The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Skitt on 27 Feb 2010 14:21 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > Hatunen wrote: >> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >>> Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene >>> Creed. >> >> But you don't have to say it explicitly to be a Christian. > > You have to accept it. You probably have to affirm it at Confirmation > (if you were baptized as an infant) or at Baptism (if baptized as an > adult). > > I wonder whether sjedvnull would be satisfied with, If you're baptized > in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then you're a > Christian. Naah, I was baptized when I was sixteen (for convenience's sake, so as not to disappoint those who were helping our family immigrate into the USA), and for the same reason, I was confirmed in the Lutheran church after arrival in the States. I don't believe in any of that stuff, but what are you gonna do? It made our helpers happy, and no believers were harmed in the process. Why, I even joined the YMCA, as it was our official sponsor. The YMCA had great pool tables and a table tennis facility, so all was not lost. -- Skitt (AmE) What? Me Christian?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 27 Feb 2010 15:48 On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 9:57 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2:29 am, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 12:20 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 9:04 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". > > > > > Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene > > > > Creed. > > > > That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to > > > It may be a different "statement," but it conveys the obvious intent > > of the original statement. > > No, it conveys a different intent, which is obvious if you reread your > original question: "Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the > Nicene Creed? (With or without the _filioque_.)" That's clearly Since it's my question, I think I am entitled to state what its intent was. > asking whether the Creed itself is used, and even goes so far as to > specify a precise difference in wording. In fact, you brought it up "Filioque," in case you don't know, is shorthand for centuries of theological dispute. (I gather, from the sources you cite, that you are some sort of conservative Catholic, the type that in Chicago flocked to the one parish in the city that had dispensation from Rome to say Mass in Latin, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't know anything about such questions.) > because of a word issue: the Nicene Creed contains the word > "catholic". The use of that word, as opposed to some synonym, is > clearly a question of the actual Creed language and not one of > religious dogma. Others in this thread took your question the same > way (see, e.g., Dave Hatunen's response on the subject). > > That said, it's still an incorrect statement by what I understand > "Christian" to mean. That you don't consider some large Christian > denominations (e.g. many Adventists) to be Christian strikes me as a > highly idiosyncratic position that doesn't accord with what the word > "Christian" means in English. I've offered numerous definitions to > try to convey this point. > > Until you offer a definition of "Christian" with an explanation and > evidence as to why it's superior to those generally accepted by > lexicographers, there's not really much left to discuss.- Again I point out, as a linguist, that lexicographers have no special handle on truth, especially as concerns technical terminology.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 27 Feb 2010 15:53 On Feb 27, 2:21 pm, "Skitt" <skit...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > Hatunen wrote: > >> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: > >>> Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene > >>> Creed. > > >> But you don't have to say it explicitly to be a Christian. > > > You have to accept it. You probably have to affirm it at Confirmation > > (if you were baptized as an infant) or at Baptism (if baptized as an > > adult). > > > I wonder whether sjedvnull would be satisfied with, If you're baptized > > in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then you're a > > Christian. > > Naah, I was baptized when I was sixteen (for convenience's sake, so as not > to disappoint those who were helping our family immigrate into the USA), and > for the same reason, I was confirmed in the Lutheran church after arrival in > the States. I don't believe in any of that stuff, but what are you gonna But you said that you did, at either Baptism or Confirmation or both. If you had "mental reservation," as it's sometimes put, then presumably the sacraments were not legitimately performed. > do? It made our helpers happy, and no believers were harmed in the process. > Why, I even joined the YMCA, as it was our official sponsor. The YMCA had > great pool tables and a table tennis facility, so all was not lost. I don't think you have to be Christian (or Young) to use the YMCA ... you certainly don't have to be Jewish (or male) to use the YMHA; the 92nd St. Y is one of New York City's great cultural institutions. (They don't seem to use the MHA in their name any more.)
From: Brian M. Scott on 27 Feb 2010 16:02 On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:37:52 -0800 (PST), Yusuf B Gursey <ybg(a)theworld.com> wrote in <news:a8c3d99e-1ed2-460b-8546-93e517dd2ed2(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Feb 27, 9:57�am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: [...] >> Gnostics aren't Christians. (Not that there have been any for about >> 1500 years.) Did you miss the great outpouring of secondary literature >> that followed on the long-delayed publication of the "Gnostic >> Gospels"? > isn't it better to go along with self-identification? Of course. Brian
From: Brian M. Scott on 27 Feb 2010 16:02
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:49:01 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in <news:ee7ced92-c2b7-4230-aa30-f47caa09dade(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Feb 27, 3:37�pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...(a)theworld.com> wrote: >> On Feb 27, 9:57�am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: [...] >>> Gnostics aren't Christians. (Not that there have been any for about >>> 1500 years.) Did you miss the great outpouring of secondary literature >>> that followed on the long-delayed publication of the "Gnostic >>> Gospels"? >> isn't it better to go along with self-identification?- > Of course not! My first example was the "illegal immigrant" who > declared himself to be a US citizen. Which is obviously irrelevant for the reason that I gave before. Brian |