|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 10, 2018 0:53:18 GMT
This seems to be a recurring theme for me this weekend because I am currently having a debate on Facebook with my cousin (a practicing Christian), who recently employed what I believe to be an NTS fallacy. The argument went like this: I posted an article about the SCOTUS ruling in favor of a baker (the one who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple due to his “Christian” views). My cousin’s position is that while she is all for protection of religious liberties, she thinks it’s wrong to discriminate against another class of people if you’re providing a service. Obviously, she is a moderate Christian and that’s what I’d consider to be a reasonable position (for a Christian). However, she then proceeded to declare that he wasn’t a real Christian, and that it’s sad that evil people are always giving Christians a bad name. She then proceeds to say “the bible says judge not that ye be not judged, and love thy neighbor as thyself. And anyone who disobey’s the commandments of Christ is a fraud”. So I replied asking her wasn’t she was evoking a No True Scotsman fallacy? The reason why I asked is because this is a common, thing that people who profess faith (in almost all religions) do. If some Muslims blow up the Twin Towers and kill 3,000 people in the name of Allah, then another Muslim might say “but they weren’t true Muslims”. If a Catholic priest is convicted of sexually molesting children, another Catholic might say, “he wasn’t a true Catholic”. Basically, any “bad” member of a religious group is no longer a “true” member by another member’s arbitrary definition. In this case, the word’s Muslim and Catholic are redefined so that instead of meaning someone who practices Islam or Catholicism, it now means only the “good” ones who practice it are true, and if they do something bad, they are false. I used to be exactly like my cousin, but I now find myself playing the role of Cody™ (devil’s advocate of course) in defending the homophobic Christian as being a “true Christian”. I guess my point is, to one Christian, someone refusing to provide a service to a gay couple just because they are gay is evil, and therefore not a true Christian. However to that other Christian, homosexuality is evil, and someone who promotes it is not a “true” Christian. So what is true in this case becomes relative to the person’s own convictions. And I think it’s dangerous to say that just because someone doesn’t believe or practice exactly the way I do, they are not real, because then it becomes totally subjective and meaningless. What do you guys think? Who is the “true Christian” in this case? |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 10, 2018 7:15:15 GMT
captainbryce The true Christian in this case would be the one who’s views align closest to scripture. If the bible repeatedly teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and nowhere contradicts this position, and a professing Christian understands this to be a fact yet supports the lgbt lifestyle regardless then he is by definition a hypocrite and a heretic.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 10, 2018 7:56:26 GMT
Muslims didn't blow up the Twin Towers. It was a CIA job.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 10, 2018 8:01:40 GMT
The true Christian in this case would be the one who’s views align closest to scripture. This is only true for Christians who believe in "sola scriptura". Declaring Christians who do not adhere to "sola scriptura" "No True Christians" is in fact a variation of the NTS fallacy. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 10, 2018 9:10:33 GMT
The true Christian in this case would be the one who’s views align closest to scripture. This is only true for Christians who believe in "sola scriptura". Declaring Christians who do not adhere to "sola scriptura" "No True Christians" is in fact a variation of the NTS fallacy. It’s stupid to apply the NTS fallacy to religions. Religions are a belief system, and most of them contain a defined set of dogma. If somebody is not keeping to those standards or completely contradicting them with their actions then it is not fallacious or unreasonable to accuse them of not being true adherents to that particular religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 10, 2018 9:13:37 GMT
The term "Christian" is among the most poorly defined terms. It can mean almost anything. People who have opposite views on quite many issues can all call themselves Christians. Perhaps the New Testament was deliberately designed to be open to almost anyone just to get them in the door long enough to teach them the principles of Judaism, which is the actual religion anyway. Any idiot or slob might call himself a Christian and it can be difficult to prove otherwise.
