s2a, sorry for the break. Here's the rest of my response. The rest is on Page 4, post 36. If you are not inconvenienced by classes or such things, I would appreciate if you could reply to it all in one post, so it's not spread out over 6 pages like mine is (and for which I appologize).
Well, that's just stupid. Obviously, I have never presented such a dichotomous claim of/for myself (within RF), so your strawman contritely collapses before it can even be felled by your feathers of fallacious failings.
I know that you have never presented such a dichotomous claim. Yet, people have presented equally dichotomous claims, to which I have taken objection (and then you objected to my objection, so I presented that awesome compariston (not straw man) for clearification). People have said things to the effect of:
I am a Christian.
I believe Christ was a good man, but not the son of God.
This is as dichotomous, in my views, as my earlier example of atheism, and makes the word just as meaningless.
Which word have I "redefined"? Have I even sought to define the word "Christian"? I would not propose such a qualification, but I would reference a few "word sources" if I chose to advance such a qualified definition, like:
Not you, just people in general in this thread, redefining Christian and such.
I hate the resort to the dictionary as some sort of authority on theology. It's not. I therefore won't consider your following argument that references the dictionary.
There is no valid presented dilemma in an argument borne of false choice (an "either-or"), especially when the premise is an invented one bearing a uncanny resemblance to a scarecrow. Atheism does not predeterminably preclude any/all access or understanding as to myth, legend, superstition, or any religious claims of estimable fact. This is where faith-based adherents fail in their protestations and argumentations. Acceptance of a claim (on face value) is not requisite to an understanding of a claim (on it's provisional merits alone).
Your'e right. but atheism DOES preclude a BELIEF in God. It's inherent in its word, which is my point. By taking a word that, at its very most fundamental level, means no God, and applying that to people who DO believe in God, it makes the word meaningless. Similarly, applying "Christian" to sets of beliefs that are in opposition makes that word meaningless.
And so, you are again invited to present your own (unique?) definition in challenge/augmentation, or even [as] replacement, of the referenced sources quoted above.
It's not my definition that matters, so much as the other definitions are wrong.
I've got nothing to argue if it's in context.
That made me rofl.
Or perhaps you might consider concerning yourself more in your own redemption/salvation, and less in the machinations/identities of others...it's just a thought...
Perhaps. But this debate is entirely about that. I can concern my own salvation on my own time, but while I'm here at this place specifically created to debate such a problem with other willing souls, I will.
I said:
As a self-identified "LDS Christian" yourself, I should think you would be especially cautious in disqualifying alternate understandings/revelations within any self-identified Christian sect as being illegitimate, or unworthy.
You said:
Are you playing dumb, or does this simple observation truly escape your understanding?
As an LDS Christian, I would be particularly QUICK to disqualify alternate understandings, since I KNOW that the only prophet on the earth is the head of MY church, and therefore any other revelations are not from God at all.
Oh please. When have I ever run away from a debatable point in RF?
Good point. That was a silly response on my part.
