|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 4:47:17 GMT
I'm not one to say who is or isn't a "True Christian" or even if there is such a thing, but it seems to me that if you're raping children and setting kittens on fire and other bad things of that nature, you would probably only be considered one by those who think your actions actually square with anything Jesus said. And yet your post quite clearly said: Which is you choosing what is and what is not Christianity. Which is the very definition of the no true scotsman fallacy as I said in my first response to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2021 4:52:08 GMT
I'm not one to say who is or isn't a "True Christian" or even if there is such a thing, but it seems to me that if you're raping children and setting kittens on fire and other bad things of that nature, you would probably only be considered one by those who think your actions actually square with anything Jesus said. And yet your post quite clearly said: Which is you choosing what is and what is not Christianity. Which is the very definition of the no true scotsman fallacy as I said in my first response to you. You can say Christianity advocates raping children and setting kittens on fire if you want to, but I wouldn't agree at this time. Maybe tomorrow when some Christian pisses me off.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 4:57:16 GMT
And yet your post quite clearly said: Which is you choosing what is and what is not Christianity. Which is the very definition of the no true scotsman fallacy as I said in my first response to you. You can say Christianity advocates raping children and setting kittens on fire if you want to, but I wouldn't agree at this time. Maybe tomorrow when some Christian pisses me off. Missing the point, I know what I think Christianity is, and I adhere to that. What you are saying is that some people who belong to Christian sects are not Christian, which is the very definition of No True Scotsman. Or to put it another way, I think Erjen has (had) a terrible theological understanding and he advocated things that I feel no Christian would, he also felt the same about me, but I have to accept that he believes himself to be Christian otherwise I am commiting the no true scotsman fallacy. This is not a fallacy about doctrinal agreement, it is a fallacy around identification of sects based on our personal doctrinal position.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2021 6:31:00 GMT
I'm not one to say who is or isn't a "True Christian" or even if there is such a thing, but it seems to me that if you're raping children and setting kittens on fire and other bad things of that nature, you would probably only be considered one by those who think your actions actually square with anything Jesus said. And yet your post quite clearly said: Which is you choosing what is and what is not Christianity. Which is the very definition of the no true scotsman fallacy as I said in my first response to you. I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said it's no longer Christianity if it has evolved into something else, I wasn't defining it. That applies to literally anything that evolves into something else, and I apologize for thinking that didn't need to be said. The baby rapers and kitty burners exaggerate the point. Changing your perspective about something doesn't actually change it, and we don't determine what Christianity is. Jesus did that. (Well, sort of, IMO. See comment above about "founding Christianity.") So to say Christianity has evolved into something else (for instance, support for baby raping) is to say it's no longer in line with Jesus himself. And to say that something can evolve while remaining unchanged is to admit a complete lack of understanding of what it means to evolve.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Apr 15, 2021 14:51:50 GMT
Alrighty then... I've chewed it over. Does he have a congregation? Do none of them look from their 'pastor' to the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, then back to their 'pastor', and say to him "That's not what it says here". Can anyone in the US, no matter how unhinged, just send off five tokens and a cheque for $10, and claim the title 'pastor'? Good to see you back, Father Jack! How are the critters? To briefly answer your questions... 1. yes 2. none of them do, no one checks for inconsistencies 3. pretty much, yeah Gotta go, off to the zoo today! With mask and hand sanitizer!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Apr 15, 2021 17:17:06 GMT
No matter how often Jews go to Temple, nor how long Catholics go to Mass, nor how long JWs go to the Kingdom Hall, nor how long atheists do nothing, Covid deaths seem to occur at about the same rate for all four of those groups. Bible beaters, especially evangelists, have one trait in common with Trump: Make up a statistic, then say it so emphatically that the gullible audience believe it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 18:10:11 GMT
And yet your post quite clearly said: Which is you choosing what is and what is not Christianity. Which is the very definition of the no true scotsman fallacy as I said in my first response to you. I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said it's no longer Christianity if it has evolved into something else, I wasn't defining it. That applies to literally anything that evolves into something else, and I apologize for thinking that didn't need to be said. The baby rapers and kitty burners exaggerate the point. Changing your perspective about something doesn't actually change it, and we don't determine what Christianity is. Jesus did that. (Well, sort of, IMO. See comment above about "founding Christianity.") So to say Christianity has evolved into something else (for instance, support for baby raping) is to say it's no longer in line with Jesus himself. And to say that something can evolve while remaining unchanged is to admit a complete lack of understanding of what it means to evolve. And yet the people in that religion that has evolved away from what YOU think Christianity is, consider themselves Christian. You are still make ing the same fallacy. Look I get it, Hitler was a shit Christian, it would be great if we could denounce him from Christianity but we cant chooose what Christianity is, those that profess to follow the belief system are Christian, unless of course they are actually lying for some reason. i never said something can evolve and remain unchanged, I am pointing out that you are committing the fallacy I initially described by painting yourself as the arbiter of what is and what is not Christian.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 18:47:24 GMT
And yet the people in that religion that has evolved away from what YOU think Christianity is, consider themselves Christian. You are still make ing the same fallacy. Look I get it, Hitler was a shit Christian, it would be great if we could denounce him from Christianity but we cant chooose what Christianity is, those that profess to follow the belief system are Christian, unless of course they are actually lying for some reason. i never said something can evolve and remain unchanged, I am pointing out that you are committing the fallacy I initially described by painting yourself as the arbiter of what is and what is not Christian. I think admin believes Christianity is a whole-cloth revelation handed down from God to a few men during a short window in the 1st century. Saint Paul is the person Jesus himself communicated most with telling him how to run the church and what people should believe about him. So that is the original Christianity and it hasn’t evolved. Could be, and I guess that is the view of a lot of Catholics and of course many Christians (and other religions I suppose) deny that other people who identify as Christian are because of some doctrinal difference. I think we have spoken about this before, but I think all legit religions are simply cultural ways of telling the same truth, and often when you look into the actual thing they are describing it is often the same.