Of course many Christians want out of the mud and create more specific definitions to help them out. There are Episcopalians, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans and so on. It isn't enough just to be "Baptists" some must be "Southern" Baptists and so on. There is nothing "illogical" about writing more strict definitions, and there is no such thing as a no-true-Scotsman "fallacy." "No true Scotsman" is just a joke and has nothing to do with formal debate or any rules of debate. Not only can each denomination write its own definition and exclude whomever it wants, each individual can define his own set of beliefs and exclude whomever else.
In formal (with rules) debate any term that has been variously defined must be given, by mutual agreement, one and only one definition before a debate begins for the purposes of that debate. In order to discuss people who support Trump because of their religious beliefs it is necessary to find some definition all parties to the discussion will accept. You probably already know that many religious people, including many Christians, do not support Trump. So a term was needed to describe "religious" people who support Trump. You will see the term "evangelical" Christian used in much professional reporting. It is not however a very well defined term itself. The requirements are especially few and especially vague. That is a necessity because more careful religious people would complain loudly if you called them Trump supporters.
Complicating the process is the fact that simply separating yourself from a crowd does not result in separating you from bad behavior. People who simply separate themselves can be the most murderous and adulterous people on Earth. That's why no-true-Scotsman is just a joke and Scotsman who think separation is any answer are known to have significant mental deficiencies.
The development of, and adherence to, a moral code can and does set people apart from bad behavior. For them there is no fallacy involving Scotsman in any way.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 10, 2018 9:25:18 GMT
This is only true for Christians who believe in "sola scriptura". Declaring Christians who do not adhere to "sola scriptura" "No True Christians" is in fact a variation of the NTS fallacy. It’s stupid to apply the NTS fallacy to religions. Religions are a belief system, and most of them contain a defined set of dogma. Yes, but believing that the Bible contains all the dogma for Christians and is the only source of dogma is something only "sola scriptura" adherents believe. Not all Christians. If somebody is not keeping to those standards or completely contradicting them with their actions then it is not fallacious or unreasonable to accuse them of not being true adherents to that particular religion. Not if people don't agree on the standards. |
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 10, 2018 10:34:13 GMT
Muslims didn't blow up the Twin Towers. It was a CIA job. The same people who did not notice Aldrich Ames turning up in suits and a car way beyond his salary. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 10, 2018 12:35:04 GMT
captainbryce The true Christian in this case would be the one who’s views align closest to scripture. If the bible repeatedly teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and nowhere contradicts this position, and a professing Christian understands this to be a fact yet supports the lgbt lifestyle regardless then he is by definition a hypocrite and a heretic. Well firstly, she’s not a “hypocrite” because that’s not what the word means. Secondly, how does that make them a heretic? A heretic is someone who teaches a false doctrine. My cousin for example never actually said the Bible teaches that homosexuality is okay. So she wouldn’t be a heretic unless she became a homosexual and then claimed something false about the religion (which she’s obviously not doing). You really need to learn the difference between hypocrite and heretic, and learn what the words actually mean because you keep using them incorrectly. But to address the heart of your argument, you say that’s true Christian would be the one who’s views align “closest” to scripture, but isn’t that a matter of degree? How close to scripture is close enough? How far away is still “Christian” enough? And by who’s measure anyway? This is the problem with that type of subjectivity; you can move the goalpost to which ever arbitrary position comes closest to your own. What’s funny about your argument is that this is almost the exact same argument my cousin made for why you would NOT be a Christian. She would say that by discriminating against gay people, YOU are not following Christ’s commandment to love thy neighbor. She would say you are guilty of judgement and therefore a hypocrite according to Matthew 7. She might even say that YOU are a heretic for falsely claiming that the bible says a Christian should not “support” a homosexual’s lifestyle. Because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say that. Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. I don’t see anything there that says unless they are LGBT. So your position could be viewed as a heresy and not “true” Christianity by some other Christians. The question is, why do both of you have such contradictory views, both claim to be “Christian”, yet both conveniently ignoring different parts of scripture to paint the other as not “true” in your Christianity? And how is an objective observer suppose to classify each of you? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 10, 2018 12:38:24 GMT
Muslims didn't blow up the Twin Towers. It was a CIA job. Cool story bro! Maybe you should go start a thread about that (since it’s not remotely relevant to this discussion).  |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 10, 2018 13:10:31 GMT
