|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 10, 2018 17:13:54 GMT
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. We haven’t proved you “correct”; I’ve proved you to be a hypocrite (just like every other Christian who has spoken on this issue as of yet). There is no “hatred” on my part; you’re just employing ad hominem now because you have no good counter-argument to the last point I raised demonstrating your hypocrisy. The fact that you and Cody (two supposed Christians) aren’t even on the same page on this issue precisely demonstrates my point. So thank you for proving my point!
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 10, 2018 17:51:25 GMT
captainbryce No I’m criticising her for misusing the commands of Jesus in a feeble attempt at justifying a sin which is explicitly condemned in the bible. If you think the scriptures she provided prove Christians who refuse to support homosexuality are evil you’re sadly mistaken, and even more sadly I suspect deep down you know that too. The bible doesn’t teach Christians to support sinful activities. That’s the bottom line. Again, loving someone does not mean you can’t disagree with their lifestyle choice. Disagreeing with a gay’s lifestyle does not mean you hate them or even that they’re your enemies Seriously what part of this aren’t you understanding? ”Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,”Luke 17:3”Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.”2 Timothy 4:2Not when you believe the act they’re engaging is going to harm them and eventually lead to their damnation. Would you support your kid if he started hanging around with a gang who spent their time robbing and dealing drugs? Is it unloving to refuse to lend your gambling addict brother money he asked for knowing what he wants it for? Nah in Matthew 7:1 Jesus is talking about hypocritical judgment. In other words don’t judge people for sins if you yourself are guilty of engaging in the same sin. Sort yourself out first he’s basically saying. No that is anybody with an honest assessment’s interpretation who doesn’t have a self serving bias. ”The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,”1 Timothy 1:10Seems pretty straightforward to me. Men who practice homosexuality is contrary to sound doctrine. How else can one interpret that? I’m not really accusing her of being a fraud. Just that she’s misapplying/misunderstanding the purpose of Christ’s commands. Better argument than she has that’s for sure. At least you admit that Christians like her are hypocrites. The difference between us is I believe homosexuality is a sin and that Christians should not judge hypocritically and love their neighbors, in the context it was intended. She believes Christians should support sin regardless and under no circumstances judge anybody on anything. My view is biblical hers is a wishy washy take where ceasing to hurt people’s feelings in this life is more important than giving them guidance to saving their souls. With all due respect going by my interactions with you on this board and the little I know about your cousin, thats highly debatable. Anyway this my last post on a topic that quite frankly I find extremely boring.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 10, 2018 18:17:37 GMT
captainbryce No I’m criticising her for misusing the commands of Jesus in a feeble attempt at justifying a sin which is explicitly condemned in the bible. If you think the scriptures she provided prove Christians who refuse to support homosexuality are evil you’re sadly mistaken, and even more sadly I suspect deep down you know that too. The bible doesn’t teach Christians to support sinful activities. That’s the bottom line. Again, loving someone does not mean you can’t disagree with their lifestyle choice. Disagreeing with a gay’s lifestyle does not mean you hate them or even that they’re your enemies Seriously what part of this aren’t you understanding? ”Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,”Luke 17:3”Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.”2 Timothy 4:2Not when you believe the act they’re engaging is going to harm them and eventually lead to their damnation. Would you support your kid if he started hanging around with a gang who spent their time robbing and dealing drugs? Is it unloving to refuse to lend your gambling addict brother money he asked for knowing what he wants it for? Nah in Matthew 7:1 Jesus is talking about hypocritical judgment. In other words don’t judge people for sins if you yourself are guilty of engaging in the same sin. Sort yourself out first he’s basically saying. No that is anybody with an honest assessment’s interpretation who doesn’t have a self serving bias. ”The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,”1 Timothy 1:10Seems pretty straightforward to me. Men who practice homosexuality is contrary to sound doctrine. How else can one interpret that? I’m not really accusing her of being a fraud. Just that she’s misapplying/misunderstanding the purpose of Christ’s commands. Better argument than she has that’s for sure. At least you admit that Christians like her are hypocrites. The difference between us is I believe homosexuality is a sin and that Christians should not judge hypocritically and love their neighbors, in the context it was intended. She believes Christians should support sin regardless and under no circumstances judge anybody on anything. My view is biblical hers is a wishy washy take where ceasing to hurt people’s feelings in this life is more important than giving them guidance to saving their souls. With all due respect going by my interactions with you on this board and the little I know about your cousin, thats highly debatable. Anyway this my last post on a topic that quite frankly I find extremely boring. TL;DR
