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.
No, I'm presenting the facts as they are.
By your definition. I'm under no obligation to accept that definition.
Says you.
Again, you are making the mistake of thinking that definitions are true or false. They are not. I have stipulated that the definition you use is very common, but you have absolutely no basis to assert objectively that an Atheist-for-Jesus is not a Christian. All you can say is that he isn't a Christian according to your definition.
My point is valid, and you have said nothing to invalidate it.
Thank you for restating your beliefs, again. They were duly noted the first two times.
You definition is based on the words of somebody who purported to record the words of Jesus.
It isn't relevant.
Of course it is variable. All definitions are subject to redefinition. Do you think that the meanings of words are fixed?
I obviously gave you entirely too much credit. Here's a new definition for "Christian." "Christian": a person that has sex with stuffed animals.
What is the "inherent definition" of the word "sea"? Go on, tell me. If it isn't true that words cannot be inherently defined, then you should be able to tell me that word's "inherent definition." What is the "inherent definition" of the word "mar"? What about "hay"? While you're considering what you think those words' "inherent definitions" are, consider that I did not specify the language in which they are written. It shouldn't matter if the definitions are "inherent," should it?
According to your definition.
Are you a Christian? I can tell you're definitely an idiot, so I'm wondering how strongly that correlates with your religiosity.
This is not a theoretical argument. It is a cold, hard fact that definitions are not objective.
I ALREADY STIPULATED THAT IT WAS SEMANTICAL. That doesn't make it any less true, so I have to wonder why you keep contesting my argument.
Context is absolutely irrelevant. You are introducing it as a red herring because you realize you are wrong and have been arguing like an idiot for the last dozen posts or so.
Absolutely false. This point arose out of an error perpetrated by Malak when he purported to be the authority on what defines a "Christian." As I have clearly shown, no such authority can exist. THAT is the point that you have stupendously failed to grasp.
Nonsense. I am well aware of what the generally accepted definition of the word is, as I acknowledged repeatedly throughout this thread. Please try to read for comprehension you spectacular moron.
You can think it means whatever you want. I know what I meant when said it, and you fit my definition of an idiot quite suitably.
Hey, I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. If you don't like being called and idiot, quit being one.
I would say that definitions must be agreed upon for meaningful and rigorous discussion to ensue. No party is under any strict obligation to accept a particular definition. This is somewhat tangential to the salient point that no single person gets to decide a definition.
That is completely untrue. Anybody can choose to accept or reject any definition for himself. I reject your definition which seems implicitly and arbitrarily to exclude any Christian who behaves in manners which you do not want to associate with yourself. For example, I know many self-described Christians (perhaps you are one) that would exclude the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, claiming they are not Christians because of their behavior. This is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy, arising because of the very differences in definitions we are now discussing.
It is a tricky topic to discuss, to be sure, but it is meaningful in defending the charge of No True Scotsman. Your rebuttal against it can only be that certain classes of people do not fit your definition of "Christian," but as I've pointed out we are under no obligation to accept your definition.
A million people can agree with you and you would all be equally wrong.
You've already trotted out this non-sequitur, and I've already refuted it.
In case you haven't been paying attention, most people "out in the real world" are idiots.
It is a fact that definitions are not true or false. They are rather useful or unuseful, common or uncommon. No angst or rebellion is necessary to present this fact. You can either come to terms with it, or remain ignorant. The choice is yours.
Not strictly, no. You can choose to ignore points made by a person using a definition different from yours, but whether or not that person is "part of the discussion" is debatable, and wholly tangential.
No definitions are invalid, strictly speaking, and I have never suggested that any particular definition is invalid.
And as I stated previously, that is part of the problem.
It may not change your definition. You continue to speak as though there were one "true" definition. There isn't.
Spiffy.
I understand your frustration, because you are fighting a losing battle.
How can I be ignoring common definitions when I can quote myself probably a half a dozen times saying precisely that I realize which definitions are common and generally useful? Have you been paying attention?
I'm sure you would like to stop being embarrassed by your own perpetual wrongness, but we can't always get what we want, now can we?
Every individual language user decides for himself the meanings of the words he uses.
Facebook
Twitter