captainbryce The true Christian in this case would be the one who’s views align closest to scripture. If the bible repeatedly teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and nowhere contradicts this position, and a professing Christian understands this to be a fact yet supports the lgbt lifestyle regardless then he is by definition a hypocrite and a heretic. Well firstly, she’s not a “hypocrite” because that’s not what the word means. Secondly, how does that make them a heretic? A heretic is someone who teaches a false doctrine. My cousin for example never actually said the Bible teaches that homosexuality is okay. So she wouldn’t be a heretic unless she became a homosexual and then claimed something false about the religion (which she’s obviously not doing). You really need to learn the difference between hypocrite and heretic, and learn what the words actually mean because you keep using them incorrectly. But to address the heart of your argument, you say that’s true Christian would be the one who’s views align “closest” to scripture, but isn’t that a matter of degree? How close to scripture is close enough? How far away is still “Christian” enough? And by who’s measure anyway? This is the problem with that type of subjectivity; you can move the goalpost to which ever arbitrary position comes closest to your own. What’s funny about your argument is that this is almost the exact same argument my cousin made for why you would NOT be a Christian. She would say that by discriminating against gay people, YOU are not following Christ’s commandment to love thy neighbor. She would say you are guilty of judgement and therefore a hypocrite according to Matthew 7. She might even say that YOU are a heretic for falsely claiming that the bible says a Christian should not “support” a homosexual’s lifestyle. Because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say that. Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. I don’t see anything there that says unless they are LGBT. So your position could be viewed as a heresy and not “true” Christianity by some other Christians. The question is, why do both of you have such contradictory views, both claim to be “Christian”, yet both conveniently ignoring different parts of scripture to paint the other as not “true” in your Christianity? And how is an objective observer suppose to classify each of you? If you are going to go by what isn't said, it also isn't said that you should give anything to unrepentant sinners. And it does say elsewhere that rebuke is a good thing. So you should rebuke the sin, whether you give anyone anything after could depend I would suppose. You are a good example of why Christianity is not a religion and there is no dependable definition of a Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 10, 2018 13:22:09 GMT
captainbryce If somebody claims to be a Christian, then criticises other Christians who uphold the bibles teachings about homosexuality being wrong, then that person is a hypocrite plain and simple. You can’t pick and choose what you want to follow. You can’t ignore the repeated verses warning against homosexuality, then site Jesus’ other commands(taking them out of context btw). Sigh..You need to do yourself a favour and repent. Not really. Warning gay people to repent and turn to Christ for salvation is a more loving thing to do than telling them to carry on as they are while believing their lifestyle choice is eventually sending them straight to hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 10, 2018 14:05:37 GMT
captainbryce If somebody claims to be a Christian, then criticises other Christians who uphold the bibles teachings Cody, listen to yourself! Take the homosexuality qualifier out, look at what you just wrote there, and reflect. How is this not exactly what you are doing right now? about homosexuality being wrong, Why ONLY about that? Why doesn't this apply to ANY biblical teaching? Such as the ones that you she pointed out, which you are ignoring? then that person is a hypocrite plain and simple. You can’t pick and choose what you want to follow. That part I absolutely agree with. What I want to know is how you can possibly reconcile this with what you just said above? You can’t ignore the repeated verses warning against homosexuality, then site Jesus’ other commands(taking them out of context btw). I see no evidence that she has done any of that. It is entirely possible that YOU have done that yourself. She seems to think that you have. I'm not saying she is right. I'm not saying you are wrong. My point is, it's a matter of perspective. Both of you are using the same argument in order to justify a completely different attitude and behavior. Both of you are trying to condemn the other as a "fake" Christian in exactly the same way. Both of you are picking and choosing. So how is an objective observe to know who is "true" and who is fake? Is it possible that you are both true Christians, or maybe that neither of you are true Christians? Objectively, there is no way to tell. And this is one of the reason why I left the religion; because I realized that I was doing the same thing as the two of you are. Sigh..You need to do yourself a favour and repent. No, YOU need to do yourself a favor and support your argument (if you can) because right now you are choosing to abandon all logic and reason by injecting a red-herring. It would appear that you are incapable of examining your own beliefs using critical thinking, and consequently unable to actually answer my question. Not really. Warning gay people to repent and turn to Christ for salvation is a more loving thing to do than telling them to carry on as they are while believing their lifestyle choice is eventually sending them straight to hell. In your mind that may be, but that is something that you subjectively decided on your own. Most people on the receiving end of your brand of "love" would call it HATE (because that's what it is). Love is demonstrated with support, not condemnation. Telling someone that they are going to hell is not an act of "love". And that fact should be obvious to any "true" Christian (or any person with a sense of goodness). But sense your beliefs tell you that acts of hatred equals love, that would seem to indicate that you are not a true Christian, and strengthen her argument. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 10, 2018 14:16:31 GMT
First of all, the simple mathematical fact is that "Christian" is a definite term. It means accepting the one we call Jesus as the son of God, perfect and pure, in all his teachings.
