|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
Yusuf B Gursey skrev:
Brian M. Scott: Yusuf B Gursey: Peter T. Daniels: 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. thanks. I agree with you. it would be different if the illegal immigrant merely declared himself as ethnically an "American", since ethnicity is primarily a matter of slef-identification. citizenship isn't. if one doesn't consider religiion a matter of self- identification, one goes the way to morally legitimizing institutions like the Inquisition. Amen. Here, though, we're discussing 'Christian' as a technical term for a set of beliefs and belief systems, so we're on a more theorethical level than the persuasion of the individual. But even then, or even more then, it's a dead end to adopt the gatekeeping routines of one or more of the groups or some particular interpretation of an internal theological subtlety. For sci.lang. and a.u.e. readers it should be obvious that the defining feature must be the common origin of the religious traditions and mytho- and theologies. And that their diverting developments, including loans and substrates, is a field of study. -- Trond Engen |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
Trond Engen skrev:
(Oops, cut too much) [..] For sci.lang. and a.u.e. readers it should be obvious that the defining feature must be the common origin of the religious traditions and mytho- and theologies. And that their diverting developments, including loans and substrates, is a field of study. .... and that one should leave the self-identification to the selves, and the question of whether or not something is a system of it's own or part of something else to those who care. -- Trond Engen |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 4:58*pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " wrote: [...] 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. But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a technical term. When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, it certainly is. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:30:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 4:58*pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote: On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " wrote: [...] 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. But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a technical term. When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, it certainly is. It never does. Individual brands of Christianity can have official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, but since those definitions don't all agree, the notion that Christians in general have an official definition of what constitutes a Christian is patently absurd. Brian |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 3:48*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
On Feb 27, 1:40*pm, " wrote: On Feb 27, 9:57*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 27, 2:29*am, " wrote: On Feb 27, 12:20*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, " 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. Whatever you might have meant, your words didn't convey it. With an ambiguous statement, it's certainly reasonable to admit that you were wrong and revise your statement--I've certainly made ill-formed statements in this thread and others, and altered them. In this case, though, it's pretty obvious from the wording what you meant by the original question, and if you're now asserting that you didn't mean to ask whether all Christians actually use some real wording of the Nicene Creed then I absolutely believe you're lying. I have no further interest in continuing this thread if you're going to insist otherwise (and several other people in this thread also took your words to mean what they meant to me, so I don't feel that's an idiosyncrasy of mine). (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.) Have fun with that (Fwiw, I'm a liberal atheist). |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote: On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " wrote: [...] 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. But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a technical term. When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, it certainly is. Some Christians take the view that the final determination of whether someone is or is not a Christian will take place at some later date, when the sheep are separated from the goats by Christ Himself. Therefore, any official definitions in the here and now are of distinctly secondary importance. I know, I know, a lot of others can't let go of the desire to know Right Now, and particularly want to know whether or not that really irritating neighbour is In or Out. And some people who aren't Christians by any definition of the word like to know for some reason or other, probably ranging from simple curiosity to the wish to identify a group to study or poll, who is and is not Christian. -- Cheryl |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 28, 2:20*am, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:30:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote: On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " wrote: [...] 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. But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a technical term. When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, it certainly is. It never does. *Individual brands of Christianity can have official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, but since those definitions don't all agree, the notion that Christians in general have an official definition of what constitutes a Christian is patently absurd. Where did I say "Christians in general"? Why is there an epidemic of people (all of whom appear to be mathematically oriented, incidentally) assuming that unquantified nouns have only universal reference, as opposed to the normal interpretation that the omitted quantifier is an existential? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 28, 5:49*am, Cheryl wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote: On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote: On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " wrote: [...] 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. But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a technical term. When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, it certainly is. Some Christians take the view that the final determination of whether someone is or is not a Christian will take place at some later date, when the sheep are separated from the goats by Christ Himself. Therefore, any official definitions in the here and now are of distinctly secondary importance. That's not about whether individuals are Christians, but about whether individuals are granted salvation. There are indeed some bigots who insist that no one who isn't a "Bible-believing Christian" can do so, but that assertion is not consistent with Scripture. I know, I know, a lot of others can't let go of the desire to know Right Now, and particularly want to know whether or not that really irritating neighbour is In or Out. And some people who aren't Christians by any definition of the word like to know for some reason or other, probably ranging from simple curiosity to the wish to identify a group to study or poll, who is and is not Christian. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 28, 2:57*am, " wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:48*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 27, 1:40*pm, " wrote: On Feb 27, 9:57*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 27, 2:29*am, " wrote: On Feb 27, 12:20*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, " 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. Whatever you might have meant, your words didn't convey it. *With an ambiguous statement, it's certainly reasonable to admit that you were wrong and revise your statement--I've certainly made ill-formed statements in this thread and others, and altered them. In this case, though, it's pretty obvious from the wording what you meant by the original question, and if you're now asserting that you didn't mean to ask whether all Christians actually use some real wording of the Nicene Creed then I absolutely believe you're lying. *I have no further interest in continuing this thread if you're going to insist otherwise (and several other people in this thread also took your words to mean what they meant to me, so I don't feel that's an idiosyncrasy of mine). See recent posting on mathematicians' restrictive interpretation of unexpressed quantifiers in English. (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.) Have fun with that (Fwiw, I'm a liberal atheist).- Then why on earth are you not familiar with recent (i.e., less than a century and a half old) scholarship on topics on which you pontificate? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:10:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 28, 2:20*am, "Brian M. Scott" wrote: On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:30:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote: On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, " wrote: [...] 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. But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a technical term. When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, it certainly is. It never does. *Individual brands of Christianity can have official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, but since those definitions don't all agree, the notion that Christians in general have an official definition of what constitutes a Christian is patently absurd. Where did I say "Christians in general"? The discussion has been about who qualifies as Christian tout court, not about who qualifies as Christian by the definition of a particular sect. If you weren't talking about something more general than that, your comment was pointless. Why is there an epidemic of people (all of whom appear to be mathematically oriented, incidentally) assuming that unquantified nouns have only universal reference, as opposed to the normal interpretation that the omitted quantifier is an existential? That isn't the normal interpretation. And despite my profession, I'm far more verbally than mathematically oriented. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The perpetual calendar | Andrew Usher | Astronomy Misc | 1189 | August 9th 11 07:43 PM |
The perpetual calendar | Peter T. Daniels | Astronomy Misc | 32 | March 3rd 10 06:16 AM |
Perpetual Gregorian Calendar | Mr. Emmanuel Roche, France | Astronomy Misc | 22 | November 24th 09 10:34 PM |
(More) Perpetual Motion Machines | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 3 | November 9th 09 03:35 PM |
Perpetual motion... | gb6726 | Astronomy Misc | 5 | November 12th 07 04:34 PM |