"Why do atheists get so outspoken and militant?" In this thread I do just that.

[MSD]

This article appeared as an ad on my Gmail account while I was reading an email from the Libertarian National Committee. The domain was texasGOP.org, and the title was "Franks: I am an atheist." I'm not sure what to make of the association, but my hopes that a GOP member in the South would have the balls to distance himself from the religious right dried up when I saw that the author had used an opponent's statement to go on a self-righteous tirade against this Godless heathen. If you don't want to see my rant, stop at the end of the article. If you do, go ahead. Someone will probably get offended. If it's you, respond to me and tell me why I'm wrong. The only thing worse than the two sides sitting there having a spiritual dick-waving contest in place of intelligent discussion is the two sides trying to pretend the other doesn't exist.
http://www.texasgop.org/site/News2?p...FRtJUAodkhr4Ug

Candidate for the Sixth Court of Appeals, Ben Franks, is reported to be a professed atheist and apparently believes the Bible is a “collection of myths.”

During debate over a plank in the State Democrat Platform, members of the Platform Committee debated dropping “God” from a sentence on the first page of the document. The plank stated: “we want a Texas where all people can fulfill their dreams and achieve their God-given potential.”

According to an article published in the El Paso Times, Ben Franks states: “I’m an atheist…”

All elected or appointed officials in Texas must take the oath prescribed by Art. XVI, Section 1(a) of the Texas Constitution:

"I, _____ , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of _____ of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God."

Should Franks be elected in November, one would have to conclude that he will hold true to his out of touch “atheist” belief system and ignore the laws and Constitution of Texas. Mr. Franks is a personal injury trial lawyer practicing in Texarkana, Texas and is the Democrat nominee for the 6th Court of Appeals.

Because we don't believe in God, we are "out of touch" and not only are we immoral and incapable of being moral people, we are also unable to be law-abiding people. I guess without fear of divine retribution we can't be expected to follow written law?

It's not just the religious right who perpetuates this stereotype, accoring to studies, atheists are the most distrusted minority in America. Because we don't believe in God, we're criminals, cultural elitists, and rampant materialists. I wonder if anyone who categorized atheists as cultural elitists in the UMN study noticed the irony of that statement.

I argue the following against those who falsely accuse us of being lowlifes and criminals because of our differing beliefs: we are not morally inferior because we do not fear divine retribution, we are morally superior to anyone who follows a law or rule simply because they fear the wrath of God. We are clear-headed enough to judge our actions and the laws restricting our actions on their own merits, whether they are inherently right or wrong rather than whether an invisible man in the sky tells us it's ok or forbidden to do something. Those in the religious community who use their own judgment to guide their actions are morally superior to those who depend on what they are told is a divine mandate.

[Willravel]

I do the right thing every day inspite of the fact that I know no mighty diety will punish me for doing wrong. No hellfire. No damnation. No carrot dangling in front of my face. Moral athiests are better than moral theists, because we don't have supernatural incentives.

[Gilda]

For context, I'm a religious person myself, a Unitarian Christian.

Not all religions are about worshiping a single deity. Shinto, for example, has no supreme being and worships a variety of lesser gods, Buddhism is about spiritual self-fulfillment and has no gods whatsoever, Confucianism is essentially a moral, ethical, and philosphical code, Wicca is about connecting to nature through neo-Pagan rites, etc.

The "Old man in the sky" conception of God is one that's taken from artistic and pop culture representations of the Christian God, and isn't actually a core Christian concept, though many Christians believe this due to being one hour a week worshippers.

Nobody has a monopoly on morality. Regardless of where the idea originates, a person who doesn't steal from others is behaving in a moral way. Whether that comes from a pragmatic analysis of costs and benefits, a belief in the Ten Commandments, or the Confucian code of ethics, it's a moral belief and a moral action.

Christians, theists, deists, non-theists, polytheists, there is no one group that has a monopoly on morals or ethics. There are many paths to arrive at the same place.

What I think of you as a person is going to depend on how you treat me, yourself, and others, on the morality that is demonstrated by your actions and not a whit by the origin of that morality.

No group is inherently superior to any other simply based on status.

[Lizra]

I'm a happy atheist! The truth (science) has set me free!
"This little light of mine....I'm gonna let it shine...."
I don't go around blabbing about my atheism, but I'm certainly not ashamed of it either. I'm a freindly outgoing type....so if a conversation needs the info, I easily say "I'm an atheist!" Sometimes I might add that I was "born and raised an atheist" that usually leaves the offended fairly speechless.

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by Gilda

For context, I'm a religious person myself, a Unitarian Christian.

The "Old man in the sky" conception of God is one that's taken from artistic and pop culture representations of the Christian God, and isn't actually a core Christian concept, though many Christians believe this due to being one hour a week worshippers.

Nobody has a monopoly on morality. Regardless of where the idea originates, a person who doesn't steal from others is behaving in a moral way. Whether that comes from a pragmatic analysis of costs and benefits, a belief in the Ten Commandments, or the Confucian code of ethics, it's a moral belief and a moral action.

Christians, theists, deists, non-theists, polytheists, there is no one group that has a monopoly on morals or ethics. There are many paths to arrive at the same place.

What I think of you as a person is going to depend on how you treat me, yourself, and others, on the morality that is demonstrated by your actions and not a whit by the origin of that morality.

No group is inherently superior to any other simply based on status.

Glad to hear what you have to say.

I have to tell you, growing up in a Christian home and having heated debates with many other Christians regarding who gets into heaven and why (if you don't accpet Jesus, etc., you're not going to make it, regardless).

But my real point goes to the first paragraph I quoted above: I know of no Christians that doesn't believe in in the basic dogma. If you believe different, hats off to you. I did know of a religion prof my wife had when she went back school. He was a baptist minister kicked out of the church for performing gay weddings. He espoused "intelligent faith." That's almost an oxymoron like rap music or military intelligence, but I get what he meant.

I believe in a supreme force, maybe not a being, but not in Christianity any more. We're all connected through some kind of energy, religious, agnostic or atheist. And I certianly think you can believe what you do and that's fine as long as you're a nice person.

[Xell101]

That's an eloquent way of identifying the source of humor in someone's subordination of will to the galactic ghost(!), for therein lay the moral high ground because arbitrary determinations therefore eat it.

[ironman]

I'm a catholic and happy to be one. My christian formation is mainly jesuite and claretarian (i hope i translated right both religious orders), anyway, at school (jesuite school) I was always tought that reason is first and that in order to believe or obey something, i must be reasonably sure about my decisions. I never got an idea imposed, but given all the facts in order for me to make up my mind and take a free decision. During my school years i studied religion as a way of mass control, a way that the powerfull use to keep things the way they want and to make it easier to people to follow rule. I was thought both at school and at the parish, that Adam and Even were nothing but a creationist story, that the universe and the earth are millions years old and that science will give us an aswer about how it all started. Once again, i was thought by the jesuites to respect every intelligent remark made by any person, whether that person was christian, atheist, gay, black green or purple. That's how i came to acquire great respect for atheists, because atheists, IMHO, are, in many ways, less egotists and more sincere than most of us theists, as they don't do things in order to achieve a better afterlive, to avoid a celestial punishment or to get a thousand virgins, no, atheists do what they do and refrain to do what they don't do, just because they feel that's the right thing to do, period, no trascendental bullcrap here.
In my religious formation, I was thought, and even encourage, to question the teachings of the church, the authority of the priests and the pope and the validity of miracles. In short words, i was thought, in a catholic school and parish to be an atheist, but i choosed not to become one because in everything I studied and in everything i see and feel around, i can't but find that extra something that gives sense to everything and gives me that special sense of completness. I know it can be just a psycological and chemical thing, but to me is real, as real as what i feel for my wife and my son.
In short, i don't think atheists are better or worse than theists, that's a very personal thing and one that can't be judge by anyone, i do beleive in scientific truth and in the existance of a higher power, i don't think one rules out the other. I believe that if you're all fucked up, is not because of a celestial decision or punishment, but becuase you fucked it up, get control of your own life and start assuming responsabilty for your own actions.