Sorry that it offends the far left wackos and far right wackos, who are actually the same personalities who happen to be on different sides, that Jesus never once singled out homosexuals.
The basic truths that have to apply to being Christian:
1. The Holy Ghost is the force of good, of love, of truth, that we cannot blaspheme against. The,re isn't really any mystery to this. It is what it is. If you and three other people in a group of five constantly cheat and rob the fifth person, then saying that it is "good" and justified, is a blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.
2. All flesh is flawed. He who loves his life will lose it. Well, that's perfectly clear. Some people may be prone to homosexual desires. Some people may be prone to adultery. Some people may be prone to having power over a sexual partner. These are all the same. And if anyone is completely pure, well, more power to them, but I suspect that no one but Jesus ever was so pure. No matter, all flesh is tempted, and flesh is inferior to God's perfect plan. Therefore, a Christian cannot protest against homosexuals. If one refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual couple, then one must refuse to bake for any couple, since they're all flawed. This is definitive for a Christian.
3. The danger of entering the "game of judging others". Christians have to mature to this level, sure, but it is definitive. A teenager can't possibly understand the truth of principalities, because he or she only sees the world he or she is taught about and molded into for the formative years. The Christian judges the principalities, not the flesh of others. The Christian makes the effort not to curse others. When those four in a group of five sabotage him and falsely accuse him, and keep him from being a steward, he curses the demon they worship, the demon that honors their curses, not them. He doesn't "vote" for them, or give them endorsements to continue their evil, but he doesn't do them harm, and hopes they don't suffer. The Christians of this board all know this, all of them. It's very logical and precise, and defined. It's not "brain surgery". It's simple, and those "Christian bashers" who whine that this isn't true are demon possessed and out of control.
4. We all fight the demons all the time. You knock out one demon and seven more try to enter. When we say demons are out to possess us, we're speaking just as much about ourselves. When some idiot whines that this is "projecting", that idiot is simply showing he or she is delusional to the max.
5. Relenting. The original word for "repent" has changed in meaning. The original Greek word meant more to "relent". The misconception is that it means to shed crocodile tears. A good example is a man who kicks his dog. If he simply sheds tears each time he kicks his dog, that's not relenting, and not the original repenting. He has to try to change what makes him do that, with the full intention of not doing it again. Just sobbing and being remorseful doesn't mean one intends not to do it again.
All of these are one principle. The principle of the Holy Ghost.
