(December 1, 2012 at 8:56 pm)catfish Wrote: Seriously man, I thought atheists were supposed to be logical thinkers...
I accepted the definition as posted by someone else and you have to play semantics now? Fucking wiki, you are classic... What's even more ironic is that your posted definition only supports my assertion that I'm a Christian (bolded above by me).

Try again?
.

Actually, you will need to try again. You bolded the wrong parts. Let me help:

wikipedia Wrote:A Christian ( pronunciation (help·info)) is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah.[1]

Central to the Christian faith is the gospel, the teaching that humans have hope for salvation through the message and work of Jesus, and particularly, his atoning death on the cross 1Co 15:3 and resurrection 1Co 15:4. Christians also believe Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.[2] Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity ("tri-unity"), a description of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This includes the vast majority of churches in Christianity, although a minority are Non-trinitarians.

The term "Christian" is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like."[3] It is also used as a label to identify people who associate with the cultural aspects of Christianity, irrespective of personal religious beliefs or practices.[4]

So, by the bottom definition you may be a Christian culturally, but if you do not believe Jesus was the son of god, you can't be a Christian in terms of religion.

(December 1, 2012 at 9:15 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 8:56 pm)catfish Wrote: Seriously man, I thought atheists were supposed to be logical thinkers...
I accepted the definition as posted by someone else and you have to play semantics now? Fucking wiki, you are classic... What's even more ironic is that your posted definition only supports my assertion that I'm a Christian (bolded above by me).

Try again?
.

Actually, you will need to try again. You bolded the wrong parts. Let me help:

wikipedia Wrote:A Christian ( pronunciation (help·info)) is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah.[1]

Central to the Christian faith is the gospel, the teaching that humans have hope for salvation through the message and work of Jesus, and particularly, his atoning death on the cross 1Co 15:3 and resurrection 1Co 15:4. Christians also believe Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.[2] Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity ("tri-unity"), a description of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This includes the vast majority of churches in Christianity, although a minority are Non-trinitarians.

The term "Christian" is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like."[3] It is also used as a label to identify people who associate with the cultural aspects of Christianity, irrespective of personal religious beliefs or practices.[4]

So, by the bottom definition you may be a Christian culturally, but if you do not believe Jesus was the son of god, you can't be a Christian in terms of religion.

Cognitive dissonance...

There's no other way to explain why you cannot acknowledge what you had posted...

Just give it up man, you cannot win with flawed logic such as the logic that you exhibit... It's the fucking wiki, anyone can edit it...
.

(December 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm)catfish Wrote: Cognitive dissonance...

There's no other way to explain why you cannot acknowledge what you had posted...

I acknowledge it. You don't have to believe in the trinity to be a Christian, and Chrostianity is indeed based on the teachings of Jesus. You, however, do not acknowledge that Christians see Jesus as the son of god. You can follow the teachings of Jesus, and be a Christian person (used as an adjective describing life philosophy, not a categorization of religious belief), but you aren't a member of the Christian religion if you deny the godship of Jesus. Perhaps it is you who has cognitive dissonance.

(December 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm)catfish Wrote: Just give it up man, you cannot win with flawed logic such as the logic that you exhibit... It's the fucking wiki, anyone can edit it...
.

See that little lock in the top right corner of the page?
Christian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:P...olicy#semi

(December 1, 2012 at 11:21 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm)catfish Wrote: Cognitive dissonance...

There's no other way to explain why you cannot acknowledge what you had posted...

I acknowledge it. You don't have to believe in the trinity to be a Christian, and Chrostianity is indeed based on the teachings of Jesus. You, however, do not acknowledge that Christians see Jesus as the son of god. You can follow the teachings of Jesus, and be a Christian person (used as an adjective describing life philosophy, not a categorization of religious belief), but you aren't a member of the Christian religion if you deny the godship of Jesus. Perhaps it is you who has cognitive dissonance.

