"Religion stops a thinking mind...it is only another socially acceptable addiction."

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: While the semantics ring true, the application fails. When someone from another culture calls an America a Yankee, they are using a slang term. Slang terms only have a common definition in the region they were created. When speaking grammatically correct, an American would be an American. Even when a person in the United States refers to someone living North of the Mason Dixon line as a Yankee, they are still using a slang term. In your reference to China, a Mongolian living in a region occupied by China would be Chinese. The descriptor “Chinese” when used grammatically correct refers to anyone living within Chinese borders. The Mongolians would at this time be nothing but a sub-set of the Chinese. Continuing on to your multi-denominational congregation, if you are all part of the Catholic Church, based upon the universal definition you provided, then the various other denominations are but a sub-set of Catholicism. If this case, the descriptor you were looking to use would indeed be Catholic, not Christian. If in fact Catholic is universal and the Roman Catholics are a sub-set of the Catholic church, the rest of the world would have no problem being able to see this. The above alleviates the confusion you are trying to avoid. You said yourself; you are arguing the language, not the religion. Language upholds the statement that Mormons are Christian. If you insist they are not, then you are arguing a religious standpoint and aren’t arguing use of language at all.

Slang? What is slang? Slang is language. Language of the people. Howver, that is moot. It is a recognised word of the English language:

Yan·kee
Pronunciation: 'ya[ng]-kE
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1758
1 a : a native or inhabitant of New England b : a native or inhabitant of the northern U.S.
2 : a native or inhabitant of the U.S.

1758? That's a long time for a word to be slang.... A dictionary definition proves it isn't slang... *looks* nope.. no "colloq." there.

As to "Chinese" again, you are totally ignoring the plight of Tibetans and Mongolians in your broad brushstroke. Sure in one definition, "Chinese" can refer to citicens of China. However, there are Chinese not living in China. It is also a racial term. Han Chinese, or ethnic Chinese are the dominant race of "the Middle kingdom". To call a tibetan or mongolian "Chinese" is incorrect, considering half of Mongolia is INDEPENDENT. A citizen of independant outer Mongolian.. a resident of Ulan Bator, is Mongolian, not Chinese.

With the English/Welsh difference, the case is similar. You would be lumping the conquered in with the conqueror. Quite offensive.

My point is, people within the noun are most able to describe what the noun is. What their shared characteristics are.

As for "catholic" it has come to pass that Roman Catholics simply call themselves "catholic" . In Spainish, English, Italian all. Christiano is a different word to Catholica.

Catholics call themselves that. They're not all about to call themselves "Romans" are they?

So we use a word that can include "Catholics" but exclude those who disagree with our unity. "Christian".

Bear in mind.. and this is important. NOT ALL CATHOLICS ARE CHRISTIAN.

There are many who are "Cultural Catholics". I was speaking to a Spainish woman yesterday who when I asked her if she was Christiano, she shook her head and said "Catholica". There are Catholics with divergent practices to mainstream Christianity.

That said, there are Catholics who are Christian, and the Catholic church is a Christian Church. I'm simply pointing out, that Catholic, and Christian, may sometimes be inclusive and may at times be preclusive.

You can be a Catholic Christian.
You can be Christian and not Catholic
You can be Catholic and not Christian.

[ 11-12-2003, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: What matters is what the mjority of the applicable noun call themselves. For they know what the word is. They ARE the word. All outside may make a decision in ignorance - as Aussies do in calling Southerners Yankees.

So how do you justify your sweeping and incorrect typification of Buddhist Nirvana as 'self annihalation' is fact? How do you justify claiming Pantheist's Diety is 'wanking itself'? How can you justify making any comment about anything outside of your brand of Christianity if what really matters is what those non- Yorick's-brand-of-Christian people think themselves? Have you made some 'decisions in ignorance' recently and before? [/QUOTE]I am not making comments on what the Buddhists or Hindus call themselves.

I am reading the teachings, and describing what those teachings are, when you lose the flowery emotive descriptions.

"Nirvana is bliss... pure joy... ultimate happiness!"

O.k. that's subjective... explain to me what happens?

"You lose self. become one with the universe, lose your ego, lose the concept of "self".

O.k. that to me sounds like dissipation. Ceasing to exist as an individual awareness. When my physical body dies it becomes "one with the earth" and ceases to exist as a single entity too.


or


"Realising that you are one with the universe brings unspeakable bliss and joy and awe"

ok. that's subjective. If I realise I am one with the universe, I realise the love I have given and recieved has been love of self... self love. Now I'm not as satisfied as when I thought I was loving another.


-----

That's what I'm doing Chewbacca. I'm taking those teachings and slotting them into my worldview and finding I don't agree with them.

I'm not looking at Buddhists and saying HAH Tantirc Buddhists aren't realy Buddhists! And neither are Theravada Buddhists.. only Lamaists are correct.

It is up to the Buddhist community to ascertain who or what a Buddhist is.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: I am backing out. I hope I did not go to far in the debate I had with Yorick concerning who is/(not) a Christian.

Not from my end. You are, you were and will remain a champion mate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Love ya.