There are lunatics out there who think that saying Christians say "no true Christian" are saying "no true Scotsman" whatever that means. It means that the lunatics want to lie about the truth, and avoid the facts, and they know it. There is a true Christian, because there is a definition of a Christian. Someone who desires the better Universe of the Holy Ghost to the hateful world of the flesh. This cannot possibly mean destroying the flesh of others. This means wanting to improve it for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 10, 2018 15:10:00 GMT
drystyx Well, I’m not going to get into it with you about the legitimacy of these religious concepts that you believe in (holy ghost, demons, homosexuality being a sin, etc) because as an atheist I obviously don’t believe in any of that stuff and it also goes beyond the scope of the question. So there is no point in even arguing about it. Those are internal dogmas that Christians have to resolve between themselves. But two things you’ve said do stand out for me. First: the simple mathematical fact is that "Christian" is a definite term. It means accepting the one we call Jesus as the son of God, perfect and pure, in all his teachings. One, that’s not “math” at all - it’s religion! It’s also not a “definite term”, it’s a subjective one (as is your characterization). There are multiple definitions of the word Christian, and multiple interpretations of Christianity. The evidence of that (beyond the three radially different Christian arguments here) is all of the different Christian churches and denominations. The better thing to say is that this is what being a Christian means — to you! Obviously, that’s not what it means (or not all that it means) to other people who call themselves Christian. Secondly: There are lunatics out there who think that saying Christians say "no true Christian" are saying "no true Scotsman" whatever that means. It means that the lunatics want to lie about the truth, and avoid the facts, and they know it. If you don’t know what it (NTS) means as it applies here, you probably shouldn’t be trying to craft an argument against it. By trying to define and narrow down Christianity by your own subjective definition, you are guilty of the NTS fallacy right now! Just like my cousin is. Just like Cody™ is! You are essentially saying that neither of them are true Christians because they interpret it differently than you do. Your paradigm cannot possibly be correct UNLESS you are including yourself as one of these so-called “lunatics”. It seems that you are calling both my cousin and Cody™ lunatics because they don’t define Christianity in exactly the same way you do, or they apply that definition differently from yourself. But that just proves the subjectivity of the definition. All three of you are likely calling the other two lunatics, and liars, yet all three profess to be Christian. You all pick and choose which parts of the bible to quote, while ignoring other parts, then proceed to call the other one a hypocrite. In that, you are all exactly the same; you don’t see the irony in that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 10, 2018 15:24:48 GMT
captainbryce No because I’m not taking the bible out of context. She’s using commands of Jesus about loving thy neighbor as if not supporting sinful actions equates to being evil. It doesn’t. The bible teaches both that homosexuality is a sin and to love your neighbor. Refusing to support people engaging in sinful activity does not mean you hate them or can’t love them as individuals. Who said it doesn’t? The problem is your cousin misapplied those teachings. When Jesus said judge not, he did not mean we can’t rebuke sin. Well the bible says repeatedly that homosexuality is an abomination and that people practicing such things are in danger of hell. Yet she’s calling Christians who are unwilling to support lgbt evil and frauds. Again, one of us is being truer to the overall text and the other is taking it completely out of context. By studying the text and noticing that homosexuality is categorically condemned throughout the bible and that you can refuse to support sins without being hypocritically judgemental or unloving. LOL You’re chatting absolute shit. By your logic we shouldn’t rebuke and condemn child molestors but support them.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 10, 2018 15:32:19 GMT
drystyx Well, I’m not going to get into it with you about the legitimacy of these religious concepts that you believe in (holy ghost, demons, homosexuality being a sin, etc) because as an atheist I obviously don’t believe in any of that stuff and it also goes beyond the scope of the question. So there is no point in even arguing about it. Those are internal dogmas that Christians have to resolve between themselves. But two things you’ve said do stand out for me. First: the simple mathematical fact is that "Christian" is a definite term. It means accepting the one we call Jesus as the son of God, perfect and pure, in all his teachings. One, that’s not “math” at all - it’s religion! It’s also not a “definite term”, it’s a subjective one (as is your characterization). There are multiple definitions of the word Christian, and multiple interpretations of Christianity. The evidence of that (beyond the three radially different Christian arguments here) is all of