Mark Tripp is a bia bia

[Rivington]

If a border guard were to ask what my citizenship was, and I told him "American", he would arrest me on the spot for lying. It does not matter if I speak English, or that I was born on the North American continent, or that I have family living in the USA. It also does not matter that the border between Canada and the USA is theoretical and not a physical object. By the common definitions of what an "American" is, I do not count as one.

Inapt. The guard arresting you doesn't demonstrate that you're not American, it demonstrates that he has the power to arrest you. Indeed, many other North (and South) Americans don't use the term "American" to refer to people resident in the United States.

Now, as you implied, Christians have often argued over basic beliefs. However, history shows us -- beyond refutation -- that to be a Christian you must be a monotheist. To say otherwise is to play word games.

It, of course, shows no such thing. That's just a belief you're sympathetic to. The fact that there are a bunch of Mormons actually refutes what you're saying. There is nothing in history that says "to be a Christian you must be a monotheist"—you're just playing category games by removing people who are not (in your view) monotheists from Christianity. You also define monotheism to do away with the historical controversies over whether the Trinity or saints count as multiple gods (or whether veneration counts as worship for that matter).

At any rate, LDS itself seems to find the claim that it is a polytheistic religion rather dubious:
http://www.fairwiki.org/Mormonism_an...God/Polytheism

One does not need to believe in God to have a basic understanding of history. Are you going to now claim that Visigoths didn't exist because I can't find one?

Another inapt analogy. What you're saying isn't that Visigoths don't exist, but that they're not European because they're barbarians.

Maybe. But trinitarians have had deeply reasoned explanations as to why they're not polytheists. If you don't believe me, as them.

"Deeply reasoned" is a value judgment.

Historic, creedal Christianity is in a privileged position because it is based on history. History is a form of fact.

History involves facts, but it is primarily interpretive.

Strawman. That Copts, Eastern Orthodox, etc. are historic, creedal sects is beyond question. For one thing, neither sects are polytheistic.

No, not a strawman. You're basically claiming that these varied sects are not different enough to be thrown out of the club, but that Mormonism is. That's an interpretive act. You're a splitter, rather than a lumper, taxonomically speaking. But since your taxa aren't based on anything other than sympathy for some positions and distaste for others, and brute force assertions like "History is a form of fact", there's no reason to take your taxonomy seriously.

Oh, so this is all about play word games? I guess if I call myself a billionaire, I must be one!

Are you worth a billion dollars? A billion lira?

There is a functional definition of Christianity, namely that Christianity is about Christian beliefs.

Christian beliefs vary extremely widely. There's no particular reason to say that Mormon beliefs are beyond the pale, while Coptic ones are not.

Oh yes, they do. Tell an atheist that you're a god believing atheist and they'll tell you you're not an atheist -- because disbelief in god is a necessary prerequisite. I wonder what Richard Dawkins would say about such a claim.

I'll tell you what he wouldn't do—throw someone out a club, as there is no club to be a member of.

But Christians also have agreement on what Christianity is -- namely that Christianity is an actual belief system.

It's not unusual to find conservative Protestant sects that would write Roman Catholicism out of Christianity, or one another out of Christianity. What you are doing with Mormonism is no different. You're just stomping your foot and saying, "But NO, I AM right!"

[Snake Plissken]

Oh no this is like saying "Bloody Mary."

I must admit that was one of my better lines.

[Matt Phillips]

I must admit that was one of my better lines.

I <3 Bossk

[Larus marinus]

This thread is getting a bit heavy for me.

TBH, I thought I'd read Tripp say that he was Jewish.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I want pizza, and I hate Hercule Poirot's mustache.

[BackFistMonkey]

I want pizza, and I hate Hercule Poirot's mustache.

I am with you on this one. At least about the pizza part.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Been working late, listening to the John Moffatt audioplay versions.

I swear, next time he tells Hastings to adjust his cravat,
I will break the fourth wall and punch him.

Been slightly distracted, though, for "The Dark Knight Rises",
and "The Avengers" trailers have been leaked.

Batman MUST come back... He MUST...

[Hiro Protagonist]

Oh, while I am on it, why not share...?

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer...teaser-trailer



And here we go for the Avengers:

[atomicpoet]

Inapt. The guard arresting you doesn't demonstrate that you're not American, it demonstrates that he has the power to arrest you. Indeed, many other North (and South) Americans don't use the term "American" to refer to people resident in the United States.

