I’m not even going to ask what that second sentence means; it’s beyond my ken.
Remember I’m not saying that “Christian” isn’t an adjective, I’m simply saying that it helps to think clearly about religious questions if one doesn’t use it as an adjective. So the eventual sentence itself might be different.
Sorry to continue the hijack, but…
If you make the argument that an adjective which can be subdivided is useless, you’ve eliminated 99% of the English language. Christian isn’t okay, is Protestant? Methodist? Well, what about the fact that different churches preach different things? Do I need to specify Methodist-as-practiced-by-the-church-on-7th-st-in-San-Francisco? That way lies madness.
As for churches - at one point, church may have meant Christianity, but there’s a Church of Scientology, a Church of The Holy Spaghetti Monster, a 24-hour Church of Elvis now. Christian Church is perfectly legitimate.
Look, if I say that my father is a Christian, it gives you some information. If I say he’s a Methodist, it gives you more. But that doesn’t make the broader term useless. There are threads which are generally common throughout Christianity. True, there are exceptions, but people are pretty good at dealing with generalities and not expecting them to be universally true. And, let’s face it, there’s damn near fuck-all that’s truly universal, and if you insist on it, language falls apart.
Anyways, back to the original point - if people understand ‘that’s hypothetical’ and ‘that’s very hypothetical’ to mean two different things (and I think responses indicate they do), then both are useful. That’s good enough for me.
No, I think that way lies accuracy, clarity of thought, and opposition to stereotyping. Assuming that everyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God can be, for any purpose, categorized as a single group is ignorance.
Yup, I forgot that the Scientologists use the term church. Not, I think, a major mistake.
So what are the threads that are generally common? And are they exclusively threads held by Christians? In other words, what makes them ideas, commitments, or values held only by Christians?
Oh, and by the way, if you say your father is a Christian, that’s using the word as a noun, not an adjective. I’ve got no problem with that. It’s the use of the word as an adjective that I’m making a case against. If you say “I have a Christian father,” I might be at a loss. Roman Catholic? Evangelical? Methodist?
And my larger case is that language can determine how carefully one thinks about things, and this business about the word “Christianity” is an example.
But saying “My father is a Christian” and saying “I have a Christian father” both express the same amount of precision about the father’s religious beliefs. Why must adjectives be more precise than nouns?
First of all, both sentences, as stated by Giles, are equivalent. If you have a problem with “I have a Christian father,” I don’t see how you don’t have a problem with “My father is Christian.” What’s the difference?
Second, why are you limiting this to religion? Or are you? Do you have the same problem with someone saying “My parents are European” vs. “I have European parents”? The precision is just as low, if not lower, in that statement.
Third, often, that level of precision is simply not necessary. If its not germane to the conversation what particular flavor of Christian your father is, why include that information?
Having sex on the moon is a very, very unique experience.
Very can be misused. I agree someone is pregnant or they aren’t.
Bill Gates is very rich. That is fine. The guy is a billionaire.
Julia Roberts is rich. She may have 20 million, but she’s not in Bill Gates league.
I’m tall. Correct, I’m 6 foot 3 inches. That’s considered tall.
Manute Bol is very tall. He’s 7 foot 7 inches. That’s** very** tall.
Your father was entirely mistaken.
Music, art, physical movement for dance, or even sports, are all examples where written language is not the avenue for understanding. I would suggest spirituality would also fit into this category.
“Very pregnant” is a useful and succinct way of saying “in the latter stages of pregnancy.” I’m surprised there is such objection to the usage.
Being against “very rare” baffles me even more. What’s wrong with that? One in a thousand can be considered “rare”, but one in a million can be “very rare.” Why not have degrees of rareness?
The opposition to modifying “unique” I somewhat understand, though I disagree with it.
People, people. Can’t we all just agree that I’m right and move on?
Sure – I’ll agree that you’re right if you’ll agree that I’m very right.
And I’m very uniquely right.
(Consider this to be a very pregnant pause.)
And I fucking rock at the moon walk, too.
Giles and pulykamell, my notion isn’t that the word “christian” can not be used as an adjective. My notion is that we think more clearly and express ourselves more clearly in almost every case if we don’t use it as an adjective. I’m not trying to be proscriptive; I’m just recommending that not using it as an adjective generally will lead to clearer, more subtle thinking.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if there are other usages that are common, but that lead to sloppy thinking, and if you avoid them you do better.
By the way, obviously there are arts that don’t lend themselves to writing. Yet people write about them. I am boggled when I read reviews of dance. Yet they must mean something to someone. And my father is as spiritual, and as rigorous, a person as I’ve ever met. Son of missionaries, committed Christian, recognizer of mystery. And he’s written carefully about those things for his family.
Your thinking here, forgive me, doesn’t thrum with clarity or subtlety. You seem very willing to lump all Christians together as plural nouns, but unwilling to lump some crosses together with an adjectival binding. The use of the plural noun “Christians” seems much more to erase differences between people than the use of “Christian” as a modifier on “cross” does.
It really sounds as though you’ve made an arbitrary rule and are looking for ways to justify it.
Interestingly, your thinking goes against the grain. A lot of folks are fine if I talk about “black people” (adjective) but not if I talk about “blacks” (plural noun). They’re fine if I talk about “Jewish people” (adjective) but raise an eyebrow at “Jews” (plural noun).
Oh, and my father also disagrees with me about this “christian” as adjective business.
I stand by the notion that if one never uses the word as an adjective, one will think more clearly about their praises or criticisms of individual Christians, or collective Christians.
And I ask again, am I wrong, or is usage and thought connected in some way, and that by not using some accepted usages one can think more clearly and carefully about things?
And I’m saying I don’t see how using it as a noun somehow elicits more clarity than using it as an adjective. They are both equally general. Which is fine. Like I said, oftentimes, such fine specificity is not necessary in conversation or to make the point.
I think the two (noun and adjective) are entirely different. People assert they are Christians, and there is only one question for their bona fides. Do they believe that Jesus is the Son of God? If they do, they’re Christians. That’s the noun usage.
But the adjectival usage is all over the block. Can you give me a common ethical system that is uniquely Christian? Or a uniquely theological system characterized as Christian beyond what I say above? A common musical tradition? Or a common architectural tradition?