the different Christian churches and denominations. The better thing to say is that this is what being a Christian means — to you! Obviously, that’s not what it means (or not all that it means) to other people who call themselves Christian. Secondly: There are lunatics out there who think that saying Christians say "no true Christian" are saying "no true Scotsman" whatever that means. It means that the lunatics want to lie about the truth, and avoid the facts, and they know it. If you don’t know what it (NTS) means as it applies here, you probably shouldn’t be trying to craft an argument against it. By trying to define and narrow down Christianity by your own subjective definition, you are guilty of the NTS fallacy right now! Just like my cousin is. Just like Cody™ is! You are essentially saying that neither of them are true Christians because they interpret it differently than you do. Your paradigm cannot possibly be correct UNLESS you are including yourself as one of these so-called “lunatics”. It seems that you are calling both my cousin and Cody™ lunatics because they don’t define Christianity in exactly the same way you do, or they apply that definition differently from yourself. But that just proves the subjectivity of the definition. All three of you are likely calling the other two lunatics, and liars, yet all three profess to be Christian. You all pick and choose which parts of the bible to quote, while ignoring other parts, then proceed to call the other one a hypocrite. In that, you are all exactly the same; you don’t see the irony in that? Well said! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 10, 2018 16:03:24 GMT
captainbryce No because I’m not taking the bible out of context. That's exactly what you are doing. You claim to be a Christian, yet you are criticizing another Christian who is upholding biblical teachings. You are engaging in the very hypocrisy that you are condemning. But I'll come back to that later in more detail. She’s using commands of Jesus about loving thy neighbor as if not supporting sinful actions equates to being evil. It doesn’t. That's your opinion. According to her, it does. And she has provided scriptural backing for that. You see, you support sinful actions everyday when you serve sinners because EVERYONE is a sinner (including you). By singling out certain types of sins, you are effectually casting judgement over that person. You are making an exception for the sin you personally don't like, and using the bible (out of context) to justify why you should refuse to support them. The bible doesn't say ignore, refuse, condemn, cast judgement over, or turn your back on someone if they have a sinful lifestyle. That's not biblical! It says in no uncertain terms, LOVE THY NEIGHBOR, period. There are no qualifiers about what type of neighbor you should love. Beyond that, it also says love your enemies, and if someone wants your coat, give them your shirt too. That is a command to support even people you don't like or disagree with. And if you offer unsolicited advice to someone you judge as a sinner, that's not an act of love; it's an act of condemnation (which the bible condemns). Any Christian that condemns another sinner is committing a sin right there! The bible teaches both that homosexuality is a sin and to love your neighbor. Refusing to support people engaging in sinful activity does not mean you hate them or can’t love them as individuals. Actually it does! Support is an act of love; condemnation is an act of hatred. It's so sad that you cannot see this. If refusal and condemnation was an act of love, then the person on the receiving end would love you for doing that. Obviously that is not the case, so you are clearly blinded to reality by your indoctrination. Who said it doesn’t? The problem is your cousin misapplied those teachings. When Jesus said judge not, he did not mean we can’t rebuke sin. Uh, according to Matthew 7, that's exactly what it means! A sinner cannot rebuke someone else's sins because that makes you a hypocrite! Only Jesus can rebuke sins because only Jesus is without sin. Matthew 7:1-5“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye!Well the bible says repeatedly that homosexuality is an abomination Irrelevant. I'm no longer arguing that point because I already know what the bible says, that is your interpretation of what it says, and I don't believe that the bible is the word of God, nor that your interpretation makes any sense. So there is no point in trying to proselytize to me, or explain to me what it says; we're never going to see eye to eye on this point. What's relevant is the fact that you are both accusing the other of being a fraud using the very same arguments. That's the point I'm addressing here. Yet she’s calling Christians who are unwilling to support lgbt evil and frauds. Correct. And you have hardly made a good argument for why you are right, and she is wrong. You have your bible verses; she has hers. You are making the same arguments against each other, which to me proves that you are two different sides of the same coin. BOTH hypocrites! Again, one of us is being truer to the overall text and the other is taking it completely out of context. Perhaps, but there is no way for an objective observer to know which is doing what. I see both of you taking certain passages completely out of context