Originally posted by queeqWell, my thinking is, that in order for "Christianity" to stay "Christian," the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is central. However if I understand inimalist's point, an individual Christian may choose to examine this central tenant and not necessarily agree. In other words: he (or she) may Not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior but he still believes in, say, "Love Thy Neighbor," and so regard himself as Christian for that reason (even though "LTN" is more of a universally religious tenant, or could even be adopted--with equal justification--by an atheist).
Hence the tendency.
I'm not a Christian so perhaps there is something I'm missing here.
True, but each person will belong to a particular group for their own reasons. Whether to them Christianity is about the 10 commandments, Jesus, love, social interaction, tradition, etc, isn't the big issue, its the self identification. And also the reason why making statements about Christians as a group says nothing about the beliefs of the individual.
And to ever say someone isn't a Christian is to immediately draw the lines of definition that I was talking about before.
I'm not critiscizing anyone for defining a word. The "lines" are the very basis of human communication.
We were speaking to whether or not religions were static with regard to certain dogma. All I am saying is that, if you define the word christian, you are then also defining certain beliefs that one must have to be christian, and as a whole, christianity. If these don't exist, the word is meaningless. It isn't bad to have a word defined.
Okay, I thought about it, well actually, I forgot about it and someone told me about that post again. Still.
Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah because you are not making a Theory about how old the Dinosaur Leg is. You are testing it and what you think its age is doesn't matter because it will be tested.
I think that's kinda my point. Your personal idea is not important because the tests will give you an answer. That answer points towards the general ideas of evolution though. Which is similar to gravity, we test it, and it gives answers that point at a theory or not.
Originally posted by Newjak
Theories on the other hand always assume something.That why there can be Theories in Math because they always assume something to make something testable but once outside of that or if those assumptions proven false they no longer work.
This whole paragraph I don't understand at all. What do you mean with theories in maths? Something like there are an endless amount of prime numbers before it was proven? Could you elaborate on that?
Originally posted by Newjak
The Pythagorean Theory is perfect for this. It assumes a right angle triangle. Once outside of those assumptions or if that assumption proves false it no longer works.
Oh okay, you mean assumptions as in axioms and things following from them. I was confused as assumptions can also mean assumptions about an outcome.
Originally posted by Newjak
And I'm not saying that Evolution runs contrary to logic just that since its Premises or assumptions are currently untestable it is probable not fact.
Seems odd. It's premises are that every living thing adopts and changes over time. Lots of tests and evidence hint at that. Similar to gravity, just that no IDer comes around and says "Hey folks, your theory of gravity sucks, here, I have another one, God pushes all of us down with his thump".
Originally posted by Newjak
As it is probably true and probably the only thing we can find to be true because it is the only probable things we can find.
What not, is it not fact or true? Your statements on the whole are very confusing, would you clarify them for me?