[florida0214]

I think that this is one of those examples of the minority speaking for the Majority. To steal from Carolos Mencia. Just because the NAACP says that is how black people feel about a given issue does not mean every black person fells like that.

I do not think that Atehist are a scourge on the earth. We live in a country where you can believe whatever you want without fear or persecution. Does it always happen that way. I doubt it, but it is suppoed to be that way. You really can't feel that every God Followeror God believer is out to get you or destoy you. All God Followers are hipocrites. They know it and will openly admit it or at least should. Its part of the religion. Anyway Most of the time christians can prove God Exists about as much as anybody can prove he doesn't. Consider it a stalemate.

[Charlatan]

I have refused to swear an oath on the bible. I have also refused to be married by a priest or in a church.

Those institutions and tokens have no meaning whatsoever to me. Why would I pretend otherwise?

[MSD]

Originally Posted by florida0214

We live in a country where you can believe whatever you want without fear or persecution. Does it always happen that way. I doubt it, but it is suppoed to be that way.

That's my problem, it isn't that way. It isn't even close. I keep my beliefs to myself unless asked because I know from experience that people will have a lower opinion of me if I do not have the same or similar beliefs as them.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I have refused to swear an oath on the bible. I have also refused to be married by a priest or in a church.

Those institutions and tokens have no meaning whatsoever to me. Why would I pretend otherwise?

Why would you care?

[roachboy]

this relation of atheism to christianity--protestant fundamentalist variant in particular, but across the board to one extent or another---is really strange to me. i think it follows from the fact that most more "militant" atheists are like recent converts--they are rejecting both the belief system and the role it played in their upbringing and so find themselves in a way stuck in the mirror image of what they reject---i think it takes time to work your way out from under that and learn not to care about it. that folk believed in this god business really irked me when i was in my early 20s---and i used to take some glee in those tiresome conversations that would erupt when someone would try to convert me.

fundamentalist protestants like to set up an image of atheism as the inverse of their own system mostly out of vanity i think. according to the usual schema, atheists are just the mirror image of themselves, and it is flattering at some level to imagine others as obsessed with fundamentalist protestantism as the fundamentalist protestants are. this image is really about reinforcing a sense of clear boundary that separates inside from outside, and is built around the mythological symmetry between heaven and hell. so it is little more than a projection of the logic of their worldview. which is why i find it strange that there are atheists who co-operate with this by continuing to take christianity SO SERIOUSLY.

i dont know when i stopped caring about all this....at some point i realized that i didnt really. which is nice because you can see what there is that can be therapeutic about these rituals--funerals for example are nice simply because they give you a structure to walk through when your are greiving, and having a structure at that time can be useful. and if i am around a cathederal, i might go to mass for the theater of it, because it looks and sounds cool.

one advantage of this distance is that it lets you see just how strange christianity really is.
but if you live in a community dominated by it, this may not be the happiest place to land.
but it is interesting.

[Ustwo]

Now I can know what so many of you feel with the typical 'I can't believe it but I agree with Ustwo' (tm) posts.

I fully agree with roachboy on something controversial.

[divagrrrl]

I am a devout follower of the Church of Xenu... at least I was after I was excommunicated from the High Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Proof of the divine is within us. We are enrgetic beings packed so tightly that we are matter, thinking living and breathing and shitting and procreating and crying and arguing about whether or not God exists.

God DOES exist. God is just a name we give to the voice inside our heads that says what is right and what is wrong. For some, God has a name and a face and a history. For others, God is a coincidence of evolution. In the end, does it really matter? We are all connected by this human condition, and it is the VARIETY of beliefs that makes life stimulating.

I have no issue when people speak out in favor of their beliefs. I DO have a problem when they speak out AGAINST the beliefs of others.

Ever read a little book called "God's Debris" by Scott Adams? One of the best mindfucks ever.

EDIT: and for clarification, one could most easily call me "agnostic."

[pig]

Mr.Self,

Come down South. Try Greenville, SC for instance. Sounds like you'll be in the stockade within a week.

Nonetheless, I might be making TFPHistory, as I simultaneously find myself agreeing with roachboy and Ustwo in the same fucking thread.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Why would you care?

Why wouldn't I? If I am asked to swear an oath on a bible my oath wouldn't be worth anything if sworn on some holy relic in which have no faith.

As for a wedding, I actually took my wedding seriously. Why would I make vows before a God which I don't believe to exist. If I am going to take my public vow seriously, why would I start on a foundation of hypocrisies?

That said, I tend to agree with roachboy and ustwo... I don't make a big deal about it in general practice. If asked, I will readily admit to my atheism. When presented with examples above, I will stand my ground. But when faced with my wife's family, who are quite religious (Grandfather is a deacon, uncle is a canon, aunt a minister, etc.) I do not go out of my way to rock their boats. As they pray before dinner, I just patiently wait for them to finish so I can eat.

[Lady Sage]

Look at the flip side too, why are Christians so militant with their recruiting tactics? I am of course speaking generally here as not every Christian is the recruiting type.

Charlatan is right. Forcing someone who does not believe in the Bible for instance to swear on it is laughable. It means nothing to us. Why should we of another belief (or lack of belief) be forced to be married by a priest of a religion we dont agree with? It would fairly ruin the day for me. This is why I am going to be married with a "priest" of my belief system. Perfectly legal and religion friendly.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Why wouldn't I? If I am asked to swear an oath on a bible my oath wouldn't be worth anything if sworn on some holy relic in which have no faith.

Because its just a book, might as well have been swearing on a Cosmo magazine. If it makes other people feel you are going to tell the truth, who cares?

As for a wedding, I actually took my wedding seriously. Why would I make vows before a God which I don't believe to exist. If I am going to take my public vow seriously, why would I start on a foundation of hypocrisies?

I took my marriage seriously, the wedding could have been in a public rest room for all the location mattered to me. My wife wanted a church wedding in her home town church even though she is not religious either. So why make a point of calling out the belief of my relatives and hers by insisting it not be in a church? I don't believe in their invisible friend in the sky, so to me its just a formal looking building. My wedding was between my wife and myself, and not on a foundation of hypocrisies. It took a lot less effort and upset a lot less people by just having in a church.

[Lady Sage]

My relations all know I am quite Pagan. If they dont like it they dont have to show up. One less mouth I have to feed!

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by thingstodo

Glad to hear what you have to say.

I have to tell you, growing up in a Christian home and having heated debates with many other Christians regarding who gets into heaven and why (if you don't accpet Jesus, etc., you're not going to make it, regardless).

Not all Christians believe that. Unitarian Christians and the church of Unity, for example.

But my real point goes to the first paragraph I quoted above: I know of no Christians that doesn't believe in in the basic dogma.

Pleased to meet you. I'm Gilda.

Now you do.

If you believe different, hats off to you. I did know of a religion prof my wife had when she went back school. He was a baptist minister kicked out of the church for performing gay weddings. He espoused "intelligent faith." That's almost an oxymoron like rap music or military intelligence, but I get what he meant.

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

I believe in a supreme force, maybe not a being, but not in Christianity any more. We're all connected through some kind of energy, religious, agnostic or atheist. And I certianly think you can believe what you do and that's fine as long as you're a nice person.

We are in agreement here as well.

[scottstall]

Gilda, I hate to say it, but based on that word, and correct me if I'm wrong, Christian essentially means you believe what Christ said, which is assumed to mean Jesus. From what I understand, he said "Hey, I'm dying for your sins, your forgiven, forever and ever. But it's conditional, you have to accept that I exist, and I love you." or something like that. But he did say that you will go to hell if you don't believe in him.

So to be a christian, you must believe in christ, and everything he said must be taken as truth. You can ignore everyone else all you want to, but the things he said- yup. Gotta listen to those. So if he said that, and its up to you to do the homework as I don't crack open a bible too often (I think I could only find a king james version in this house anyways... hehe), and you choose to selectively believe... You are not a christian, and you are intentionally leading others to believe something that is not true. Have fun with that...