in order to justify what you want to believe as true. By studying the text and noticing that homosexuality is categorically condemned throughout the bible and that you can refuse to support sins without being hypocritically judgement or unloving. Cody, I know more about the text than you do. I've studied it to know how wrong ALL of it is in terms of being an authentic representation of the God it describes. My cousin has also studied the text in great detail. The difference between the two of you on this point is that she would say that "studying" the text alone does not bring one closer to the truth. She would say that prayer, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, brings one closer to understanding. And if someone doesn't do that, then they can study the text all day long and never fully receive God's message. LOL You’re chatting absolute shit. By your logic we shouldn’t rebuke child molestors but support them. That is your logic. At least, that is Christian logic applied evenly. Love the sinner, hate the sin? You should support child molesters, because the bible says do not resist the one who is evil. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. The difference here is that child molesters are dangerous predators that we need to protect children from. It's a crime that requires secular punishment via imprisonment. But if a child molester is being mistreated while imprisoned, you should absolutely support them (if you're a Christian). You should give them food, and shelter, and love them. You cannot give them a child to pray on because then you are harming someone else. But selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is neither illegal, nor harmful to anyone, and refusing them service on the basis that you think their lifestyle is sinful is hypocritical and evil. But we can end it there because at this point I expect everything you say in condemnation of another Christian to be a projection of what do yourself. You've already proven my argument to be true. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 10, 2018 16:25:33 GMT
Whether some x is an F (that is, whether some particular entity counts as some type or category of thing) is always going to be subjective.
With respect to the no true Scotsman fallacy, you would need the person to present their definition of a true F first. Then you could argue that x meets their criteria for being an F, but that whatever they claimed doesn't fit x. That would avoid the fallacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 10, 2018 16:30:06 GMT
drystyx Well, I’m not going to get into it with you about the legitimacy of these religious concepts that you believe in (holy ghost, demons, homosexuality being a sin, etc) because as an atheist I obviously don’t believe in any of that stuff and it also goes beyond the scope of the question. So there is no point in even arguing about it. Those are internal dogmas that Christians have to resolve between themselves. But two things you’ve said do stand out for me. First: the simple mathematical fact is that "Christian" is a definite term. It means accepting the one we call Jesus as the son of God, perfect and pure, in all his teachings. One, that’s not “math” at all - it’s religion! It’s also not a “definite term”, it’s a subjective one (as is your characterization). There are multiple definitions of the word Christian, and multiple interpretations of Christianity. The evidence of that (beyond the three radially different Christian arguments here) is all of the different Christian churches and denominations. The better thing to say is that this is what being a Christian means — to you! Obviously, that’s not what it means (or not all that it means) to other people who call themselves Christian. Secondly: There are lunatics out there who think that saying Christians say "no true Christian" are saying "no true Scotsman" whatever that means. It means that the lunatics want to lie about the truth, and avoid the facts, and they know it. If you don’t know what it (NTS) means as it applies here, you probably shouldn’t be trying to craft an argument against it. By trying to define and narrow down Christianity by your own subjective definition, you are guilty of the NTS fallacy right now! Just like my cousin is. Just like Cody™ is! You are essentially saying that neither of them are true Christians because they interpret it differently than you do. Your paradigm cannot possibly be correct UNLESS you are including yourself as one of these so-called “lunatics”. It seems that you are calling both my cousin and Cody™ lunatics because they don’t define Christianity in exactly the same way you do, or they apply that definition differently from yourself. But that just proves the subjectivity of the definition. All three of you are likely calling the other two lunatics, and liars, yet all three profess to be Christian. You all pick and choose which parts of the bible to quote, while ignoring other parts, then proceed to call the other one a hypocrite. In that, you are all exactly the same; you don’t see the irony in that? Well said! I want to thank you both for perfectly illustrating my point with your bombastic and unprovoked hatred, with absolutely zero argument on your side, yet you congratulate each other for your lack of logic. Thank you very much for proving me correct. |
|