Having said that there would be no extant Christianity of the sort you describe, even catholicism has evolved, in fact papal infallibility assures it's evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 19:00:06 GMT
Could be, and I guess that is the view of a lot of Catholics and of course many Christians (and other religions I suppose) deny that other people who identify as Christian are because of some doctrinal difference. I think we have spoken about this before, but I think all legit religions are simply cultural ways of telling the same truth, and often when you look into the actual thing they are describing it is often the same.
Having said that there would be no extant Christianity of the sort you describe, even catholicism has evolved, in fact papal infallibility assures it's evolution.
Objectively speaking, any church that claims Jesus Christ as a savior god or a moral leader is a Christian church. The Branch Davidians in Waco were Christians. The Unitarian Universalists, who believe Jesus was not divine are also Christians. Yup, and that is pretty much my argument with admin, that if you claim to be Christian then you are, I mean I realize that the baby eating bishop of Bath and Welles, is clearly someone who is Christian but failing, and if there was a church whose doctrine was we are Christian but we eat babies, then I would have difficulty accepting that they follow Jesus, but an example like that is simply an extreme test to posit the absurd, no Church in reality would claim that, which is why that is not really bait I take.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2021 21:13:55 GMT
I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said it's no longer Christianity if it has evolved into something else, I wasn't defining it. That applies to literally anything that evolves into something else, and I apologize for thinking that didn't need to be said. The baby rapers and kitty burners exaggerate the point. Changing your perspective about something doesn't actually change it, and we don't determine what Christianity is. Jesus did that. (Well, sort of, IMO. See comment above about "founding Christianity.") So to say Christianity has evolved into something else (for instance, support for baby raping) is to say it's no longer in line with Jesus himself. And to say that something can evolve while remaining unchanged is to admit a complete lack of understanding of what it means to evolve. And yet the people in that religion that has evolved away from what YOU think Christianity is, consider themselves Christian. You are still make ing the same fallacy. Look I get it, Hitler was a shit Christian, it would be great if we could denounce him from Christianity but we cant chooose what Christianity is, those that profess to follow the belief system are Christian, unless of course they are actually lying for some reason. i never said something can evolve and remain unchanged, I am pointing out that you are committing the fallacy I initially described by painting yourself as the arbiter of what is and what is not Christian. It's not a fallacy to say that evolution is change, and I'm not dabbling in gray areas here. If Christianity is all about peace and love and good happiness stuff, then a religion that espouses war and hate and unhappiness stuff is not Christianity. It's just math. If being a Christian is defined by what's in your heart as opposed to what you do, then I can't necessarily agree with you when you say Hitler was a shit Christian because his heart is known only to himself and God. As for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, I thought I already made it clear that I'm not one to determine who is and isn't a Christian, let alone a "true" one. And if simply saying you're a Christian makes you a Christian, then your actions are irrelevant. Let's make this easy. I will define Christianity as being whatever Jesus said it is - good, bad, or indifferent. You show me a religion that's at odds with what he said, and I'll give you the No True Scotsman fallacy you're looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2021 21:17:47 GMT
I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said it's no longer Christianity if it has evolved into something else, I wasn't defining it. That applies to literally anything that evolves into something else, and I apologize for thinking that didn't need to be said. The baby rapers and kitty burners exaggerate the point. Changing your perspective about something doesn't actually change it, and we don't determine what Christianity is. Jesus did that. (Well, sort of, IMO. See comment above about "founding Christianity.") So to say Christianity has evolved into something else (for instance, support for baby raping) is to say it's no longer in line with Jesus himself. And to say that something can evolve while remaining unchanged is to admit a complete lack of understanding of what it means to evolve. Why do you keep bring up baby rape as something Christianity “evolved” into? Yesterday it was pedophilia. Because it illustrates the point as explained here. If an extreme example negates your claim that Christianity has evolved, then what doesn't? Where do you draw the line? Somewhere between a white lie and baby rape, I suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2021 22:00:46 GMT
And yet the people in that religion that has evolved away from what YOU think Christianity is, consider themselves Christian. You are still make ing the same fallacy. Look I get it, Hitler was a shit Christian, it would be great if we could denounce him from Christianity but we cant chooose what Christianity is, those that profess to follow the belief system are Christian, unless of course they are actually lying for some reason. i never said something can evolve and remain unchanged, I am pointing out that you are committing the fallacy I initially described by painting yourself as the arbiter of what is and what is not Christian. I think admin believes Christianity is a whole-cloth revelation handed down from God to a few men during a short window in the 1st century. Saint Paul is the person Jesus himself communicated most with telling him how to run the church and what people should believe about him. So that is the original Christianity and it hasn’t evolved. Um... As Christianity evolved over the next few centuries... Why is it okay for you to trip all over yourself, but not okay for me to point and laugh?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 23:02:41 GMT
