lemm.ee

1 point

9 months ago

It’s not a bad argument, you just misunderstood it. The voice is an instrument.

Ok then, so who is this person that can “claim to be a musician” but isn’t?

As for the rest of your load of gish gallop: the bible, like all other texts, is up for interpretation and has been re-interpreted many times with many different takeaways. It’s not even the original text, was translated multiple times, and there is no way we can be assured that the King James Bible (Taylor’s Version) is the real deal. Definitions from it aren’t more authoritative than Webster…they’re even less so.

report

[ - ]

Zoolander@lemmy.world

0 points

9 months ago

who is this person

Someone who doesn’t play any instrument, including singing. There are unending numbers of people who will tell you they’re not musicians because they don’t even try. Anyone who doesn’t try but tells you they’re a musician is a liar. That’s the point.

load of gish gallop

Nothing that I’ve said should have been overwhelming or inundating. My premise is incredibly simple. You just keep misunderstanding it repeatedly because it seems that you’re not even reading what’s being said.

We’re not talking about interpretation from the Bible. We’re talking about the definition used by Catholics that is part of their dogma and doctrine. We’re talking about quoting the (supposed) words of Jesus in places where there is no debate on the meaning. You can try to dismiss and downplay what I’ve said all you want but none of what I’ve said is inaccurate whereas your response is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings.

report

[ - ]

0 points

9 months ago

Someone who doesn’t play any instrument, including singing.

Lol, so someone who wants to claim to be a musician but can’t even sing badly (or rap badly, because rappers are still musicians)? That’s who we’ve excluded? Wow, what a useful definition for musician. 🙄

Who is this person who wants to go around claiming musician creds and then can’t attempt a couple of bars?

Your argument just sucks dude, get over yourself.

EDIT: Thanks for the downvote!

report

[ - ]

Zoolander@lemmy.world

1 point

9 months ago

Congratulations, you understand my example. That’s my entire point. Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician. If you don’t do the thing that defines the word that means “someone who does this thing”, then you can’t be that thing. That’s the argument! If someone claims to be a Christian and doesn’t follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian. If you don’t like the musician example, come up with a better one.

My argument doesn’t suck. You suck.

report

[ - ]

0 points

9 months ago

Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician.

But given that bar there’s nobody that could claim to be a musician and then not just shit out a couple of bars and be one by your definition. So, again, your definition sucks (EDIT: and it happens to actually prove that what someone else is saying about “claiming to be a Christian makes you a Christian” is essentially true…because I can claim to be a musician and then sing a little happy birthday and I fit your definition).

If someone claims to be a Christian and doesn’t follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian.

Now it’s “follow the example”. So is that words? Actions? Both? Who determines what is “Christ-like”? You? Are you the guy who determines who is and isn’t a Christian?

You suck.

Right back at ya slick.

report

[ - ]

Zoolander@lemmy.world

1 point

9 months ago

Are you being intentionally obtuse here or what? The definition isn’t about being capable of singing (even poorly). It’s about whether or not the person does that thing in their life. If you don’t like the music example, choose a different profession. For example, if I claim to be a golfer, I can’t be one if I don’t play golf. I can’t claim to be a golfer and then “shit out golf clubs and whack a ball around”. You’re just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that “shit[ting] out a couple bars” doesn’t make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.

Now it’s “follow the example”

What do you mean here? This implies that my position on this has changed somewhere. I’ve already clarified in my 1st response to you that “belief in Jesus” isn’t enough to make someone Christian. It’s what started your whole fake confusion about being a musician. This kind of nonsense just leads me to believe that you’re not arguing in good faith here (which is already obvious but I try give people the benefit of the doubt).

To answer your question, Christ determines what is “Christ-like”. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.

report

[ - ]

0 points

9 months ago

You’re just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that “shit[ting] out a couple bars” doesn’t make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.

You’ve done nothing but argue semantics the entire thread. I’ve golfed before but I’m not a golfer largely because I don’t claim to be nor aspire to be a golfer despite having golfed at one point. People’s identity is to a large extent wrapped up in the claims they make about themselves. I understand that there’s a common understanding of what a “golfer” or a “barber” or a “Christian” is, but you’re the guy trying to invent the new one. I’m trying to follow your “logic” here to get an actual definition of a Christian that excludes this Mike Johnson character (for instance).

If someone says they’re a Christian, says they believe in Christ (for whatever that means), and they go around spouting quotes from the Bible, they’re a Christian by my logic. They’re a Christian by most people’s logic. You’re trying to define it some other way, so provide your criteria.

To answer your question, Christ determines what is “Christ-like”. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.

Well Christ isn’t around to call balls and strikes, so then by your definition nobody can be a Christian.

report