Christian business owners . . .

[giblets]

descartes? Ben is stuck in the 17th century.

[rah]

Aeson: According to the dictionary Mormons are Christians.
Ben: The dictionary is wrong. It can only be wrong to BK if he agrees that the dictionary says that Mormons are Christian.

So you both agree that it is indeed the definition in the dictionary. Whether it is the authority is totally based on your point of view.

[Kidlicious]

"Whether it is the authority is totally based on your point of view."

No.

[rah]

You can believe whatever you want, and others can do the same.

It's like when ben calls those that don't agree 1000% with the church not Catholics. Ben is not the ultimate judge.

[Kidlicious]

You can believe whatever you want, and others can do the same.

It's like when ben calls those that don't agree 1000% with the church not Catholics. Ben is not the ultimate judge.

You can say "when I say Christian I mean those who believe in the Trinity."
You can't say "Christian means someone who believes in the Trinity."
It doesn't mean that. The dictionary says so.

[rah]

Yes, the dictionary lists the mormans as christians that don't believe in the trinity. At least wiki does.

So what's your point? You don't agree with the dictionary on this one. We know. That doesn't mean we have to agree with you.

[Kidlicious]

Yes, the dictionary lists the mormans as christians that don't believe in the trinity. At least wiki does.

So what's your point? You don't agree with the dictionary on this one. We know. That doesn't mean we have to agree with you.

I'm arguing against using the catholic definition of the word Christian when conversing with non-Catholics without acknowledging that it's just the catholic definition.

[rah]

That's your right. I hate to say I agree with you because whenever I do, I have to check myself . There is not just one definition.
But the one thing that everyone can agree on is what the dictionary definition contains.

[Berzerker]

I can see Jesus and his father in heaven, but this holy spirit or ghost sounds like an invention to accommodate an already established trinity, the Sumerians had a pantheon led by 3 gods

[giblets]

Obviously the devil went back in time and planted those three gods into the minds of the Sumerians to discredit the trinity.

[Kidlicious]

I can see Jesus and his father in heaven, but this holy spirit or ghost sounds like an invention to accommodate an already established trinity, the Sumerians had a pantheon led by 3 gods

Why would that have influenced it?

[Berzerker]

The Jews were living under Babylonian rule, thats when they began compiling the Bible... The trinity is ancient.

[Aeson]

Logic. God can't be a created being because then something would have existed before him.

You're just making the assumption that God has to be the thing that always existed. Even if your logic that something had to exist eternally is accepted as a given, there's nothing to prove it had to be God. Certainly not a specific form of God.

Not at all. Every statement made in the Athanasian creed is internally logical. The counterarguments are not - you might want to consult Descartes here... We can infer from this that the Athanasian creed is truer than the counter-argument (God is a created being), etc.

1 + 0 = 3
3 - 0 = 1

There, I just created an internally logical mathematics system. Doesn't mean it's applicable to reality.

Why is the dictionary authoritative?

Because the statement was explicitly about the whether the dictionary definition applied to Mormons. The only possible way to judge the validity of that statement is to use the dictionary definition.

I already answered this. No, because the dictionary has zero authority on this topic.

It is the ultimate authority on what the dictionary definition is.

I don't care what the dictionary says. I care what the Church teaches on this matter. You can tell me that the dictionary states that everyone who claims to be Christian is Christian, and I'll stick with Christ who teaches the exact opposite.

Christ is the authority, not Webster, and until you understand my argument, we're not going to make any headway.

I understand your argument. You disagree with the dictionary, and you are intellectually dishonest so won't ever accept that the dictionary definition does apply to Mormons. Instead you will throw up strawmen and perform absurd leaps of logic to try to distract from a very simple truth.

It's facts. When was this dictionary published, Aeson? Why should we accept a standard written in the 19th century over one written in the 4th? Pretty clear to me, I side with the standard that was written in the 4th century not whatever Webster cobbled together 1800 years after the fact.

Because the statement used the present tense. If I had said, "The dictionary definition of Christian in Xth century applied to Mormons", then we would use the dictionary definition as it was in the Xth century to determine if my statement was true or false.

You've still yet to cite a single change, Aeson. I'm not making your argument for you. Either cite a change or cede the point.

It's too much fun to listen to you list changes and then say the changes never happened because they happened at a different time than you think I assume they happened. I'm not here to teach you how to be correct, I'm here to mock you for how stupid you sound.

Why does the dictionary have authority concerning the definition of a Christian?

That is irrellevent to the validity of the statement. All the statement does is make a claim about what the dictionary definition is. It's not saying that other definitions must be the dictionary definition ... simply that the dictionary definition is the dictionary definition. It's hilarious to watch you struggle with this simple fact.

I've already plainly stated that the only authority that would really matters on the subject would be Christ/God or whoever they empower to judge ... if the fairy tale happened to be true. If the whole thing is just a fairy tale, then there's no objective authority and the whole question is stupid in the first place.

The only case where it's even somewhat relevant to whether or not the dictionary definition applies to Mormons is if Christ is as advertised, and then He chooses to use the dictionary.

I'm arguing that the founders, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are the magisterial equivalents within the Mormon church. This would be akin to Christ and St. Peter in the Catholic church.

No. Christ is analogous to Christ.

And when talking about how the LDS Church determines official LDS Doctrine, the closest analogous body to that in Catholicism is the Magisterium. Just because Young thought one way didn't make it official LDS Doctrine. Even if Joseph Smith had been recorded as supporting Adam-God, it wouldn't necessarily have been official LDS Doctrine. (Though it likely would have swayed a lot more of the Church leadership, and may very well have resulted in it being official LDS Doctrine at least for a while. It was doomed in the long run still.)

What is plainly obvious is that Adam-God is not official LDS Doctrine, because the LDS Church doctrine went with Pratt's view on the subject, not Young's. That is simply history, and no amount of your trying to imagine new roles the players is going to change what actually happened. This is why I made the analogy to illustrate how stupid what you were claiming was:

X in Y said Z so Z is official doctrine of Y

It's not a valid equation in regards to the LDS Church or the Catholic Church. (Unless X is the governing body over doctrine, or perhaps Christ.) Yet when I pointed that out by making the analogy to what you were doing, you affirmed it applied to the Catholic Church!

I'm glad to see you finally acknowledging that the Catholic church has a magisterium of priests and bishops. (BTW, temple Elders, are the Mormon claim), but then you'd know this if you were actually Mormon and knew anything at all about their faith).

I've never made any claim about the Magisterium. I never said the analogy applied, and quite obviously implied it didn't apply. You're the one who claimed it applied "exactly".

[Aeson]

But the one thing that everyone except BK can agree on is what the dictionary definition contains.

Fixed.

[Aeson]

You know what? I'm done here, Aeson.

It's cruel to get peoples' hopes up like that ...