Oh, and the Unitarian Universalist's are NOT a christian organization. Do not state that. "Many Christians are fine with hmosexuality and gay weddings. UUA, MCC, and Episcopaleans, for example."

As for why you don't intentionally stir other peoples feathers by upholding what they believe to be proper... perhaps he believed it proper not to misrepresent himself to other people. I would. I dread the day I end up making a sworn statement in court, because I won't touch that bible. I don't care if the judge calls it contempt of court, because to me, it'd be contempt of court to swear on that bible, because I am indicating that that bible is going to make me tell the truth, and my actions would be in effect, a lie. It will go as high on the judicial chain as I can make it go, and I hope it reaches federal supreme, so I can finally get a straight answer on if there is seperation of church and state or not.

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by scottstall

Gilda, I hate to say it, but based on that word, and correct me if I'm wrong, Christian essentially means you believe what Christ said, which is assumed to mean Jesus. From what I understand, he said "Hey, I'm dying for your sins, your forgiven, forever and ever. But it's conditional, you have to accept that I exist, and I love you." or something like that. But he did say that you will go to hell if you don't believe in him.

I don't accept the divinity of Christ this is true. This does not mean that I am not a follower of Christ. I believe he existed, that he was the last of the great prophets sent by God to bring his word and to bring salvation, and I am a follower of his teachings.

So to be a christian, you must believe in christ, and everything he said must be taken as truth. You can ignore everyone else all you want to, but the things he said- yup. Gotta listen to those.

Belief in Christ and his teachings is a requirement, sure and I meet that criterion quite handily. A belief in a literal interpretation and in biblical inerrancy, not so much.

So if he said that, and its up to you to do the homework as I don't crack open a bible too often (I think I could only find a king james version in this house anyways... hehe), and you choose to selectively believe... You are not a christian, and you are intentionally leading others to believe something that is not true. Have fun with that...

I can't say I'm surprised. I've gotten the "Unitarians can't be Christians" thing before, but never actually been accused of lying about my religious beliefs.

See, I've been very upfront about being a Unitarian Christian the entire time I've been on this board and whenever I talk about religion, and in my first post in this thread, so I'm not being even the slightest bit deceptive, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd not make that accusation. I am a follower of the teachings of Christ. I just don't believe in the Trinity.

Oh, and the Unitarian Universalist's are NOT a christian organization. Do not state that.

The church isn't specifically Christian, this is true, and I didn't say that it was. Many Unitarian Universalists, however, are, and I've not met one who has a problem with homosexuals or gay marriage. Even discounting UUA, all the other churches I mentioned are Christian churches that have no problem with homosexuality.

As for why you don't intentionally stir other peoples feathers by upholding what they believe to be proper... perhaps he believed it proper not to misrepresent himself to other people. I would.

As do I. Did you not read the very first sentence in my first post:

"For context, I'm a religious person myself, a Unitarian Christian."

You may notice that I identify my particular branch of Christianity very clearly there. How exactly is this deceptive?

I dread the day I end up making a sworn statement in court, because I won't touch that bible. I don't care if the judge calls it contempt of court, because to me, it'd be contempt of court to swear on that bible, because I am indicating that that bible is going to make me tell the truth, and my actions would be in effect, a lie. It will go as high on the judicial chain as I can make it go, and I hope it reaches federal supreme, so I can finally get a straight answer on if there is seperation of church and state or not.

Taking an oath on the Bible is no longer required. Those who won't or don't want to swear on a Bible instead "affirm" without a holy book and you're welcome to leave out the "so help me God." You can request this ahead of time or when you take the "oath/affirmation". My sister used an affirmation when she had her name legally changed.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Because its just a book, might as well have been swearing on a Cosmo magazine. If it makes other people feel you are going to tell the truth, who cares?

Because it defeats the purpose of making an oath. I would rather, as Gilda suggests above, affirm. In fact, I asked my lawyer friend about this (for another post) and he says that there are many other options available to those who are not Christians. He has seen everything from simple non-religious affirmation to some Chinese oath involving a live chicken. Given that, it is no big deal to request that I not swear on a book I don't believe has any power or complete my vow with a "so help me God".

Court is a secular place... why muddy it with religion?

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I took my marriage seriously, the wedding could have been in a public rest room for all the location mattered to me. My wife wanted a church wedding in her home town church even though she is not religious either. So why make a point of calling out the belief of my relatives and hers by insisting it not be in a church? I don't believe in their invisible friend in the sky, so to me its just a formal looking building. My wedding was between my wife and myself, and not on a foundation of hypocrisies. It took a lot less effort and upset a lot less people by just having in a church.

Whatever works for you is great for you. I know people who have "converted" to another religion just to get married. The quotes are there to imply that there was no conversion taking place. It was all a sham just to make others happy.

I am not willing to compromise my principles to that extent.

I go to church once a year when we have a family reunion. The service also includes a special cemetery service where we walk the four corners of the cemetery and pay our respects to all of the ancestors (it is a small country church and a large part of my wife's extended family has been interred there). Out of respect to the family I attend. They know I don't believe and appreciate my attendance all the more because of it.

However, I expect the opposite to be true as well. If I am going to hold a celebration, such as my wedding, I do not expect to have to go through the trappings of a religion in which I have no belief. I do not expect to make vows before a God in which I do not believe. I expect my family and my wife's to respect this decision.

Turns out all but one branch of the family wanted to attend regardless of our decision to not include God... including the Anglican Minister.

To be honest there were a few ruffled feathers but when we took the time to explain our position they were quickly smoothed over.

[scottstall]

"I can't say I'm surprised. I've gotten the 'Unitarians can't be Christians' thing before, but never actually been accused of lying about my religious beliefs."

Ok. First off... never said Unitarian's can't be Christians. I never would say that either. My experience with the word Unitarian comes from my experiences with our local branch of the Universalist Unitarian Fellowship.

As for stating that your lying about religious beliefs, it has alot to do with my definition of lying. To me, lying is letting the other person walk away believing "something that is wrong, because you either filled in the blanks wrong (by their definition), or failed to fill them in. You can lie intentionally, which is wrong, or unintentionally, which is bad but can't be helped. I suspect you just don't agree with other people's definitions of christians, you know them, you just don't care.

To the great majority of people, being Christian means you believe in the divinity of christ. There is no if's and's or but's. Adding denominations to that doesn't change the fact that Jesus is the son of God in their beliefs. I suppose it's a question of degree's. If 99% of people believe that saying your Christian means you believe Jesus is the son of God, as in, divine birth, and you don't, when you tell the other people your Christian, are you lying?

Another issue of who makes the definitions...

As for the UUA... I'm fairly sure they don't even consider themselves a church. Our local branch goes by "fellowship." and the association name goes by Unitarian Universalist Association.

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

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.

The funniest part of this whole thing is this.

"I believe in a supreme force, maybe not a being, but not in Christianity any more. We're all connected through some kind of energy, religious, agnostic or atheist. And I certianly think you can believe what you do and that's fine as long as you're a nice person."

"We are in agreement here as well."

You just stated that you don't believe in Christianity. Is it safe for me to assume by saying that, your not christian?

The thing I've learned about religion and declaring yourself as any such is that you have to play by other people's definitions, the popular definition, or the definition of the founder. Step lithely and carry a big stick...

And just for context, Muslim's believe in the teachings of Jesus but not his divinity. I'm fairly sure a significant number of Jewish people believe in him as a prophet, but not as a messiah.

Anyways, it appears my purpose of speaking has been met. Fix the misrepresenting of the Universalist Unitarian Association, and point out that you aren't exactly a Christian by most any Christian's standards. I believe the definition of a religion to be established by it's founder(s), or democratic. Christianities definition has gone to democratic in my opinion, and I suppose thats the point I'm trying to make.

And to the moderators, and readers, I do apologize for not knowing where the quote button is or the syntax for it... I promise to find it before I post more quotes...

edit: if you'd like to continue this discussion, I'd like to move it to private messages, so as to avoid threadjacking.

[pig]

Originally Posted by scottstall

some stuff

look down and right. there's the quote button

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by scottstall

edit: if you'd like to continue this discussion, I'd like to move it to private messages, so as to avoid threadjacking.