He is arresting me based on a conventional understanding of what the word "American" means. Language is based on conventional agreement. If you disagree with the definition, take it up with society. We can say the same with other words, including "the", "cockroach", and "Christianity".

It, of course, shows no such thing.

We have lots of historic documents shedding light on what a Christian is. Namely, we have what the early Christians had to say about themselves (Paul, Clement, etc.). We also have what opponents of Christianity had to say about them (Marcus Aurelius, Rabbi Akiva, etc.).

For you to be oblivious of the wealth of documentation available to us is to have no understanding on what history is. Doing a song and dance on interpretation has no bearing on what historical fact is.

The fact that there are a bunch of Mormons actually refutes what you're saying.

It does not refute anything. However, it does indicate that calling yourself a Christian in early 19th century North America was convenient.

There is nothing in history that says "to be a Christian you must be a monotheist

Yes, there is. Off the top of my head, there's the Shema, the Apostles' Creed, and the Nicene Creed.

You also define monotheism to do away with the historical controversies over whether the Trinity or saints count as multiple gods (or whether veneration counts as worship for that matter).

I'm using monotheism to indicate a broad concept that Christians largely have agreement about. You should know what this word means without me explaining it to you.

At any rate, LDS itself seems to find the claim that it is a polytheistic religion rather dubious:
http://www.fairwiki.org/Mormonism_an...God/Polytheism

Great, so even LDS agrees that polytheism is incongruent with historical Christian belief.

The difference between Mormonism and historical -- that is to say, historically documented creeds of the early Church -- is that Mormons have a fundamental disagreement on what "monotheism" and "oneness" means.

Another inapt analogy. What you're saying isn't that Visigoths don't exist, but that they're not European because they're barbarians.

No, I'm saying that it's a documented historical fact that Visigoths existed. That there is no more Visigoths has no bearing on this fact. In the same way, God may or may not exist, but this has no bearing on whether there have been historical Christian beliefs.

"Deeply reasoned" is a value judgment.

It certainly is, but there's also a conventional, dictionary definition for what this word means.

History involves facts, but it is primarily interpretive.

Great. So if I murder someone, I'll get off -- because history is primarily interpretive. If I disagree with what the word "murder" means, I guess I'm not going to jail.

No, not a strawman. You're basically claiming that these varied sects are not different enough to be thrown out of the club, but that Mormonism is. That's an interpretive act.

It is only interpretive if one has never read any historical documents regarding early Christian creeds. I'm beginning to think you haven't.

You're a splitter, rather than a lumper, taxonomically speaking.

To split is to lump, and to lump is to split.

But since your taxa aren't based on anything other than sympathy for some positions and distaste for others, and brute force assertions like "History is a form of fact", there's no reason to take your taxonomy seriously.

My taxa is based on my ability to read documents of later imperial Rome -- and its description of a new upstart religion that was taking the Empire by storm.

Are you worth a billion dollars? A billion lira?

Word games.

Christian beliefs vary extremely widely.

Great. So you and I agree that there is such a thing as Christian beliefs.

There's no particular reason to say that Mormon beliefs are beyond the pale, while Coptic ones are not.

Yes, there is. The Apostle's Creed would be one particular reason.

I'll tell you what he wouldn't do—throw someone out a club, as there is no club to be a member of.

There is an Atheist's Club since atheism is an "ism". Doctrines imply exclusivity.

It's not unusual to find conservative Protestant sects that would write Roman Catholicism out of Christianity, or one another out of Christianity.

Actually, it is pretty unusual. The majority of evangelicals and fundamentalists agree that Roman Catholicism has its basis in a historic creedal tradition. Whether they agree with it is a different matter entirely.

Certainly, there are extremists who say otherwise -- but there's a reason why they are extremists.

You're just stomping your foot and saying, "But NO, I AM right!"

You and I have a fundamental disagreement in views. I say that history is primarily factual. You say it is interpretive. I wonder how your views would be sustainable if you were ever to go to court.

[It is Fake]

I say that history is primarily factual. You say it is interpretive. I wonder how your views would be sustainable if you were ever to go to court.

It would be just like your and Rivnington's current argument; a fundamental disagreement.

Certain laws are completely and utterly open to Interpretation.

So, like your disagreement, it would completely depend on the judge, the court, the law, and even the country.