Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Having an understanding of semantics is absolutely necessary for any kind of discourse, reasonable or otherwise. If you reject the standard and demonstrated definition of a word, you're rejecting the language. I don't know or care what "Christian" means in Cynosure-ese, I know and care about what it means in English. This conversation is happening in English, therefore we use the actual definition of "Christian", not whatever definition you want.
Christian: a person who believes in Jesus Christ.
If you don't like it, go lobby Webster.
|
Using a dictionary to prove whether someone is a Christian is a poor way to go about it. (And this is something I'm not even arguing against. I don't deny he was a Christian.) It suggests that the dictionary is a good source for understanding Christianity and Christians. I don't object outright the use of dictionaries; I object to your use of it. Dictionaries are for defining individual words--something that has relatively limited application. They are essentially bits of information with glossed meanings removed from much context.
Understanding requires more than individual words; it requires sentences and often paragraphs. "Christian: a person who believes in Jesus Christ" on its own doesn't do much for your argument. As I mentioned earlier, Muslims believe in Jesus Christ too.
You preach about "rejecting the language"; you are rejecting context.