Or better yet, start a new thread. I for one, am fascinated with the discussion.

Don't worry about the Quote function, you will figure it out in time (as piggy says, it's the button down and to the right ).

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by scottstall

Ok. First off... never said Unitarian's can't be Christians. I never would say that either. My experience with the word Unitarian comes from my experiences with our local branch of the Universalist Unitarian Fellowship.

The content of this post seems to imply that you believe that.

I'm going to assume that you mean the Unitarian Universalist Association. Local branches are mostly autonomous and free to choose the name of their particular local congregation. Mine does refer to itself as a church.

As for stating that your lying about religious beliefs, it has alot to do with my definition of lying. To me, lying is letting the other person walk away believing "something that is wrong, because you either filled in the blanks wrong (by their definition), or failed to fill them in. You can lie intentionally, which is wrong, or unintentionally, which is bad but can't be helped.

I believe that lying is the intent to deceive. People misinterpret words and actions quite often. This does not make those words or actions lies.

I identified my religion and my church in my first post here. I've talked freely about my religious beliefs in my journal, in religion threads, and in homosexuality threads. The idea that I've been in any way deceptive regarding how I've represented my religious beliefs is ludicrous.

Anybody who read even the posts in this thread knows that I identify as Christian, that my church is Unitarian, and that I follow the teachings of Christ while not believing him to be divine. If someone came away from that with the wrong impression, they weren't paying attention.

I suspect you just don't agree with other people's definitions of christians, you know them, you just don't care.

I do care, very much. I'm aware that for most Christians, a belief in the deity of Christ is an important part of their identity. I don't dispute that belief, nor do I believe that I'm in any position to dictate to others what terms they should use to identify their religious beliefs. Freedom of religion, freedom to believe and worship as one sees fit is very important to me.

To the great majority of people, being Christian means you believe in the divinity of christ. There is no if's and's or but's.

To many Protestants, Catholics aren't Christians, no ifs ands or buts. I prefer to let each person and each group define themselves.

Adding denominations to that doesn't change the fact that Jesus is the son of God in their beliefs.

I greatly respect that belief.

I suppose it's a question of degree's. If 99% of people believe that saying your Christian means you believe Jesus is the son of God, as in, divine birth, and you don't, when you tell the other people your Christian, are you lying?

Nope. It means I have a different conception of Jesus than most other Christians:

What about Jesus?

Classically, Unitarian Universalist Christians have understood Jesus as a savior because he was a God-filled human being, not a supernatural being. He was, and still is for many UUs, an exemplar, one who has shown the way of redemptive love, in whose spirit anyone may live generously and abundantly. Among us, Jesus' very human life and teaching have been understood as products of, and in line with, the great Jewish tradition of prophets and teachers. He neither broke with that tradition nor superseded it.

Many of us honor Jesus, and many of us honor other master teachers of past or present generations, like Moses or the Buddha. As a result, mixed-tradition families may find common ground in the UU fellowship without compromising other loyalties.

As for the UUA... I'm fairly sure they don't even consider themselves a church. Our local branch goes by "fellowship." and the association name goes by Unitarian Universalist Association.

It's a democratic organization. Each congregation is free to adopt whatever label it wishes. Mine is a church, and a quick peek at the listings indicates that about half identify that way.

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

And by this sentence, you are actually literally meaning that the UUA is a christian.

No, that is not my meaning. My meaning is that there are Christians that are fine with homosexuality and gay weddings, those that attend UUA, MCC, and Episcopalian churches, for example. At this point I'd add the United Church of Christ.

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.

It is partly:

Are Unitarian Universalists Christian?

Yes and no.

Yes, some Unitarian Universalists are Christian. Personal encounter with the spirit of Jesus as the christ richly informs their religious lives.

No, Unitarian Universalists are not Christian, if by Christian you mean those who think that acceptance of any creedal belief whatsoever is necessary for salvation. Unitarian Universalist Christians are considered heretics by those orthodox Christians who claim none but Christians are "saved." (Fortunately, not all the orthodox make that claim.)

Yes, Unitarian Universalists are Christian in the sense that both Unitarian and Universalist history are part of Christian history. Our core principles and practices were first articulated and established by liberal Christians.

Some Unitarian Universalists are not Christian. For though they may acknowledge the Christian history of our faith, Christian stories and symbols are no longer primary for them. They draw their personal faith from many sources: nature, intuition, other cultures, science, civil liberation movements, and so on.

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.

Of course. One of the great appeals of the UUA for me is that it doesn't require adherence to any specific creed or church doctrine to be a member of the congregation. I wouldn't be going if it were restricted to Christians only, either, because then my wife (Shinto) and my sister (Buddhism) wouldn't be welcome.

An organization can be at least partly Christian in nature, attract and accept Christians, be supportive of their belief system, and yet still be welcoming to those who aren't Christian. For a nice parallel, my GLBT organization is happy to welcome people who aren't gay or transgender. We have a lot of straight members.

"Christian" doesn't need to be restrictive. It can be inclusive instead.

The funniest part of this whole thing is this.

"I believe in a supreme force, maybe not a being, but not in Christianity any more. We're all connected through some kind of energy, religious, agnostic or atheist. And I certianly think you can believe what you do and that's fine as long as you're a nice person."

"We are in agreement here as well."

You just stated that you don't believe in Christianity. Is it safe for me to assume by saying that, your not christian?

No, I didn't state that. I agreed with another's post. My intent was to agree with the bolded part there, and in editing I didn't clip out the beginning. My mistake.

The thing I've learned about religion and declaring yourself as any such is that you have to play by other people's definitions, the popular definition, or the definition of the founder. Step lithely and carry a big stick...

Which one organization's definition of "Christian" is the one true one? Catholics? Many Protestants don't consider them Christian.

Anyways, it appears my purpose of speaking has been met. Fix the misrepresenting of the Universalist Unitarian Association, and point out that you aren't exactly a Christian by most any Christian's standards.

I did not misrepresent the UUA, which by the way is the Unitarian Universalist Association. I represented myself as a Unitarian Christian, which was a true and accurate representation. I am a Christian by the standards of a good number of Christians, including those of my Church, the somewhat similar beliefs of the church of Unity, and including, by the way, many early followers. The nature of Christ was greatly disputed among early Christians until it was sanctified by a vote of representatives at the council of Nicea.

I believe the definition of a religion to be established by it's founder(s), or democratic. Christianities definition has gone to democratic in my opinion, and I suppose thats the point I'm trying to make.

Sure. The Baptists get to define what it means to be a Baptist, the Catholics what it means to be a Catholic. The UUA gets to define what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist, which, as you can see above, includes some members identifying as Christian and doesn't require them to accept the deity of Jesus to do that.

I'm perfectly comfortable that I'm being honest when I say I'm Christian.

[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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

The content of this post seems to imply that you believe that.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

I prefer to let each person and each group define themselves.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

An organization can be at least partly Christian in nature, attract and accept Christians, be supportive of their belief system, and yet still be welcoming to those who aren't Christian. For a nice parallel, my GLBT organization is happy to welcome people who aren't gay or transgender. We have a lot of straight members.

"Christian" doesn't need to be restrictive. It can be inclusive instead.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

An organization can be at least partly Christian in nature...
"Christian" doesn't need to be restrictive. It can be inclusive instead.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

Classically, Unitarian Universalist Christians have understood Jesus as a savior because he was a God-filled human being, not a supernatural being. He was, and still is for many UUs, an exemplar, one who has shown the way of redemptive love, in whose spirit anyone may live generously and abundantly. Among us, Jesus' very human life and teaching have been understood as products of, and in line with, the great Jewish tradition of prophets and teachers. He neither broke with that tradition nor superseded it.

Many of us honor Jesus, and many of us honor other master teachers of past or present generations, like Moses or the Buddha. As a result, mixed-tradition families may find common ground in the UU fellowship without compromising other loyalties.

(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.

[Crack]

I believe that god sent his son Jesus Christ down from heaven to die on a cross and save our souls so they would not burn in the fiery pit of hell for all time.