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 10, 2018 18:25:58 GMT
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. We haven’t proved you “correct”; I’ve proved you to be a hypocrite (just like every other Christian who has spoken on this issue as of yet). There is no “hatred” on my part; you’re just employing ad hominem now because you have no good counter-argument to the last point I raised demonstrating your hypocrisy. The fact that you and Cody (two supposed Christians) aren’t even on the same page on this issue precisely demonstrates my point. So thank you for proving my point! Except you have made absolutely no points, as always, just as you always do, and that's not even a generalization. You just blabber on and on, without making a single point, so there's no way to argue back against that, because all you have is emotion and the backing of other emotional sheep who applaud you like the mobs of the dark ages. In the middle ages, you and Rachel would have been burning innocent people accuse of being witches, because you act completely out of emotion and convenience. You wouldn't even care about facts. You just follow voices of demons, like sheep. But thank you for proving my point
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 10, 2018 19:00:21 GMT
We haven’t proved you “correct”; I’ve proved you to be a hypocrite (just like every other Christian who has spoken on this issue as of yet). There is no “hatred” on my part; you’re just employing ad hominem now because you have no good counter-argument to the last point I raised demonstrating your hypocrisy. The fact that you and Cody (two supposed Christians) aren’t even on the same page on this issue precisely demonstrates my point. So thank you for proving my point! Except you have made absolutely no points, as always, just as you always do, and that's not even a generalization. You just blabber on and on, without making a single point, so there's no way to argue back against that, because all you have is emotion and the backing of other emotional sheep who applaud you like the mobs of the dark ages. In the middle ages, you and Rachel would have been burning innocent people accuse of being witches, because you act completely out of emotion and convenience. You wouldn't even care about facts. You just follow voices of demons, like sheep. Cool story bro!
|
|
Moviefan
Sophomore
@allaby
Posts: 565
Likes: 284
|
Post by Moviefan on Jun 10, 2018 22:05:15 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? Both would be true Christians. A person's view on homosexuality,same sex marriage, and/or wedding cakes, does not determine if they are a Christian or not. Someone could be in a same sex marriage and be a true Christian or refuse to associate with all gay people and still be a true Christian.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 10, 2018 22:16:55 GMT
People can define a "true x" however they like. I don't like langauge police, NTS is not a fallacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 22:33:25 GMT
That was a No True Scotsman fallacy; but challenging someone on that does invoke something of a dilemma. Most Christians care more about their religion than they do about gay rights, so pragmatically it isn't a good move to try and convince them that they are either being a bad Christian by being tolerant and thus not being faithful to scripture, or else their religion is a load of contradictory horse shit, which they will refuse to accept. But then if you don't do that, you're being intellectually dishonest, so you have to decide which is more important.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 10, 2018 23:07:26 GMT
That was a No True Scotsman fallacy; but challenging someone on that does invoke something of a dilemma. Most Christians care more about their religion than they do about gay rights, so pragmatically it isn't a good move to try and convince them that they are either being a bad Christian by being tolerant and thus not being faithful to scripture, or else their religion is a load of contradictory horse shit, which they will refuse to accept. But then if you don't do that, you're being intellectually dishonest, so you have to decide which is more important. Anytime I discuss Christianity with a Christian, I'm am doing to only to engage the person (or rather have them engage) in critical thinking. The intent isn't to tell them they are being a "good Christian", or "bad Christian", or "true Christian", or "false Christian" because those are all relative and subjective ideas. The intent is to get them to understand why they are being hypocritical when they do it to each other. I don't care what they actually believe, as it has no bearing on reality.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 10, 2018 23:15:56 GMT
