Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 06-30-2010, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Of course not. It is not possible for one person to show prejudice on another person's behalf.

What????

It is not possible for one person to show prejudice on another person's behalf.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/behalf.html
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/on+behalf
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/behalf

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, I hope you really do understand. I am not sure you do.

I am not sure that you understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You don't understand that there are certain words whose origins can help to determine where some people originated or where a cult originated.

That may be the case in some instances. But it is still the case that the origin of a thing is not the same as the origin of a word naming that thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

For example, the origin of the word "Buddha" may help to determine when and where Bhuddism was started.

I didn't say anything about Buddha or Buddhism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Irrelevant. You don't understand how the origin of certain words can help to determine where and when certain cults were started.

Whether or not this is true, it does not change the fact that the origin of a thing is not the same as the origin of a word naming that thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What??? Are you implying that Christianity started before people were called Christians?

I am making no assertions about the origin of Christianity on this thread. I am allowing for all possibilities, the possibility that Christianity started before people were called Christians and the possibility that Christianity did not start before people were called Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It must be that when people were first called Christians is an indication of when Christianity started.

May be, yes; must be, no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It would seem that you DON'T know what Christianity means.

It seems that you don't know what 'Christianity' means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Yes, I know what I said. That doesn't change the fact that your questions were bullshit questions.

I simply asked you to clarify the BS you wrote about the meaning of Christianity.

At any serious level your description of Christianity is hopeless.

Christianity is what the word means

1. in general discourse, online and offline.

2. in standard works of reference, online and offline.

If we replace Christianity with any word the BS of your response is even clearer.

What BS!

If what I said is not clear to you, I don't know how to make it any clearer. But that doesn't change the fact that the questions you asked were bullshit questions.

Chili · 07-01-2010, 07:15 AM

Unlike an -ism that points at an ideal, the -ity suffix suggests that the name was give to an existing condition that so preceded the name. If that is true what is known as Christianity makes reference to a state of mind that people can find agreement with rather then a belief to follow. To give example here I understand that a Conservative can be all over the map as if blowing with the wind but the same cannot be said for a Liberal, or also the difference between seeing a glass half full or half empty.

mountainman · 07-02-2010, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Do you accept any citation in this work by Snyder as "evidence"?

I have never heard of the book. I have no idea what it purports to present evidence of.

But, reacting just to the title . . . .

I have taken the liberty to respond to these comments in a specific thread entitled Ante pacem (Graydon Snyder) - an exhaustive and critical review of Snyder's evidence

View Poll Results: How did Christianity begin?
With people listening to the teachings of Jesus, derived from his interpretation of Jewish tradition	9	18.37%
With people listening to the teachings of Paul, derived from his visions produced by meditation techniques, neurological abnormality, drug use, or some combination	7	14.29%
With people listening to the teachings of Paul deliberately fabricated to attract a following	3	6.12%
With the Emperor Constantine promulgating for political purposes a religion which he had had deliberately fabricated	4	8.16%
We do not have enough information to draw a conclusion	26	53.06%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2010, 07:15 AM	#142
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Unlike an -ism that points at an ideal, the -ity suffix suggests that the name was give to an existing condition that so preceded the name. If that is true what is known as Christianity makes reference to a state of mind that people can find agreement with rather then a belief to follow. To give example here I understand that a Conservative can be all over the map as if blowing with the wind but the same cannot be said for a Liberal, or also the difference between seeing a glass half full or half empty.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.