Either he did, or someone else, maybe no one did, in fact, all that just sounds a bit strange to me now that I think about it... I HAVE WASTED MY LIFE!!

Joking aside, it's all just opiate for the masses. If it makes you feel better to believe it. Do it. I won't try to convince you otherwise. I expect the same. No one ever found religious or spiritual enlightenment from someone banging at their door at 8:00am, or yelling at them, saying they are going to hell if they didn't give their life to something. If they think they had, they are wrong and week minded, and most likely whatever they currently believe is only that way, because those "recruiters" got to them first. If it wasn't one opiate, it would have been another.

Originally Posted by Homer

Rev. Lovejoy: Homer, were sending you as a missionary to spread the Christian religion

Homer: Huh? But I don't even believe in Jeebus! (5 sec. later...) Jeebus! Help me Jeebus!

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by scottstall

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

I suppose. I mean lying in the sense of dishonesty, words or intent to deceive.

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.

I disagree, but I didn't do either of those now, did I?

Lying to me is letting the other person walk away with a misunderstanding.

I strongly disagree. If the other person misunderstands, that's a misunderstanding, not a lie.

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.

1. There is no one definition of Christian, there are dozens, hundreds perhaps. The way I define what it means to be a Christian is different from others, this is true, but everyone's definition is somewhat different; everyone's choice of how to interpret what it means to be a Christian in their own lives is shaped by their personal relationship with God and with their church.

2. I am not attempting to define "Christian" in general, because there is no one definition that describes every single person who identifies as Christian. I define only what it means to me to be a Christian.

3. The definition of Christian that I use to describe my own beliefs is very much in line with the great majority of Christian beliefs, differing far less than it is the same. There is, I suspect, more in common between my beliefs and those of the Episcopalians than there is between Baptists and Catholics. But we're all Christians.

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.

I identified my specific belief system in the very first line of the very first post in this thread. Nobody needs to look anywhere other than right here.

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."

It's lying if a stranger on the street overhearing a conversation misunderstands it?

I really don't care what strangers overhearing my conversation think of it.

They're going to walk away believing something that is incorrect.

No, they're going to walk away believing that I'm a Christian who is a follower of Jesus, two correct things.

If your not making attempts to fix that, to me, your lying.

So if I am making statements I believe to be true to someone, someone overhears them, misunderstands, and thus believes I meant something different, and I don't correct that, I am lying to her?

I'd be alot more hesitant to state that your lying if you identified yourself as a Unitarian Christian, rather than just Christian.

I DID THAT.

Did you not read the first line in my first post in this thread? I clearly identified myself there and made reference to it several times.

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.

Baptised when? At birth like with Catholics or at the age of responsibility, like with most Protestants? What form? Is sprinkling OK, or does it require full immersion? By whom? Does it require a holy person, or can any Christian do it? Ask two dozen Christians these questions and you'll get two dozen different answers, yet they'd all still be Christians despite defining "Baptism" differently from one another.

What my point in speaking up was letting people know the UUA is not a christian organization. They are an everything organization.

One of those things is Christian. See my example with my GLBT organization, it exists to provide for the needs for three distinct groups: homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people, most of whom are straight. We're happy to have straight cisgendered people join us because we're inclusive, not exclusive.

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.

Not necessarily. You don't even have to be a theist to be a member. This doesn't mean that those of us who are Christians lose that status merely because we belong to an organization that doesn't restrict itself to Christians. I'm a Christian and a Unitarian Universalist. There is no conflict between those two identities.

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.

Of course I'm trying to interpret your post. It would be impossible to communicate with you if I didn't.

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.

Like "lying".

But hey, I've got the right to define terms as I want, right?

You sure try hard at it.

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.

So far you're the only one doing that, but you're not the first. That's called disagreeing. That they disagree with my usage does not make me a liar.

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...)

A significant minority do, but most others don't have a problem with my identifying as Christian.

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.

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.

Wow. I really couldn't disagree more.

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.

I said UUA is partly a Christian organization. I tend not to think in hard binary terms. Very little in life works that way.

*sigh* We're not speaking the same language, I'm afraid. You believe its everyones right to communicate as they understand the language,

I don't believe I've said that.

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.

Like, "lying" for example.

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.

First I strongly disagree that not trying to communicate clearly is lying. I'd call that laziness. Many of my students are too lazy to make an effort to communicate clearly.

Second, at what point in this thread do you think I failed to attempt to communicate clearly? Was it in the VERY FIRST LINE of my first post where I identified myself as a Unitarian Christian?

I've stated why you shouldn't say your Christian,

You've stated why you believe I shouldn't say I'm a Christian. I shall continue to do so nonetheless, secure in knowing that I'm telling the truth.

as you state I have the right to define things as I will,

No, I didn't say that at all. But you know, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were mistaken, not lying. Or wait, if you misunderstood what I was saying, does that mean that I'm lying?

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.

Sure you have that right, and I have the right to think you're twisting the logic and meaning of the words involved for the purpose of calling me a liar.

I even approached the purpose of language and how if all were to follow as you lead, language wouldn't work.

I am so glad my employer doesn't feel this way.

If your not accepting by now, it's because of a closed mind in my opinion.

I'm closed-minded because I identify as Christian, don't like being called a liar when I am telling the truth, think people should be free to choose their religious affiliations as they see fit, and believe that Christians should be free to decide what being a Christian means to them? I'm closed-minded because I don't think there's any one concrete definition of "Christian", that it's a personal decision each person should make for herself? I'm closed-minded because I accept all of the different denominations and peoples defining themselves of Christian as Christian and don't think any one group has the one true answer? I'm closed-minded because I don't think any group should be able to dictate to others who aren't members of their organization how to define themselves? I'm closed-minded because I believe an organization can accept others who don't strictly meet the definition?

Yet your telling me I'm not a Christian because I don't meet your specific definition, and that I'm a liar if I continue to make that claim doesn't make you closed-minded. Your belief that people who don't meet your specific definition of Christian can't be part of a Christian organization isn't closed-minded.

Being accepting and inclusive is closed-minded, and rejecting and exclusive isn't.

I think you've reversed the definitions there for the purpose of calling me names again.

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...

I know a few Jewish people. I can guarantee you that you're incorrect here. You're either Jewish by birth or by conversion.

*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.

Even by your bizarro definition of lying, I have not been lying here. I was clear in my first post exactly what my religious affiliations are, both of them. I was clear regarding my religious beliefs in my second post. I had no intent to deceive, my words were true, and I didn't leave anybody with a false idea of my belief.

By the way, you might want to check your notes from your debate class. What you've used heer is a textbook No True Scotsman fallacy.

I am a Christian.

[scottstall]

I'd like to point the follwing at both the beginning and very close to the end of this post so that its most likely to be read.

As for stating you were lying above, you are correct. I made a mistake, and I apologize, looking in review you said "Unitarian Christian" and those that actually cared to would have looked up the term's and come to the valid conclusion.

The only way that could be construed as a lie by my definition is by the listener's laziness, at which point, its the listener choosing not to understand and the only remediation being the speaker going way out of the way to make themselves understood.

I do disagree on several points though. Theres no true definition of what a "good Christian" is, but I believe more than 50% of christians would agree that a requirement to being christian would be acknowledging Jesus as the messiah. When people believe different things but hold the same label to themselves, it's rather common to adjust the definition of that label to be the common ground. I believe in this case, the best and most useful common ground you can find is "A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the messiah."

Hence, a practicing Jew is not a Christian as a practicing Jew does not believe Jesus was the messiah. Ask your Jewish friends if a significant number of Jews believe that Jesus was a prophet, therefore speaking god's word. That was the point I was trying to make with the Rabbi statement. I've read in several places that Muslim's believe that Jesus was a prophet, but that Mohamed was the messiah. Since Jesus wasn't the messiah, they aren't Christian.