Hugh

[Maelakin]

I stand corrected on the Yankee issue. I should have looked up the recent dictionary definition. However, that just goes to show that even though the usage I am familiar with is not all-inclusive, but it still does not change the simple fact that the definition stands. If the word is defined as such, that is the definition.

It takes a large group of people to cause a definition to be commonly accepted. You seem to feel that millions of people should change their usage of a word because you disagree with the confusion you believe it causes. If that is the case, more than just this singular word needs to be change. All languages need to be updated so each definition has an inherent meaning and won’t be used in any other fashion.

In the real world, this will never happen. Words are commonly used by many different dialects and having many different definitions associated with them. If you feel you need something for your congregation to call its own, then you as a group need to communicate with each other and devise a word that is not already in use and defined by the masses. Attempted to exclude a group of people based upon your beliefs does nothing but put yourself and your beliefs in a bad light.

You have stated that you don’t care what other people think, and I can see why. However, after all the times you have stated about how accepting your beliefs are, I don’t see how you can allow yourself to attempt to alienate another group. It would seem to me that all your talk of love and acceptance would sway you towards finding a way in which you can incorporate these other groups into yours. But alas, the true side of many religions rears its head once again, driving away the masses.

[Chewbacca]

Yorick, you are taking those teachings and twisting them into something they are not to serve your own purposes.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: I stand corrected on the Yankee issue. I should have looked up the recent dictionary definition. However, that just goes to show that even though the usage I am familiar with is not all-inclusive, but it still does not change the simple fact that the definition stands. If the word is defined as such, that is the definition. It takes a large group of people to cause a definition to be commonly accepted. You seem to feel that millions of people should change their usage of a word because you disagree with the confusion you believe it causes. If that is the case, more than just this singular word needs to be change. All languages need to be updated so each definition has an inherent meaning and won’t be used in any other fashion. In the real world, this will never happen. Words are commonly used by many different dialects and having many different definitions associated with them. If you feel you need something for your congregation to call its own, then you as a group need to communicate with each other and devise a word that is not already in use and defined by the masses. Attempted to exclude a group of people based upon your beliefs does nothing but put yourself and your beliefs in a bad light. You have stated that you don’t care what other people think, and I can see why. However, after all the times you have stated about how accepting your beliefs are, I don’t see how you can allow yourself to attempt to alienate another group. It would seem to me that all your talk of love and acceptance would sway you towards finding a way in which you can incorporate these other groups into yours. But alas, the true side of many religions rears its head once again, driving away the masses.

Acceptance and agreement are very different. In actual fact, tolerance and acceptance are excercised more, when the disagreement is greater.

Colorblindness for example is not tolerance or acceptance of difference. It is not seeing the difference, and in the process removing a minorities right to self identification. Seeing, celebrating and loving the diversity are what's important.

I have put my acceptance into action, in my welcoming Larry into my church, and offerring to sing at his. That is acceptance Maelakin. Clarifying what is and what is not a Christian is a dedication to truth.

Why?

I care.

I care that a student here doesn't understand the difference between a Christian Church and a Cult like New York Church of Christ. NYCOC has around 10,000 members. I know people that have come out of it, and of it's sister in Sydney. Sydney Church of Christ.

I care that in a few years a person on this site could travel to New York, Boston or Sydney, and encounter a person from this group on a college campus - as they attack young new comers, unaware of the city, and without a social network to support them.

I care that they then get caught in a mentally abusive, controlling, finance demanding institution, that makes their life hell if they want to leave. I care that if the student manages to leave, they then feel like they have "experienced Christianity" and they then miss out on the freedom, liberty, community, and healing, knowing Jesus and being part of a vibrant mutually supportive Christian Church brings.

I've seen people mentally scarred after leaving such groups. Groups that call themselves "Christian' to cross over any defenses such a vulnerable person may have.

I'm not suggesting that the Mormon church is an abusive cult. Larry and any of the other Mormons here can speak of their own experiences either for or against it. That is not my issue, or my point, so let's not all jump around suggestin I am Mormon bashing.

What I am elaborating on, is perpetuating an awareness of what a Christian Church is, and what is not.

If you visit a Church that is saying it is the ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, and that only it's members will receive salvation, BE CONCERNED. People, countless people do get BURNED in these groups. That is not to say all the groups are damaging, nor that all people in them get burned. I'm simply saying, keep your eyes open. Why would a group not use a new name to differenciate itself from the existing body?

Keep your eyes open. That is all.

Christianity should bring freedom. You should be free to come and go from the church. Free to have an independent relationship with Jesus, not be told what to think. Nothing should affect your salvation once you accept Jesus offer of it, least of all how much money you put in. Run a mile if you have to buy your salvation or earn it.

Is this offensive? Of course it is. But if one person. One student reads it, and keeps their wits open when approached by a (name of City) Church of Christ member... it may prevent a lifetime of psychotherapy. Or a suicide.

To further confuse issues, there is a legitimate Christian Church called "Church of Christ." (no name of city in front of it.)

Confusion is an dangerous thing. Information is a weapon.

I am spending time describing how things ARE, wherever I am, on this forum or off it, for a reason. Others lives can and do depend on it.