Your main flaw is bolded by me above. You need to reconcile the two statements without looking like a fool. The proper course is to admit the mistake and try again...

And I have acknowledged that "some" Christians believe things I do not. I find it amusing that an atheist acts likes he believes that pagan bullshit too.

(December 2, 2012 at 12:39 am)catfish Wrote: Your main flaw is bolded by me above. You need to reconcile the two statements without looking like a fool. The proper course is to admit the mistake and try again...

And I have acknowledged that "some" Christians believe things I do not. I find it amusing that an atheist acts likes he believes that pagan bullshit too.

OOOOhhhh....I get what you mean now. When I said godship, I did not necessarily mean 'part of the trinity' (although I implied it). Is Jesus being the son of god different than the trinity, and how can one be the son of god anyway? I'm just asking these out of curiosity. I have never heard of a Christian who said Jesus wasn't divine. Is it possible for him to be the prophesized messiah without being divine, and is it possible for him to be divine without being part of the trinity? (honest questions, it's okay if you don't know). I admit I misunderstood you before and that you can be considered a Christian (though I bet you'd be denied entry to the True Christian™ Club).

Wait... You did not mean trinity and yet you implied it? Are you being honest with me here?
And I'm all for the "True Christian™" game, so keep trying...
.

(December 2, 2012 at 1:11 am)catfish Wrote: Wait... You did not mean trinity and yet you implied it? Are you being honest with me here?
And I'm all for the "True Christian™" game, so keep trying...
.

Well, what I mean is I kinda meant trinity, but that wasn't what I was thinking of, though it appeared that I was. When I called Jesus the 'son of god' I did not mean to necessitate him as being part of the triniy, but as a seperate entity. However, it may have appeared that I was talking about him in terms of the trinity.

As for the True Christian™ game, I'm not going to keep trying. Do you know why the call the no true Scotsman fallacy a fallacy? Because it's a fallacy. You may hold some minority views in Christianity, but the diference between a 'true' Christian and a Christian is not the difference between an actual Christian and an imitator. What I am saying is that some may say you aren't a True Christian™, but that this doesn't actually exclude you from Christianity, even if it is meant to.

TL;Dr version: I agree, the True Christian™ game is pointless.

You "kinda" meant trinity, but you didn't?!?!?! Seriously man, how hard is it to be honest? Even your explanation above implies trinity, do you understand the triune concept? (one god, three distinct entities)

So, do you often employ fallacies in your discussions? You and others attempted to say that I wasn't a Christian, and now that you've failed, you say the "True Christian™" game is pointless??? Maybe instead of trying to discredit me, you should research what I say?

(December 2, 2012 at 4:28 am)catfish Wrote: You "kinda" meant trinity, but you didn't?!?!?! Seriously man, how hard is it to be honest? Even your explanation above implies trinity, do you understand the triune concept? (one god, three distinct entities)

So, do you often employ fallacies in your discussions? You and others attempted to say that I wasn't a Christian, and now that you've failed, you say the "True Christian™" game is pointless??? Maybe instead of trying to discredit me, you should research what I say?

I think you misunderstood me (which is partially my fault). When I referred to Jesus as divine, that definitely implied the trinity, even though it didn't click that this was the crux of your argument until post #164. It is simply the fact that I have problems understanding how three distinct entities can still be one god that I thought that they weren't, even though there is no way you would have known this from what I typed.

The True Christian™ game is pointless. You are either a Christian or you aren't. If you were a Muslim, you wouldn't simply not be a True Christian™, but you wouldn't be one at all. My difficulty in calling three distinct entities the same god is what led me to forget that divine Jesus = trinity. So, although some may say you aren't a True Chrisitan™, this doesn't actually make you not a Christian. I'm not trying to discredit you; I actually agree, but have poorly communicated that.

So, does this mean we can get back to Gooders point #3 and my critique of why it shouldn't be believed according to what is actually written?