A good deal of Jesus's teachings is summed up in his version of the Golden Rule. "Love others as you'd have them love unto you." I believe is how it goes. Almost everyone believes in this, and as you stated you believe that theres a great deal of error in the bible. In theory, everyone that believes that could say that they are a Christian, by dismissing just about everything, all the miracles, all the stuff everyone else said, in any translation, except what they think Jesus taught, and they can interpret that at their will. Most atheists, should they look at what Jesus taught, will agree with the ideas he had on how to treat other people. Are they Christians now?

I believe in defining words by merit of their definition, and I see alot more merit in my definition than yours. In point of fact, I'm going to hold to that definition until it doesn't apply to the significant majority of people describing themselves as Christians. Maybe there is no right and wrong definition for a Christian, but there are better and worse, and I feel I've found a better one than yours. I've supplied reasoning for why. 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, I'm still going to come to the conclusion that my definition is better. The point of a label such as Christianity, is to distinguish people by a common belief or action. This is why what I state doesn't fall under the scotsman fallacy, in the classic example of the scotsman fallacy there's two different beliefs of what a scotsman is, neither is more common really, and neither is horridly wrong. One's talking more about an attitude, another's talking about where someone was raised.

As for my definition of lying, please do not misrepresent me. That word "letting" is very important. If they walk away with a misunderstanding and you don't know they're misunderstanding something, then you aren't lying. You didn't let them walk away with a misunderstanding. I prefer my definition of lying because of it's merit, people who participate in a deception by witnessing it and not acting to correct it, are lying. A liar would be anyone who doesn't do their part to not let a lie perpetuate. Ever accused someone of lying because they gave you just enough true information to make you think one thing, lead you to think something, then suddenly stopped? Maybe there was no intent to manipulate, maybe there is literally no reason for them to do so. Maybe they just got tired of representing sides of a disagreement, and so decided not to cover the other side that leads to a balanced understanding. By my definition, though they spoke only truth, had no intent to lie to begin with, and had no intent to lie at all really, they are lying, because they know your walking away with a misunderstanding. They've done you a disservice.

Oh, as for the scotsman fallacy, the reason its a problem is there really is no better way to describe what a scotsman is. However, I have outlined the problems with your definition of a Christian (athesits can be Christians and atheists at the same time), and why mine has at least a bit more merit. It doesn't apply, at least from my understanding of the situation.

Just to clarify another assumption you may have of me, I don't believe that lying is wrong in every case, especially by my own definition. Jew's in the holocaust that stated they renounced their religion, or lied about their race, but actually kept on practicing and were born to Jewish people, while they did lie by my definition and yours, didn't do anything wrong. They may not be good Jew's as according to other Jewish people, but they did nothing that would violate an objective morality. And alot of times if a deception gets played out in front of you, it's best to just let it happen as its not your place to step in. I tend to step in when it will more than likely cause harm. But exceptions are made almost daily nowadays. It'd probably be more apt to say I try to shutdown what I view as a deception when I feel like it. Since I have a strong conscience, that tends to happen alot especially when regarding those I view as friends, but sometimes I'm just tired, and ultimately its up to the listener to figure when he's being lied to, not of the spectators to tell the listener.

Repeated so its noticed...

As for stating you were lying above, you are correct. I made a mistake, and I apologize, looking in review you said "Unitarian Christian" and those that actually cared to would have looked up the term's and come to the valid conclusion of what they mean when put together. Especially with the help of the article you linked about if the UUA is a christian organization.

One of my friends, one I value very much artfully dodges the labeling issue when people ask what religion he is. If someone asked him if he's Christian he'll go "No. I'm Kasey [blanking his last name]" and he'll explain if you actually want to know what he believes, you'll get to know him. According to your definition he's a Christian, as he believes most everything Jesus taught. He also believes there is no higher power, that we are that higher power, we chose to fracture ourselves from eachother, and we'll go back to eachother after death, and maybe choose to do it again. It's very similar to the beliefs of buddhism in a religious context, as I've come to understand it, except that he doesn't believe existence in this physical world is undesireable.

I deal with the labeling issue by stating that they would probably label me as an atheist leaning agnostic, and that I choose to believe what I believe not only because theres proof for it (or a good deal of non-proof for anything else and it's better to say "I don't know" when theres no real evidence as to the nature of god), and that I also believe in believing what you have to to get through the day.

*continues on into forever...*

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by scottstall

I do disagree on several points though. Theres no true definition of what a "good Christian" is, but I believe more than 50% of christians would agree that a requirement to being christian would be acknowledging Jesus as the messiah.

I'd guess that more than 50% of Christians believe that baptism is necessary to being a Christian, yet there are people who identify as Christian who haven't been baptised. Catholics and several Protestant denominations baptise through sprinkling at birth, while a relative minority believe that only full immersion is true baptism. Some believe in an age of responsibility, while others don't.

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, but I respect the beliefs of those that do. I expect the same respect to be granted to me.

When people believe different things but hold the same label to themselves, it's rather common to adjust the definition of that label to be the common ground. I believe in this case, the best and most useful common ground you can find is "A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the messiah."

So if a person believed that Jesus was the messiah, but was never Baptised, never attended church, prayed, asked God for forgiveness, read her Bible, took communion, made a public declaration of faith, studied or understood the teachings of Jesus, followed his teachings, tried to emulate Jesus in how he dealt with others, she'd still be a Christian?

The nature of Jesus is one thing that was widely disputed among early Christians, and this is still debated today. The issue of baptism is debated. How to confess sins and ask forgiveness. How often one should take communion and what form it takes. The nature of angels and other created beings. Whether there are saints, and what role they should play. How the Old Testament should be interpreted. Whether works are required for salvation.

"Christian" isn't one thing, it's a dozen things, a hundred things, and everyone is going to have a slightly differing idea of what those things are. When a person uses the word "Christian" do describe herself, there are some things we might assume are probably true about her, but without knowing her specific denomination and belief system as it relates, we can't know her specific stance on any of these issues.

Ask your Jewish friends if a significant number of Jews believe that Jesus was a prophet, therefore speaking god's word. That was the point I was trying to make with the Rabbi statement.

Answer [paraphrased]: No. Among Orthodox Jews, Jesus is seen as a false prophet because he claimed to be the messiah, but did not meet the criteria, among other things, freeing the Jews. He believed this to be a standard belief among all the major flavors of Judaism. There is a smaller group, messianic Jews who do believe that Jesus is the Messiah of the old testament, but they are a tiny minority. When I asked him if these people were still considered Jews despite having a different belief regarding Jesus, he said of course they were.

Most atheists, should they look at what Jesus taught, will agree with the ideas he had on how to treat other people. Are they Christians now?

I would think that being atheist and Christian at the same time would not be possible, but I'd be willing to listen to why a person who doesn't believe in God would identify as Christian.

I believe in defining words by merit of their definition,

Even words like "lier" and "closed-minded"? You seem to have gone to a great deal of trouble customizing definitions for those words.

I see alot more merit in my definition than yours.

Given that I haven't presented my definition, I'm surprised that you're able to do this. So lets see what we can find from unbiased sources:

Christian

A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as Christ.

It goes on from there, but I think that's a pretty good general definition. That's the Wikipedia entry. It lists a lot of different definitions there, clarifications and exceptions. You might want to try the link to Liberal Christians.

Let's check out Dictionary.com:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
Chris‧tian  /ˈkrɪstʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kris-chuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11. a male given name.

Hmm. I seem to qualify on all those that arbe bold. I'm not a Protestant, though, so number nine is out, but it eliminates the Catholics, too.

Next definition:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
Chris·tian (krschn) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "Christian" [P]
n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Both of these.

How about Religious Tolerance:

There are probably thousands of different definitions of the word "Christian." We have chosen the same inclusive definition as is used by public opinion pollsters and government census offices: A "Christian" includes any group or individual who seriously, devoutly, prayerfully describes themselves as Christian. Under this definition, Christianity includes: Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, United Church members, even a small minority of Unitarian Universalists, etc.

Now that's a definition I can get behind.

In point of fact, I'm going to hold to that definition until it doesn't apply to the significant majority of people describing themselves as Christians.

The definitions I've been using apply to the significant majority of people describing themselves as Christians, and mine includes a larger majority than yours does. In fact, my definition applies to very close to 100% of people identifying as Christian.

Maybe there is no right and wrong definition for a Christian, but there are better and worse, and I feel I've found a better one than yours. I've supplied reasoning for why. 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, I'm still going to come to the conclusion that my definition is better.

Mine describes the vast majority, approaching 100%, and nobody who doesn't identify as Christian. How about that.

The point of a label such as Christianity, is to distinguish people by a common belief or action.

Exactly. Like the definitions I supply above.

This is why what I state doesn't fall under the scotsman fallacy, in the classic example of the scotsman fallacy there's two different beliefs of what a scotsman is, neither is more common really, and neither is horridly wrong. One's talking more about an attitude, another's talking about where someone was raised.

Uh, no. The No True Scotsman fallacy is exactly what you're doing. How about an explanation:

No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking. It refers to an argument which takes this form:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Let's put this in terms of this thread (paraphrased):

Argument: No Christian doesn't believe in the deity of Jesus.
Reply: I'm a Christian, and I don't believe that.
Rebuttal: Yes, but no true Christian doesn't believe in the deity of Jesus.

As for my definition of lying, please do not misrepresent me. That word "letting" is very important. If they walk away with a misunderstanding and you don't know they're misunderstanding something, then you aren't lying. You didn't let them walk away with a misunderstanding.

Ah. Well, I can't read minds, so unless I quiz them, there's no way for me to know what they did or didn't understand, so I guess I'm off the hook here.

Well, except that I'm letting them walk away (I'm a pacifist, so I'm not going to force them to stay) and they've misunderstood me, so I'm still a liar by your definition.

I prefer my definition of lying because of it's merit, people who participate in a deception by witnessing it and not acting to correct it, are lying.

So, there has to be deception involved. I thought that's what I was saying.

A liar would be anyone who doesn't do their part to not let a lie perpetuate.

And of course, I've never done that in regards to my religious beliefs, not in this thread, and not in any other context, because when I say that I'm a Christian, that is the truth.

Let's go back to our unbiased sources for this:

Liar:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
li‧ar  /ˈlaɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who tells lies.
[Origin: bef. 950; ME lier, OE lēogere. See lie1, -ar1]

They're all pretty much like that, so I'll just post the one.

However, I have outlined the problems with your definition of a Christian (athesits can be Christians and atheists at the same time), and why mine has at least a bit more merit. It doesn't apply, at least from my understanding of the situation.

Textbook case.

One of my friends, one I value very much artfully dodges the labeling issue when people ask what religion he is. If someone asked him if he's Christian he'll go "No. I'm Kasey [blanking his last name]" and he'll explain if you actually want to know what he believes, you'll get to know him. According to your definition he's a Christian, as he believes most everything Jesus taught.

No, that does not fit my definition, as he does not identify as Christian. Unlike you, I'm not trying to tell others what to call themselves. I see that you respect your friend's choice. It would be nice if you respected mine.

[_God_]

"Ahem." (Crash of thunder, etc.)
(See my signature)

I am equally repulsed by those who "know" there is no afterlife, and those who "know" their religion is the only correct one. Mormons are particularly guilty of this, to the point of having regular meetings in which this is basically all that is said. Many others run a close second.

No one living knows what happens after we die, so I'd prefer that all proselytizers STFU and leave me alone unless I request to hear what they have to say.

[scottstall]

*sigh*

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

lie1  /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly‧ing.

–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

So if a person believed that Jesus was the messiah, but was never Baptised, never attended church, prayed, asked God for forgiveness, read her Bible, took communion, made a public declaration of faith, studied or understood the teachings of Jesus, followed his teachings, tried to emulate Jesus in how he dealt with others, she'd still be a Christian?

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

"I'd guess that more than 50% of Christians believe that baptism is necessary to being a Christian, yet there are people who identify as Christian who haven't been baptised. Catholics and several Protestant denominations baptise through sprinkling at birth, while a relative minority believe that only full immersion is true baptism. Some believe in an age of responsibility, while others don't."

"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.)

[Gilda]

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?

Sure, because that's a lot closer to what I've been saying. By that definition, I've not been lying because when I say that I'm a Christian, that is a true statement. What I think is bizarro is your making a lie something that occurs in the listener's mind rather than an aspect of the speaker's words and intent.

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.

Good for you. Neither do I.

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.

I was disagreeing with your meaning of the word. I didn't mock the spelling.

Wanting respect for your beliefs by acting childish is not a good way to get it.

Is this a common tactic of yours, name-calling in a debate?

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.

It was a hypothetical. That's not anywhere close to my belief system.

I don't really care if you call yourself a Christian,

Really? You seem to care enough to keep posting in this thread and telling me I'm not a Christian.

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

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?

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.

I notice you disregarded all of my sources that list definitions of "Christian."

Wikipedia: A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as Christ.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Chris‧tian  /ˈkrɪstʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kris-chuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11. a male given name.

American Heritage Dictionary:
Chris·tian (krschn) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "Christian" [P]
n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Religious Tolerance:

There are probably thousands of different definitions of the word "Christian." We have chosen the same inclusive definition as is used by public opinion pollsters and government census offices: A "Christian" includes any group or individual who seriously, devoutly, prayerfully describes themselves as Christian. Under this definition, Christianity includes: Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, United Church members, even a small minority of Unitarian Universalists, etc.

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."

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.

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.

If meanings are slightly different, as is very common, people will likely have no problem communicating.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

(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.

Textbook irony there. Oh, to be specific, I mean dramatic or situational irony, not verbal irony.

You sound like the kind of person that doesn't like stepping into traditional churches,

I was raised Catholic, attending Sunday Mass for most of my first 18 years. I briefly attended a Metropolitan Community Church, which is a conservative Protestant church, and eventually found the UUA to be the best fit for my spiritual beliefs. Make of that what you will.

or talking to people that believe your going to hell.

Duh.

You sure don't seem to like to be told your not a Christian.

Does the word "Duh" mean anything to you?

Then again, you did say that baptists don't think catholics are christians...

Nope. Never said that. I think maybe you repeated this statement (I won't call it a lie, even though it's a false statement) three or four times now, despite my never having said what you keep attributing to me.

Do remember, majority doesn't mean 50%+, it can mean 30% when noone else agrees to anything at all.

No. A majority is more than half. The largest proportion when there is no majority is a plurality.

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)

Well, that's either a bad misunderstanding of what I wrote or a distortion. You might want to consider not stating what my beliefs are. You're doing a very poor job of it.

"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." "That" refers to a belief that one's religious belief system is the one and only true belief system, and I do not believe that mine is the one and only true one. I don't think I or anybody has enough information to truly know one way or the other whether there even is any one true path to salvation, and if there is, which one it is, and I certainly don't have the knowledge or authority to impose my ideas on anybody else.

I snipped out a lot of the detailed discussion of my examples because the exact nature of those wasn't the point. The point was that there are many elements that constitute what it means to be a Christian, and it's very common to dispute the nature of those elements, but having a dispute does not mean that group A is Christian and group B is not.

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 fit the definition cited for every neutral source I cited, and if you look at the Religious Tolerance introduction there, the definition used by the US census and polling professionals. Let's use your criteria:

"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"

The definition I use when I identify myself as Christian "encompasses most of the people describing themselves as Christians and not a good deal of people that don't describe themselves as Christians."

In fact, my definition, by your stated criteria is a better one because it encompasses very nearly all of the people describing themselves as Christians and none of the people that don't. I not only meet your criteria, I exceed them and even approach 100% on both.

Sure, you have the right to believe something wrong, and to say something wrong, and to be called on it at every opportunity.

Sure. I'm not wrong when I call myself a Christian, though. I am both correct and honest when I say that.

You've already stated or at least it appeared to state, because stating isn't saying anymore,

I assume you're attributing this to me again? When I object to you attributing things to me that I did not say, that's because I didn't say them, and the way you're presenting them is either distorted or an outright invention.

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.

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.

Furthermore, you have the right to say "oh, you agree with Jesus and how he treats people? Your a Christian!"

Nope, never said this, and it is in fact the opposite of my core belief system. This is just another of your restatements of things you've attributed to me.

and when they contradict your definition of what a Christian is, they have to respect your right to call them a Christian.

Nope. Again, this would be the opposite of my belief system, and again, it's something you attributed to me that I did not say.

It's easy to knock down those straw men after you set them up, isn't it?

I don't feel like explaining the concept of objective morality to you at the moment, but I recommend you look into it.

No need. I understand objective morality and don't believe there is such a thing.

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?

No, that had never occurred to me.

But you don't care about what stranger's think or hear. Is that what you said?

For the most part. I think we owe others basic respect and courtesy in a public place, but otherwise, no, I don't care if strangers misinterpret what I say.

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. I would appreciate it if you'd stop saying I'm not a Christian, though.

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.

Have I advocated doing that? No, this is another straw man you've set up for yourself.

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?

If you are referring to me, I'm a she, and I'm pretty sure that, with the exception of the Ladies Lounge, anybody is allowed to post in any thread available to them. This includes Christians posting in a thread about atheism and morality.

I responded because it was a thread regarding the relationship of religious belief to morality, and I had a religious viewpoint to share. You'll notice I wasn't antagonistic and didn't provoke a negative reaction in anybody but you, when you took it upon yourself to attempt to prove to . . . whoever that I'm not a Christian.

Admittedly, telling someone they're not Christian is a touchy subject,

I refer you to my previous "Duh."

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.)

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.

[opus123]

Originally Posted by scottstall

Lying to me is letting the other person walk away with a misunderstanding.

But you didn't walk away from this thread, therefore you were not lied to.

Jonathan

[Intense1]

I, as an evangelical Christian missionary, find it funny that in a thread that it titled "'Why do atheists get so outspoken and militant?' In this thread I do just that", that the most discussed subject is the deity of Jesus....

My question to the OP'er is this - do you believe that there is no God? Are you in the Madelyn Murray O'Hare group that absolutely denies God?

If so, how can you prove a negative?

[Lizra]

Yeah....I don't think I'm ever going to be asked to swear an oath on a bible....but if I was, I would like to say....with a pleasant, happy smile....

"I am an atheist, I don't need the bible part"

...then quickly hold my hand up to take the oath. Just be honest and matter of fact....not believing in a god is like breathing....so what's the big deal. Truth! truth!

[timothy4testes]

i didnt read the whole thread but athiests are just like bible folk they think whoever thinks differently from them are wrong

[scottstall]

Originally Posted by opus123

Lying to me is letting the other person walk away with a misunderstanding.

But you didn't walk away from this thread, therefore you were not lied to.

Jonathan

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."

Originally Posted by Intense1

I, as an evangelical Christian missionary, find it funny that in a thread that it titled "'Why do atheists get so outspoken and militant?' In this thread I do just that", that the most discussed subject is the deity of Jesus....

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

Sure, because that's a lot closer to what I've been saying. By that definition, I've not been lying because when I say that I'm a Christian, that is a true statement. What I think is bizarro is your making a lie something that occurs in the listener's mind rather than an aspect of the speaker's words and intent.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

lie1  /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly‧ing.

–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

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.)

Originally Posted by Gilda

Good for you. Neither do I.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

It was a hypothetical. That's not anywhere close to my belief system.

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.

Originally Posted by scottstall

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.

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

Originally Posted by Gilda

To many Protestants, Catholics aren't Christians, no ifs ands or buts. I prefer to let each person and each group define themselves.

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

Originally Posted by Gilda

Textbook irony there. Oh, to be specific, I mean dramatic or situational irony, not verbal irony.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

I was raised Catholic, attending Sunday Mass for most of my first 18 years. I briefly attended a Metropolitan Community Church, which is a conservative Protestant church, and eventually found the UUA to be the best fit for my spiritual beliefs. Make of that what you will.

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."

Originally Posted by Gilda

Does the word "Duh" mean anything to you?

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..."

Originally Posted by Gilda

Nope. Never said that. I think maybe you repeated this statement (I won't call it a lie, even though it's a false statement) three or four times now, despite my never having said what you keep attributing to me

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

No. A majority is more than half. The largest proportion when there is no majority is a plurality.

Ahh, thankyou.

Originally Posted by Gilda

Well, that's either a bad misunderstanding of what I wrote or a distortion. You might want to consider not stating what my beliefs are. You're doing a very poor job of it.

"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." "That" refers to a belief that one's religious belief system is the one and only true belief system, and I do not believe that mine is the one and only true one. I don't think I or anybody has enough information to truly know one way or the other whether there even is any one true path to salvation, and if there is, which one it is, and I certainly don't have the knowledge or authority to impose my ideas on anybody else.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

I snipped out a lot of the detailed discussion of my examples because the exact nature of those wasn't the point. The point was that there are many elements that constitute what it means to be a Christian, and it's very common to dispute the nature of those elements, but having a dispute does not mean that group A is Christian and group B is not.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

I fit the definition cited for every neutral source I cited, and if you look at the Religious Tolerance introduction there, the definition used by the US census and polling professionals. Let's use your criteria:

"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"

Originally Posted by Gilda

The definition I use when I identify myself as Christian "encompasses most of the people describing themselves as Christians and not a good deal of people that don't describe themselves as Christians."

In fact, my definition, by your stated criteria is a better one because it encompasses very nearly all of the people describing themselves as Christians and none of the people that don't. I not only meet your criteria, I exceed them and even approach 100% on both.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

Sure. I'm not wrong when I call myself a Christian, though. I am both correct and honest when I say that.

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,"

Originally Posted by Gilda

I assume you're attributing this to me again? When I object to you attributing things to me that I did not say, that's because I didn't say them, and the way you're presenting them is either distorted or an outright invention

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!"

Originally Posted by Gilda

Nope, never said this, and it is in fact the opposite of my core belief system. This is just another of your restatements of things you've attributed to me.

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."

Originally Posted by Gilda

Nope. Again, this would be the opposite of my belief system, and again, it's something you attributed to me that I did not say.

It's easy to knock down those straw men after you set them up, isn't it?

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

No need. I understand objective morality and don't believe there is such a thing.

You, earlier:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Nobody has a monopoly on morality. Regardless of where the idea originates, a person who doesn't steal from others is behaving in a moral way. Whether that comes from a pragmatic analysis of costs and benefits, a belief in the Ten Commandments, or the Confucian code of ethics, it's a moral belief and a moral action.

"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?"

Originally Posted by Gilda

No, that had never occurred to me

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

For the most part. I think we owe others basic respect and courtesy in a public place, but otherwise, no, I don't care if strangers misinterpret what I say.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

No. I would appreciate it if you'd stop saying I'm not a Christian, though.

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."

Originally Posted by Gilda

Have I advocated doing that? No, this is another straw man you've set up for yourself.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilda

The "Old man in the sky" conception of God is one that's taken from artistic and pop culture representations of the Christian God, and isn't actually a core Christian concept, though many Christians believe this due to being one hour a week worshippers.

[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]

Originally Posted by Gilda

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.

Ok. Finish this up.

Originally Posted by Gilda

If you are referring to me, I'm a she, and I'm pretty sure that, with the exception of the Ladies Lounge, anybody is allowed to post in any thread available to them. This includes Christians posting in a thread about atheism and morality.

I responded because it was a thread regarding the relationship of religious belief to morality, and I had a religious viewpoint to share. You'll notice I wasn't antagonistic and didn't provoke a negative reaction in anybody but you, when you took it upon yourself to attempt to prove to . . . whoever that I'm not a Christian.

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, "

Originally Posted by Gilda

I refer you to my previous "Duh."

You have no idea how much contempt I perceive in that. You want respect, treat others with it. Or how about mathew 19:19,

Originally Posted by Jesus replied,

Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.

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:

Originally Posted by Gilda

The "Old man in the sky" conception of God is one that's taken from artistic and pop culture representations of the Christian God, and isn't actually a core Christian concept, though many Christians believe this due to being one hour a week worshippers.

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.