, but I'll deal with it, especially as what it's referring to is me calling you contrary, without supplying a reason. When I call you contrary, and closed-minded, I do it because your ignoring things at what looks like your convenience, and you've never really stated any arguments.

Does that actually answer "You sound like the kind of person that doesn't like stepping into traditional churches"? Not that I can tell. Whether you like stepping into traditional churches isn't based on the history of churches you've been to.


"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."

[Quote=Gilda]Duh.[/Gilda]

Duh shows a certain amount of contempt for who your directing it at. It's also considered a childish phrase. And it's not such an obvious thing, I've no problem stepping into traditional churches as long as I'm not expected to do anything that indicates I have faith, and I have had a good number of friends that believed and still would that I'm going to hell. One of them is still a friend, and he pull's pascal's wager type arguments on me, which really really scare me, thanks to my background.

"You sure don't seem to like to be told your not a Christian."
You've never said "Duh" until this last post, so yes, it does, and at least this time what I stated was obvious, but I've been told what I've noticed about you is wrong so many times, shouldn't I err on the side of caution and ask?

"Then again, you did say that baptists don't think catholics are christians..."
Your right, and it is a lie by my definition, and the definitions provided by dictionary.com. It wasn't intended, and it's explained above.

Ahh, thankyou.

It's a bit of both, a bad misunderstanding and a distortion. I can't tell what you meant by that statement, so I took it literally. I feel if I didn't mention it, you wouldn't clarify it.

We're actually having a dispute over where to draw the line, and your giving everyone chalk. I've stated several times now why this is bad.

"Your more than welcome to dispute why your definition of Christian is better, but unless it encompasses most of the people describing themselves as Christians, and not a good deal of people that don't describe themselves as Christians"

Actually, from what I can tell you are 100% on both, as everyone can interpret being a Christian as what they want, and they have no right to tell anyone else they're not a Christian. I've also stated why letting people define label's as they want is bad. That criteria was a guideline, and I feel like you knew and know this. Your ignoring past arguments on why clarifying is good, why its not good policy to define a label by it's greatest common cause.

Say that to whom, and are you going to clarify?

"You've already stated or at least it appeared to state, because stating isn't saying anymore,"
That was me getting frustrated at that point. It was in regards to you not acknowledging that you did misrepresent the UUA, but that it was corrected.

"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."
[Quote=Gilda]Close, but not quite. I believe that people should be free to interpret what it means to be a Christian in their own lives, and that I don't have the right to impose on them my definition of what it means to be a Christian.[/Gilda]
The only difference between these is that your leaving it open for someone to impose their interpretation of what it means to be a Christian. I did switch define for interpret, and I actually see the virtue in keeping interpret, as your meaning there is a reality of Christianity, just that noone knows it, yet at least. The problem is interpretations need to be kept close together, and if the concerned defined Christianity, there'd be a majority stating that "Jesus as Christ." If the unconcerned defined christianity, they'd still define it that way by a vote of current situation.

"Furthermore, you have the right to say "oh, you agree with Jesus and how he treats people? Your a Christian!"
That's actually the beginning of me providing the problems with that. I didn't say you said it, and I'm not attributing it to you. By saying you don't have the right to say what a Christian is, when you've got an interpretation of what a Christian is, you don't have the right to communicate what a Christian is. Nor does anyone else with an interpretation of what Christian is. If someone asks what religion you are, and you go "I am a Christian." and they go why, or even better, what makes a Christian, what can you say? Your going to violate someones definition of why they're a Christian if you say anything. The word Christian will start to die, until someone starts applying a meaning to Christian again. Furthermore, you just stated you don't agree with a definition in dictionary.com, that a Christian is a follower of the teachings of Jesus. That's a paraphrase.

"and when they contradict your definition of what a Christian is, they have to respect your right to call them a Christian."
I'm not attributing it to you, but at that point, I'd say it borders a Straw Man as I'm exaggerating, but not in my opinion not grossly.

You, earlier:

"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?"
I was an agnostic before I knew what the word meant. When I heard at my high school, I researched it, and lo and behold, it was very applicable.

I believe objective morality can establish how to treat a stranger, and basic respect and courtesy I do my best to show to everyone until they don't show it to someone. I believe basic respect is not letting other people walk away with the wrong idea, as well.

Appreciate and should are two different things. From my arguments, theres no reason I shouldn't say your not a Christian, so flight of fancy takes over, when conscience doesn't, and you haven't addressed my arguments.

"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."
You seemed to advocate "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" The dictionary definition of someone who follows the teachings of Jesus supports this, as well. Communications involves applying your own definition to other people to better understand them, and I'm stating that this practice would be horrible at that point. "You could teach Christianity without mentioning Jesus's name then" is me pointing out how much this can bastardize the meaning of a word. And that isn't a straw man.

Now, I'm going to do something that's going to evoke a logical fallacy in an audience. A few quotes from Gilda, the first one from before I even posted, and presented in chronological order.

[Quote=Gilda]Close, but not quite. I believe that people should be free to interpret what it means to be a Christian in their own lives, and that I don't have the right to impose on them my definition of what it means to be a Christian.[/Gilda]

Ok. Finish this up.

I wasn't sure and wasn't going to assume whether your a he or she. Since Spivak usually gets me odd looks, I went with gender neutral, which in the English language is assumed to be masculine. But thankyou for clarifying, I'll try to keep that in mind, I can't promise to be perfect, but I'll certainly try. I was indeed referring to you, and yes, a theist may post in a thread about atheism all they want. An agnostic too, so I post here without regret. I was pointing out the humor in a theist getting huffy when someone contradicts their beliefs, in a thread that would probably make an atheist feel comfortable being outspoken and militent, if they weren't already. In otherwords, stating your belief's at all if they're not atheist, you should probably expect a contradiction.

"Admittedly, telling someone they're not Christian is a touchy subject, "
You have no idea how much contempt I perceive in that. You want respect, treat others with it. Or how about mathew 19:19,
I have this odd feeling you yourself don't want to be treated with contempt, even if you had said all the things I have so far.

That was stated so people know that I'm acknowledging I broached a touchy subject, and it's rather dependent on the rest of the sentence. Eventually, I'm going to have to call you on taking quotes out of context, and taking a dependent clause off of the rest of it's sentence, is the perfect opportunity. Don't.

"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.)"
[Quote=Gilda]Is agreeing with much of what the OP said being antagonistic? This is a discussion board. We post topics of discussion to get differing viewpoints.[/Gilda]
No, but stating a theistic point of view in a thread that would attract militant outspoken atheists would appear to be.

This is antagonistic as well:

I'm just editing to mention that I would go back and change the messed up syntax quotes, but they highly entertain me. I've taken a college level programming course before, and I did well, and seeing how far I've has fallen is also looking how far I've been, and can go again.