Ugh, Christian intervention @ my house tonight! Live!

[IronWing]

He gets to decide what he accepts as elements of the category "Christian," but he does not dictate what others will accept as elements of that same category. If he wants to have a meaninful conversation that involves usage of that term, he will need to either convince his conversation partner to accept his categorization, or at the very least come to a mutual understanding with that partner about how that term is going to be used. He does not get to assume his categorization is ubiquitous.

He doesn't necessarily get invited to many parties with his approach.

 

[Malak]

What are your credentials? Do you speak Greek, Latin, and/or Hebrew? Have you taken any theological courses?

The bible was written in dead languages, nobody speaks it and few can actually read it. Being able to translate a bible is not the kind of credentials necessary to decipher what is and isn't Christian.

The fact that you could even entertain the idea that you were the arbiter of who is and is not chrstian displays an Absolute narcissism. It's depressingly common narcissism among christians, though.

I had hoped the person I responded to could follow my line of reasoning, but I'm not surprised at all that it went right over your head. I'm just going to assume from this point forward any discussion with you is entirely based on emotion, yours, and is entirely futile.

 

[Malak]

He gets to decide what he accepts as elements of the category "Christian," but he does not dictate what others will accept as elements of that same category. If he wants to have a meaninful conversation that involves usage of that term, he will need to either convince his conversation partner to accept his categorization, or at the very least come to a mutual understanding with that partner about how that term is going to be used. He does not get to assume his categorization is ubiquitous.

You are absolutely correct 100%. My normal debate partner actually quite often requires me to define terms periodically through discussion. My point, however, is that you imply that I cannot define a term.

 

[preslove]

The bible was written in dead languages, nobody speaks it and few can actually read it. Being able to translate a bible is not the kind of credentials necessary to decipher what is and isn't Christian.

Actually, one definition of a "renaissance scholar" is someone who can read all three languages so that you can read the bible in the original.

MANY people can read all three languages. THESE are the people who I go to to learn about christianity. Not some idiot on ATOT who identifie as a christrian, but knows fuck all about his religion.

I had hoped the person I responded to could follow my line of reasoning, but I'm not surprised at all that it went right over your head. I'm just going to assume from this point forward any discussion with you is entirely based on emotion, yours, and is entirely futile.

I am confident that I know far more about your religion than you do. I find the history of christianity pretty fascinating and have read quite a few books on it, taken courses on it, and listened to lecture series by scholars in the field. Your "line of reasoning" is pretty pathetic and pales in consideration to the people I get my information from.

Here's a hint: Actual scholars of christianity don't blithely dismiss the No True Scotsman fallacy. Only ignorant dogma believers do.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are absolutely correct 100%. My normal debate partner actually quite often requires me to define terms periodically through discussion. My point, however, is that you imply that I cannot define a term.

You can define terms however you want. You do not get to assume that your definition is generally accepted, however, which you implicitly did when you purported to decide for someone else that certain people were not "true Christians". As it appears, your definition of "Christian" is more narrow that is generally accepted, which is typical of most Christians and unsurprising.

In a general, and objectively speaking, individuals are categorized according to their self-identification. If 90% of people self-identifying as Christian began to ritualistically sacrifice feeder mice as a tenet of their religion, it would not be unreasonable to describe that ritualistic sacrifice as a Christian practice, despite how obviously bizarre the idea appears in the context of ordinary, present Christian beliefs. I expect you to disagree with this because you have strong beliefs about the the core elements of Christian religion, but those are beside the point, and in fact obscuring your objectivity. Christian is as Christian does, as it were.

 

[IronWing]

Actually, one definition of a "renaissance scholar" is someone who can read all three languages so that you can read the bible in the original.

MANY people can read all three languages. THESE are the people who I go to to learn about christianity. Not some idiot on ATOT who identifie as a christrian, but knows fuck all about his religion.



I am confident that I know far more about your religion than you do. I find the history of christianity pretty fascinating and have read quite a few books on it, taken courses on it, and listened to lecture series by scholars in the field. Your "line of reasoning" is pretty pathetic and pales in consideration to the people I get my information from.

Here's a hint: Actual scholars of christianity don't blithely dismiss the No True Scotsman fallacy. Only ignorant dogma believers do.

The history of Christianity can be the subject of reasonably objective study and analysis. One can read what various authors have scrawled over the centuries and discuss changes and commonality in the outward expression of the faith and can certainly discuss the political, social, and economic transformations in Christiandom.

The faith itself, however, can not be the subject of objective study and analysis. Faith is 100% in the individual believer's head and no where else. A particular sect can publish doctrine until the cows come but it doesn't really get at the faith of any individual.

 

[Malak]

This will be my last response for reasons I have already stated, expect nothing further.

Actually, one definition of a "renaissance scholar" is someone who can read all three languages so that you can read the bible in the original.

