Gilda

I notice you disregarded the substantive part of the question there.

Unitarian Christian: A Christian who believes god to be a Unity, or single entity, as opposed to a trinitarian.

If you mean Unitarian Universalist Christian, that would be a Christian who is a member of the UUA or its affiliated churches and fellowships.

My being a Christian doesn't affect you.

Isn't dancing fun?

No, actually I quite enjoy discussion of Christian theology. I've had one or two with one of my colleagues at work.

I've clarified in this thread, where this discussion is taking place. I'd be happy to do so in a discussion of theology with someone else.

Possibly. People assume a lot of things. Maybe the problem is with people assuming things they shouldn't.

I listed four sources. Twice.

I don't contest this because I agree with it wholeheartedly.

I clarified my meaning. Specifically, in the first line of my first post.
Exactly! That is a commonly used definition of "Christian." It's one that is in general usage, as indicated by its inclusion in AHD.

Exactly! I agree completely.

I certainly wouldn't do that. I said in my first post that morality can exist separately from religious belief.

Yes! We're on the same page here. I am in complete agreement.

Well, you could just let it go at that, but if you want to know which kind of Buddhism they mean, you'd need to get clarification, sure.

No I don't. My sister's a Buddhist, and I'm pretty sure nobody expects here to clarify which kind each time she mentions it. My wife's religion is Shinto, but I don't think she's been asked to clarify which version. I've mentioned it several times on this board and nobody has ever asked for clarification. Getting a general idea of someone's beliefs from a single statement is OK. It isn't necessary to get perfect clarification on every detail of a person's religious beliefs.

I have clarified the exact meaning of that phrase several times, providing links and quotes from the UUA website as support.

I've clarified the exact meaning of that many times.

Thank you for the concession.

Even after multiple clarifications and references to the UUA website?


Sure.

Understandable. It also illustrates very clearly how the listener can make unwarranted assumptions by filtering others' statements through their own unique viewpoint.

I'm going to respond to those elements that I consider relevant to the discussion.

I gave you the information to draw your own conclusion, "make of that what you will."

Nah, it's a humorous way of agreeing with the obvious.

It's also considered funny if done right. When I came out to my brother, "Duh," was pretty much his exact reaction. He's a pretty cool guy.

Well, it was obvious enough that you picked up on it and made a point of telling me about it.

You were talking about me specifically, and hit the nail right on the head.

Pascal's Wager is logically unsound for a variety of reasons, but I'm sorry that your friend does this. You don't seem to like your friend doing that with you.

I was varying how I said "Duh," not making a reference to anything from a previous post.

If you don't understand what I've said, you'd probably be better off asking for clarification rather than trying to tell me what I've said. You gotten that part wrong several times now.

I'm saying that different Christians and different denominations already draw the line in different places, and they're all still Christians.

You set up the guidelines, and using those, the last definition there is the best one.

Not ignoring. I've never disputed that clarifying is good. I've even clarified several times in this thread.

In this case, anybody reading this thread, and yes, I did.


No. The difference there is that, even if I don't agree with another person's definition of what a Christian is, I don't dispute that that person is still a Christian. I can dispute the definition without disputing the identity.

I've never said that, and there's the problem. You keep coming up with interpretations that are wildly different from what I'm saying.

People do have the right to say what a Christian is to them, even if this means we end up with dozens of slightly different interpretations of what it means, even if all of those differ from what being a Christian means to me. People do have the right to communicate what being a Christian means to them. I'm in favor of that, so long as it isn't done in an intrusive or forceful way. In fact, I think it does a Christian good to constantly be exploring what it means to be a Christian, adjusting and refining what that means to her.

I can explain what being a Christian means to me and what I get from it in response to the first question, and I'd say that what makes a Christian varies from person to person and from denomination to denomination, so I don't define what it means for anybody but myself.

No, I won't, because, as I've said several times, I apply my specific definition of what it means to be a Christian in my life only to myself. I accept that anyone "who seriously, devoutly, prayerfully describes themselves as Christian" is a Christian. We'd just be different kinds of Christians.

I'm pretty sure that the word Christian is alive and well. Thriving even, with some two billion people using it to describe themselves.

Please stop doing this. I did not state that.

You did directly attribute that to me. Here is what you said:

Good for you.

Good for you.

Yeah, this seems a bit silly to me. Unless I'm capable of reading minds and the other person is a lot smaller than I am, this isn't something that I have much control over.


I distinctly remember writing several multi-page posts addressing your arguments and presenting my own.

To clarify, I was referring to teaching Christianity without mentioning Jesus's name. I did not advocate that.

No. I haven't advocated that, either. That's your statement, one with which I do not agree. I've said the opposite, that a person who follows the teachings of Jesus and emulates how he lived and treated others may reasonably call herself a Christian.

Sure. I think that's a good general definition. Not the only good one or the best, but it is a good definition.

I'm not following. Are you saying that you thing applying your own definition to other people is a good thing or a bad thing? Do you mean this in general, or only in regards to "Christian"?

I stand corrected. That's a slippery slope, not a straw man.

Oh, goody. Quoting is better than restating, especially when there's such a disconnect between what I say and how you tend to restate things. I combined all three quotes into one quote box:

OK. There they are. I said all those things. Yep, that was me.

Did you have a point to make with this?

The style guides differ on this currently, with some suggesting varying genders. "They" is used in common vocal usage, but is best avoided in formal writing through a variety of means such as varying genders, using the generic pronoun "one", or pluralizing. I generally use a generic feminine when it can't be avoided.

For future reference, Gilda is a woman's name.

"Getting huffy"--more name calling. Characterizing the other person in a negative manner in an attempt to make them look bad is not good debate.

I expect that people will contradict what I say in just about every thread in which I post. I reacted to this personal comment:

"You are not a christian, and you are intentionally leading others to believe something that is not true. Have fun with that..."

You questioned my faith, called me a liar, and made a flip comment to close it out. Given the blatantly insulting nature of this comment and the repeated name calling and frequent distortions of what I've been saying that followed, I think I've been positively restrained in my responses.

Eh. I thought it was funny.

Does treating others with respect include questioning their faith, questioning their honesty, making flip remarks, and repeated name calling?

Pot, meet kettle.

Here's another repeat of the same general problem. You're still telling me what I think and believe, rather than saying what you think and believe in response to my arguments.

I needed someplace for a third "duh." It's funnier when you do it three times.

By the way, those are both independent clauses. Trust me on this.

No, especially when I'm generally agreeing with the atheist on the general point he's making and making the point that we're more alike than different despite our different beliefs regarding faith. This board would be a really dull place if nobody posted opposing or differing viewpoints.

So being mildly critical of the pop culture representation of God is being antagonistic? Towards whom? I disagreed with the pop culture conceptualization of God and said it isn't being representative of the core concepts of Christianity, but I didn't criticize any person or group of people.

You might notice that the only response to my post before yours starts with a thank you, and that there are several other Christians and theists posting here as well. Are the other Christians also being antagonistic by posting in this thread?

And it's late and I have work tomorrow. I'd have been done a good half hour ago if a crash hadn't eaten half my post.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert