02 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaWell that depends on usage. In many cases, Christians who believe in a Trinity would use "God" to mean all three and refer to "The God from which Jesus is son." as "God the Father". Though of course they may also call Jesus "The son of God" so I guess context is all important.
The God from which Jesus is son.
Hard to go much further than that, I suppose.
Of course it is still begging for a meaningful definition of "son".
How about "the entity to which Christians pray"?
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMy typical approach is to ignore such perspectives. I find that the use of the label "Christian" must mean "a significant majority of Christians" or it is useless. This is valid for all labels.
Especially if you consider the myriad non-orthodox perspectives.
I think that not forgetting diversity is different from pedanticly challenging the use of labels. Which one are you doing? 😉
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaTrying to get an answer to what the "accepted Christian definition of God" is. I haven't heard of one but then I'm not a Christian. "The Trinity" doesn't cut it, because what is that? A declarative sentence on the nature of God is what I'm after, not that I expect to get it.
My typical approach is to ignore such perspectives. I find that the use of the label "Christian" must mean "a significant majority of Christians" or it is useless. This is valid for all labels.
I think that not forgetting diversity is different from pedanticly challenging the use of labels. Which one are you doing? 😉
(To be perfectly honest I was just trying to annoy Starrman).
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou're right. I should be annoying him too, as revenge for not commenting on my last post to him on page 12.
Trying to get an answer to what the "accepted Christian definition of God" is. I haven't heard of one but then I'm not a Christian. "The Trinity" doesn't cut it, because what is that? A declarative sentence on the nature of God is what I'm after, not that I expect to get it.
(To be perfectly honest I was just trying to annoy Starrman).
02 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanI have no problem with "people challenging dictionary definitions". However, I must take exception to those who attack those who see no reason not to accept the current dictionary definitions. I hope you can understand that distinction.
You bloody hypocrite. You're quite happy to attack people challenging dictionary definitions, but you have no problem challenging the accepted Christian definition of God?
From my earlier posts:
Just because the dictionary definition is no longer the 'literal definition' doesn't necessarily make it 'wrong'. If you believe that, you could spend the rest of your life 'correcting' all the 'wrong' words. Good luck with that.
There very well may be a day when the commonly accepted definition of 'atheist' reverts back to it's literal meaning. Evidently, that day has yet to come. Until that day comes, there isn't anything 'wrong', 'foolish', 'incorrect', 'ignorant', etc. with someone using the commonly accepted definition. Now, if you want to state that some have found it useful to revert to the literal meaning in an attempt to re-categorize the subject and that that's your preference, that's fine.
Also, I wasn't 'challenging the accepted Christian definition of God.' I was challenging his attempt to refute the existence of God by using such criteria.
Where's the hypocrisy?
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by GastelYou are completely mistaken.
My understanding of "strong atheists" are not that they have anymore belief that there is not a god than "weak atheists", rather that they also see the whole concept of religion as corrupting and bad.
For example, many "strong atheists" would point to the current US government which espouses religious dogma while performing acts that are against that same ...[text shortened]... igion was used as a reasoning force to quell public opposition, but had no actual meaning.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaBah, I shouldn't even still be here, I'm ou o fthis debate, but if you want to take that subject up with me PM me and I'll happily have another go at it.
You're right. I should be annoying him too, as revenge for not commenting on my last post to him on page 12.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by StarrmanYou can just ignore the posts you don't care to comment on. But perhaps that's what you did. 😉
Bah, I shouldn't even still be here, I'm ou o fthis debate, but if you want to take that subject up with me PM me and I'll happily have another go at it.
It's not that important, I just found the conversation interesting.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzPerhaps you should consider that in your attempt to refute the existence of God, all you have done is to attempt to refute the conception of God currently held by the Roman Catholic Church.
You died and made you psychologist general? You know NOTHING of me.
YOU think you can change the definitions of God given by the Pope (who is an authority on God), yet a dictionary writer, who claims to be no authority is inerrant?
Actually, thinking about it, are you attempting to claim that dictionary writers are inerrent?
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaMe too, but I have an unstoppable desire to reply to comments that rebutt mine and I can do without the headache of dealing with certain people.
You can just ignore the posts you don't care to comment on. But perhaps that's what you did. 😉
It's not that important, I just found the conversation interesting.