The bible was never originally written in Latin, and some theorize the original was never Greek either. In point one I've shown what little you actually know about Bible translation, and in point two I show something probably few in this entire forum know. I actually do know more than you assume and pretend.

I am confident that I know far more about your religion than you do.

Your confidence is entirely the root of your problem and reason why I won't respond any more. You don't even know what my religion is, you can't define it, and your limited involvement that you think is so vast hasn't taught you a single thing. Every single one of your assumptions has thus far been inaccurate so I expect any further responses from you won't even be worth reading.

 

[Malak]

You can define terms however you want. You do not get to assume that your definition is generally accepted, however, which you implicitly did when you purported to decide for someone else that certain people were not "true Christians". As it appears, your definition of "Christian" is more narrow that is generally accepted, which is typical of most Christians and unsurprising.

It is not by any means a stretch to say that not everyone who calls themselves Christian is in fact Christian, so saying such is not incorrect. And if my narrow definition is typical of the people that define themselves Christian, then what is the problem? I also don't recall ever defining the term, in this thread or any other, even though this fallacy has come up several times.

In a general, and objectively speaking, individuals are categorized according to their self-identification.

In general, and objectively speaking, things are categorized by their qualities. It should not be any different with people. I'm not arguing how people do it now, I'm arguing how it should logically be done.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It is not by any means a stretch to say that not everyone who calls themselves Christian is in fact Christian, so saying such is not incorrect.

To be sure, but it is unreasonable to claim that people are not Christian because they behave in manners that you do not want to associate with yourself. This is why the charge of No True Scotsman is valid.

And if my narrow definition is typical of the people that define themselves Christian, then what is the problem?

The problem is that while the narrowness of the definition is common among Christians, the definitions themselves are largely incongruent. Witness the virulent disagreements among Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, etc.

I also don't recall ever defining the term, in this thread or any other, even though this fallacy has come up several times.

That is another problem. You made claims as though a definition were already established and generally accepted, but it was not.

In general, and objectively speaking, things are categorized by their qualities.

"Self-identifies as X" is a quality, and arguably the most important one in this instance.

It should not be any different with people. I'm not arguing how people do it now, I'm arguing how it should logically be done.

For those who are not Christian, the behavior of people that identify as Christians generally defines what the term means. I'll stipulate that there are nuances among the general category "Christian" which we can distinguish, however, such that it might be reasonable to say that one type of Christian is different from another, but it is not for any one person to state categorically that certain groups of people are not Christians without first establishing a general agreement on minimally sufficient conditions to be so categorized, or excluded from that category.

 

[Kadarin]

Here's one of the problems that I have with Christianity:

It's no longer about whatever message Jesus had for his followers, but instead has become self important and self-serving.

 

[Pocatello]

youth group = group of people with depression desperately seeking attention

Almost like ATOT, but we have people of all ages here.

 

[alkemyst]

Almost like ATOT, but we have people of all ages here.

Most of us are men dawg.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

To be sure, but it is unreasonable to claim that people are not Christian because they behave in manners that you do not want to associate with yourself. This is why the charge of No True Scotsman is valid.

The problem is that while the narrowness of the definition is common among Christians, the definitions themselves are largely incongruent. Witness the virulent disagreements among Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, etc.


That is another problem. You made claims as though a definition were already established and generally accepted, but it was not.


"Self-identifies as X" is a quality, and arguably the most important one in this instance.


For those who are not Christian, the behavior of people that identify as Christians generally defines what the term means. I'll stipulate that there are nuances among the general category "Christian" which we can distinguish, however, such that it might be reasonable to say that one type of Christian is different from another, but it is not for any one person to state categorically that certain groups of people are not Christians without first establishing a general agreement on minimally sufficient conditions to be so categorized, or excluded from that category.

This makes it fairly clear what a Christians is.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3&version=NIV

 

[TheVrolok]

Here's one of the problems that I have with Christianity:

It's no longer about whatever message Jesus had for his followers, but instead has become self important and self-serving.

To be fair, that's Catholicism, not Christianity. The less crazy non-denominational Christians that I know are entirely about whatever message Jesus had for his followers, and little else.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This makes it fairly clear what a Christians is.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3&version=NIV

That makes it clear what you believe a Christian is. That's all well and good, and generally it would be a good working definition. "Christian" is a word in human language like any other, however, so its definition is not true or false, but rather it is useful or unuseful, common or uncommon.

 

[TheVrolok]

That makes it clear what you believe a Christian is. That's all well and good, and generally it would be a good working definition. "Christian" is a word in human language like any other, however, so its definition is not true or false, but rather it is useful or unuseful, common or uncommon.

