Word games / definition games

[Zzyzx]

.
Word games / definition games

In these debates it is not uncommon for Apologists to insist that others accept non-standard definitions of words used in English language Bibles.

Dictionaries are tools for the meanings of words, but they are by no means the only source of meanings for words.

Yes, there are esoteric definitions, specialized professional definitions, personal definitions, jargon and slang usages, etc.

However, in public debate no one has the authority to decide that special definitions of common words be used. The above quote was someone's attempt to re-define slavery broadly enough to include pet ownership – based on “some PETA people consider it so� (or whatever).

Is there compelling reason that those involved in a discussion must accept a non-standard or esoteric definition preferred by an Apologist?

Is there assurance that an Apologist knows better what biblical words 'really mean' than Non-Theists?

[bluethread]

Is there compelling reason that those involved in a discussion must accept a non-standard or esoteric definition preferred by an Apologist?

In literature, i.e. the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, or Shakespeare, the historical and cultural setting, as well as the source language are important. However, agenda driven redefining, as is done by PETA, NARAL, GLAAD, etc., is really not appropriate IMO.

Is there assurance that an Apologist knows better what biblical words 'really mean' than Non-Theists?

With regard to word definitions theism or the lack thereof is not really relevant, since it is the topic, not the means of the discussion. It might be better to compare the Apologist to the Adversary. In that case, I would expect that they would be evenly matched, since they both see the topic, whatever it might be, as their avocation.

That said, an Apologist, or Adversary, would probably know better than your average non-theist, or theist for that matter, because apology is his avocation. However, the bane of the great Apologists, Socrates and Plato, were the Sophists, who's avocation was "word games". Since one can not be sure at first glace whether one is speaking to an Apologist or a Sophist, it is imperative that one establish the historical, cultural and grammatical parameters early. Just as one would establish the field dimensions, goal placement and rule set in a game of pick up basketball or football.

[wiploc]

Is there compelling reason that those involved in a discussion must accept a non-standard or esoteric definition preferred by an Apologist?

Depends on the circumstances. If I field a problem-of-evil argument, I have to say what I mean by omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If you respond by saying that my argument doesn't work because you define "omniscience" differently, then we're just talking past each other.

On the other hand, if a theist wants "universe" to refer to just part of the universe (the non-god part) then I introduce the terms "allaverse" and "partaverse" so as to keep the conversation rolling without accepting her ambiguity or equivocation.