That was a No True Scotsman fallacy; but challenging someone on that does invoke something of a dilemma. Most Christians care more about their religion than they do about gay rights, so pragmatically it isn't a good move to try and convince them that they are either being a bad Christian by being tolerant and thus not being faithful to scripture, or else their religion is a load of contradictory horse shit, which they will refuse to accept. But then if you don't do that, you're being intellectually dishonest, so you have to decide which is more important. Great descriptive phrase; may I borrow it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 23:16:28 GMT
That was a No True Scotsman fallacy; but challenging someone on that does invoke something of a dilemma. Most Christians care more about their religion than they do about gay rights, so pragmatically it isn't a good move to try and convince them that they are either being a bad Christian by being tolerant and thus not being faithful to scripture, or else their religion is a load of contradictory horse shit, which they will refuse to accept. But then if you don't do that, you're being intellectually dishonest, so you have to decide which is more important. Great descriptive phrase; may I borrow it? Of course.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 11, 2018 10:49:18 GMT
That was a No True Scotsman fallacy; but challenging someone on that does invoke something of a dilemma. Most Christians care more about their religion than they do about gay rights, so pragmatically it isn't a good move to try and convince them that they are either being a bad Christian by being tolerant and thus not being faithful to scripture, or else their religion is a load of contradictory horse shit, which they will refuse to accept. But then if you don't do that, you're being intellectually dishonest, so you have to decide which is more important. Anytime I discuss Christianity with a Christian, I'm am doing to only to engage the person (or rather have them engage) in critical thinking. The intent isn't to tell them they are being a "good Christian", or "bad Christian", or "true Christian", or "false Christian" because those are all relative and subjective ideas. The intent is to get them to understand why they are being hypocritical when they do it to each other. I don't care what they actually believe, as it has no bearing on reality. lol
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 11, 2018 19:45:08 GMT
Anytime I discuss Christianity with a Christian, I'm am doing to only to engage the person (or rather have them engage) in critical thinking. The intent isn't to tell them they are being a "good Christian", or "bad Christian", or "true Christian", or "false Christian" because those are all relative and subjective ideas. The intent is to get them to understand why they are being hypocritical when they do it to each other. I don't care what they actually believe, as it has no bearing on reality. lol 😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 20:08:14 GMT
I think well-meaning Christians can reasonably disagree about this issue (whether to bake the cake or not). But as a matter of religious liberty, no one should be compelled to participate in a service that they believe goes against their faith. There are plenty of bakeries that would gladly bake a perfectly satisfactory cake for a gay wedding.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 11, 2018 20:26:31 GMT
Except you have made absolutely no points, as always, just as you always do, and that's not even a generalization. You just blabber on and on, without making a single point, so there's no way to argue back against that, because all you have is emotion and the backing of other emotional sheep who applaud you like the mobs of the dark ages. In the middle ages, you and Rachel would have been burning innocent people accuse of being witches, because you act completely out of emotion and convenience. You wouldn't even care about facts. You just follow voices of demons, like sheep.Cool story bro! Hey, Bryce, I just noticed this - bolded copy above - now that's funny, I would be the one being burned as a witch because of all my cats and because I would not accept what those mobs were preaching. If nothing else, I am fact-based, not faith based. There are no demons. Poor drystyx, he must have gotten the voices in his head mixed up.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 11, 2018 21:17:55 GMT
Cool story bro! Hey, Bryce, I just noticed this - bolded copy above - now that's funny, I would be the one being burned as a witch because of all my cats and because I would not accept what those mobs were preaching. If nothing else, I am fact-based, not faith based. There are no demons. Poor drystyx , he must have gotten the voices in his head mixed up. What’s really funny is that I hadn’t even read his response beyond the first sentence until you just copied again and bolded it, lol. Upon reading it in full, I now realize just how pathetic and ridiculous it actually is. “Demons” 😂
|
|