steve_bnk

I have never heard baptists call themselves catholic. The RCC considers iotself the one and only true 'catholic' unvivrsal church of the one true god. No other need apply.

The proper way to address all the sects is by the name of the denomination.

Even the term baptist is too broad to generalize.

stephan huller

Well there you go. Thank you Andrew. Still I think Clement makes reference to the concept of orthodoxy more often than that of catholicism. Either way I was originally arguing that all Christians were Catholic. I just think orthodoxy is more generic than 'Catholic.' In the end you have to decide - how do you want to distinguish the heresies from whatever the Church Fathers are. Do you call them 'orthodox' or 'catholic'?

Tom Sawyer

What's wrong with non-Catholic?

Of course, that's only if you're a Catholic and you want to use that Church as the central reference point.

stephan huller

I hate negative definitions. It's like calling defining a hetrosexual man as 'someone who doesn't fuck men' or a gay man as 'someone who doesn't fuck women.' Surely same sex or opposite sex attraction is the proper definition in either case.

sotto voce

You mean 'bugger men'. Accurate definitions.

Tom Sawyer

Fair enough. However, those are defining groups based on what they are, not based on what they are not. If you want to create a grouping of all Christians which only have the common attribute of not being Catholics, then you're defining the group based on what they are not.

The only positive thing that they have in common is that they're all Christian, but you can't use that term because it also encompasses Catholics. That means that a negative definition is required because membership in the group is determined by not possessing an attribute.

Now, you can, of course, make up a word which has that negative definition as its meaning, but that's just using a word for the sake of not using a "non-" qualifier.

Toto

It seems so, but it got hijacked by the usual suspects.

steve_bnk

Like all languge, It depends on the situation nnd the peole. Artound here I don't think anyone would take offense at 'someone who doesn't fuck women.'

If a fundamentalist Christian defined gay as 'someone who doesn't fuck women.' or even 'is not attracted to women' the likely perjorative use would be clear.

Today using the term Negro in converstaion instead of black or Afro American can be derogatory even when the term is used academicaly in writing about history and black history.

I know many protestants reject the RCC outright and define themselves partly as non-Catholic. Define yourself as one thing, then by defintion others are not. The duality is inescapable.

Language is never black and white.

stephan huller

Still I should be able to define non-heretical Christians as Catholics or orthodox. This shouldn't be controversial

Toto

As long as you continue to think that the only objection to the gospels is the supernaturalism, any discussion with you is futile.