I know ATOT loves to argue semantics, but really John 3:16 is, at the most boiled down level, what defines a Christian. That's not really a debatable point. Christians, at the very beginning, believe Christ is the son of God, etc. etc. All other beliefs are predicated upon that first belief. Unless you're really going to argue that all words are nothing more than components of a human language and therefore have no innate meaning whatsoever (which, in THEORY I can understand), then there's no point in discussing anything practically.

 

[IronWing]

Here's one of the problems that I have with Christianity:

It's no longer about whatever message Jesus had for his followers, but instead has become self important and self-serving.

Holy Moly! The pope digs James Brown!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I know ATOT loves to argue semantics, but really John 3:16 is, at the most boiled down level, what defines a Christian.

As I already stipulated, it is generally a good working definition, and one used frequently.

That's not really a debatable point.

All definitions are debatable or, if you prefer, negotiable.

Christians, at the very beginning, believe Christ is the son of God, etc. etc. All other beliefs are predicated upon that first belief.

I agree that this is generally true. My point -- although I realize and admit it is a semantical one -- is that it isn't necessarily true. I know it's somewhat pedantic, but it is relevant to the points made earlier in the thread.

Unless you're really going to argue that all words are nothing more than components of a human language and therefore have no innate meaning whatsoever (which, in THEORY I can understand), then there's no point in discussing anything practically.

That's a non-sequitur, I'm afraid. Discussions can meaningfully proceed when the participating parties agree upon definitions. It's easy to understand if you consider different geometries, for example. Two people can discuss Euclidian geometry once they have both accepted the axioms of Euclidian geometry. If one person is operating under the axioms of hyperbolic geometry, however, they will find areas of strict disagreement.

 

[TheVrolok]

I agree that this is generally true. My point -- although I realize and admit it is a semantical one -- is that it isn't necessarily true. I know it's somewhat pedantic, but it is relevant to the points made earlier in the thread.

I would absolutely agree it's pedantic. Would you please provide an example where this definition is NOT true? Or is it only not true in theory?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

That makes it clear what you believe a Christian is. That's all well and good, and generally it would be a good working definition. "Christian" is a word in human language like any other, however, so its definition is not true or false, but rather it is useful or unuseful, common or uncommon.

I don't think it has anything to do with what I believe.

A Christian is a follower of Christ. What it means to be a follower of Christ is pretty clear from The Book of John, Chapter 3.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I would absolutely agree it's pedantic. Would you please provide an example where this definition is NOT true? Or is it only not true in theory?

Again, definitions are not true or false. They are useful or unuseful, common or uncommon. An instance where the definition in question would not be useful is with regard to these fellows. One could arguably describe the proprietor of that site as a "Christian" insofar as he holds with reverence the principles espoused by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, among other things. It could be said that he follows Christian principles, i.e. the principles and teachings of Christ.

Now, I'm sure there are a mulitude of nits which you could pick about that example, but I'm not really here to debate the merits or coherence of that person's worldview. The point is that he stands as an example of the relatively accessible conceivability of a category of "Christian" which does not fit the generally accepted definition.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't think it has anything to do with what I believe.

It has been clear for a long time that what you think has very little to do with reality.

A Christian is a follower of Christ. What it means to be a follower of Christ is pretty clear from The Book of John, Chapter 2.

Thank you for restating your beliefs again. They were duly noted the first time.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

It has been clear for a long time that what you think has very little to do with reality.


Thank you for restating your beliefs again. They were duly noted the first time.

Once again this has nothing to do with my beliefs.

Who's better than defining what a Jesus follower is, ie. a Christian, than Jesus Himself?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Once again this has nothing to do with my beliefs.

Restating false claims ad nauseum does not increase their truth value.

Who's better than defining what a Jesus follower is, ie. a Christian, than Jesus Himself?

You have obviously failed to grasp the concept of semantics. Jesus doesn't get to decide which definitions are true or false, either. Every individual language user decides for himself the meanings of the words he uses.

Of course, your suggestion is useless in any case, since we do not know what Jesus has to say on the matter. What you cited was simply what the author of John (whoever that was) claimed Jesus said. It is only an unsubstantiated tenet of faith in your worldview that those words ever actually came out of Jesus' mouth.

But I digress.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Restating false claims ad nauseum does not increase their truth value.


You have obviously failed to grasp the concept of semantics. Jesus doesn't get to decide which definitions are true or false, either. Every individual language user decides for himself the meanings of the words he uses.

Of course, your suggestion is useless in any case, since we do not know what Jesus has to say on the matter. What you cited was simply what the author of John (whoever that was) claimed Jesus said. It is only an unsubstantiated tenet of faith in your worldview that those words ever actually came out of Jesus' mouth.

But I digress.

Okay, there is no historical Jesus and if there was one, we have no idea what he said, and even we did, we have no way of identifying his followers.

Does that basically summarize your position?

If it is, I'm not sure exactly what there is to discuss with you.

If not, what is your position/point because I'm not getting it.