In my churches I have encountered love, acceptance, growth, challenges, diversity, fostering of the arts, community, mental stimuli, spiritual growth, increases in relational skills, and freedom. Freedom to come and go, to commit or to leave. Freedom to give money, or withhold money. Freedom from guilt, freedom from self loathing or self condemnation. I experienced huge, huge social networks all over the world. Charity, hospitality, family. No matter the denomination, Christians are united in a way that transcends borders, language, culture, social status and physicality.

That's my Christianity.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Yorick, you are taking those teachings and twisting them into something they are not to serve your own purposes.

And what purposes are those Chewbacca? Why would I do such a thing?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Yorick, you are taking those teachings and twisting them into something they are not to serve your own purposes.

And what purposes are those Chewbacca? Why would I do such a thing? [/QUOTE]Simple... EGO. Meaning "ego" in the psychological sense. Meaning you are in "Yorick the teacher" mode again rather than "Yorick wishing to communicate and learn" mode.

Larry, sorry to see you leave. I appreciated all you had to say. If you are a Mormon, a LDS member, and you say you are "Christian" that ends it for me. Yorick does not attend church with you, and his efforts to dictate your definition of who/what you are fall on deaf ears with me and others (from what I gather).

Yorick, you could take some of Maelakin's advice regarding definitions, his willingness to modify his definition to fit the one commonly accepted, and how real world usage of words works. There is something for you to learn here, if you'll quit preaching/teaching long enough to analyze it. It's blatantly obvious to the rest of us, don't you owe it to yourself to learn form us as we can learn from you?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Yorick, you are taking those teachings and twisting them into something they are not to serve your own purposes.

And what purposes are those Chewbacca? Why would I do such a thing? [/QUOTE]Simple... EGO. Meaning "ego" in the psychological sense. Meaning you are in "Yorick the teacher" mode again rather than "Yorick wishing to communicate and learn" mode.[/QUOTE]I was asking Chewbacca, but no worries.

Ego? How does my ego get filled by twisting Buddhist teaching? What possible motive do I have in twisting Buddha's teaching? What do I gain? How does that fill my ego? I fail to see it. If anything, when I write here my ego gets crapped on. I, an entertainer, a "love me, love me" lead vocalist get the opposite of my egocentric "everyone must love me" vocalist side. In boneheadedly pursuing an unpopular argument, bringing on derision for sticking to the truths I have encountered, I am somehow filling my ego?

I really don't get that conclusion Timber. I do not use an internet forum to build my self-esteem or be a foundation for self worth.

Larry, sorry to see you leave. I appreciated all you had to say. If you are a Mormon, a LDS member, and you say you are "Christian" that ends it for me. Yorick does not attend church with you, and his efforts to dictate your definition of who/what you are fall on deaf ears with me and others (from what I gather).

Larry hasn't left, he's simply backed out of this discussion.

Tell me Timber... if what a person calls themself is the only justifier, can I then call myself an atheist? Hey.... I might do that! I'm an atheist! yes I believe in Jesus, in salvation from the cross, but what FUN! Now I can be a freethinker too! Yes.. henceforth I am Yorick the Jesusloving atheist!

Oh, and I'm also an American now. New York is my city! So, yes, I am now an American because I call myself one and that is all I need do in Timbers book.

Oh, and I'm also a Lawyer now as well. I lay down the law, so I must be! Smackdown.... Yorick the Jesus-loving atheistic American Lawyer. Simply because I call myself those things I must be them! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Yorick, you could take some of Maelakin's advice regarding definitions, his willingness to modify his definition to fit the one commonly accepted, and how real world usage of words works. There is something for you to learn here, if you'll quit preaching/teaching long enough to analyze it. It's blatantly obvious to the rest of us, don't you owe it to yourself to learn form us as we can learn from you?

I know how language works. I love the vibrancy of language. As a speaker of the language I have as much right as anyone to CLARIFY what a noun means to those being described by it.

The simple reality is, if circumstances changed, and you decided to become a Christian, you would find your definition of the word changed. Because your perspective would change. You would be viewing it internally, not externally.

A forest, from a distance looks like a lot of sameish looking trees. Only once inside the forest, do you see animals, bark, leaves, ponds, earth, moss and mushrooms.

[Timber Loftis]

Sure, Yorick the Lawyer works fine with me. I'd welcome you into the courtroom, where an impartial adjudicator would have the control, and would be able to hear both sides and say one is right and one is wrong. That is EXACTLY the kind of impartial third-party fairness this thread is lacking, what with you over here parroting "I am right, I am right, I am right" -- *squawk*

What you are missing is that the worldly things your example took off on are different than beliefs. "Christian" encompasses many things, and your group of religions that define themselves as "Christians" is fine -- so long as they/it doesn't/don't go around telling other denominations "you are not Christian." In matters of faith, these definitions are much more individual oriented. And, you are welcome to call yourself "aetheist" if you like -- hell, it wouldn't be a stretch considering you ability to re-define words.

I can't believe we are now at 8 pages of what really amounts to to-may-to to-mah-to. It's a farse, even by Circular Discusssion standards.