And yet the people in that religion that has evolved away from what YOU think Christianity is, consider themselves Christian. You are still make ing the same fallacy. Look I get it, Hitler was a shit Christian, it would be great if we could denounce him from Christianity but we cant chooose what Christianity is, those that profess to follow the belief system are Christian, unless of course they are actually lying for some reason. i never said something can evolve and remain unchanged, I am pointing out that you are committing the fallacy I initially described by painting yourself as the arbiter of what is and what is not Christian. It's not a fallacy to say that evolution is change, and I'm not dabbling in gray areas here. If Christianity is all about peace and love and good happiness stuff, then a religion that espouses war and hate and unhappiness stuff is not Christianity. It's just math. If being a Christian is defined by what's in your heart as opposed to what you do, then I can't necessarily agree with you when you say Hitler was a shit Christian because his heart is known only to himself and God. As for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, I thought I already made it clear that I'm not one to determine who is and isn't a Christian, let alone a "true" one. And if simply saying you're a Christian makes you a Christian, then your actions are irrelevant. Let's make this easy. I will define Christianity as being whatever Jesus said it is - good, bad, or indifferent. You show me a religion that's at odds with what he said, and I'll give you the No True Scotsman fallacy you're looking for. Again I never said evolution was not change, I am not sure where you got that from. You keep on saying when challenged that you are not one to define who is and is not a christian, firstly the context here is sects, not individuals, but I accept we have drifted a little, but my point is that you say this, but then you say: Look I don't think you and I will agree on this point, which is funny because actually we do agree, we both see people or sects who fail to live up to what we consider 'good' Christianity, and we call them out on it, the only difference being that you say they are not Christian, where as I say they are Christian but have a terrible theology. Just to be clear I have avoided all the baby rape and similar comments because that is 100% hypothetical, unless you can actually find a Christian sect that advocates baby rape then it's just an idea, in the real world there are no sects like that. I think we have driven this bus as far as it will go, I don't think either of us is going to change and I don't think we should, I think as I said we essentially both believe the same thing about this, but our labelling semantics divides us. Thank you for arguing in a respectful way, I really appreciate it, my experience is that it is rare on this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2021 23:16:50 GMT
It's not a fallacy to say that evolution is change, and I'm not dabbling in gray areas here. If Christianity is all about peace and love and good happiness stuff, then a religion that espouses war and hate and unhappiness stuff is not Christianity. It's just math. If being a Christian is defined by what's in your heart as opposed to what you do, then I can't necessarily agree with you when you say Hitler was a shit Christian because his heart is known only to himself and God. As for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, I thought I already made it clear that I'm not one to determine who is and isn't a Christian, let alone a "true" one. And if simply saying you're a Christian makes you a Christian, then your actions are irrelevant. Let's make this easy. I will define Christianity as being whatever Jesus said it is - good, bad, or indifferent. You show me a religion that's at odds with what he said, and I'll give you the No True Scotsman fallacy you're looking for. Again I never said evolution was not change, I am not sure where you got that from. You keep on saying when challenged that you are not one to define who is and is not a christian, firstly the context here is sects, not individuals, but I accept we have drifted a little, but my point is that you say this, but then you say: Look I don't think you and I will agree on this point, which is funny because actually we do agree, we both see people or sects who fail to live up to what we consider 'good' Christianity, and we call them out on it, the only difference being that you say they are not Christian, where as I say they are Christian but have a terrible theology. Just to be clear I have avoided all the baby rape and similar comments because that is 100% hypothetical, unless you can actually find a Christian sect that advocates baby rape then it's just an idea, in the real world there are no sects like that. I think we have driven this bus as far as it will go, I don't think either of us is going to change and I don't think we should, I think as I said we essentially both believe the same thing about this, but our labelling semantics divides us. Actually, what I said was that a religion that espouses war and hate and unhappiness stuff is not Christianity if Christianity is all about peace and love and good happiness stuff. The evolution issue ties into the claim that Christianity itself has changed over time. All I'm really saying here is that if Christianity were to evolve into a doctrine of war, hate, and unhappiness stuff that doesn't square with Jesus, it would no longer be Christianity despite its title. As for the rest, I'll just paraphrase someone I forgot: "Christianity would be great if it weren't for all the Christians." I believe what goes around, comes around. Thanks to you as well. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2021 1:19:03 GMT
Um... Why is it okay for you to trip all over yourself, but not okay for me to point and laugh? I'm saying that is what you believe, that Christianity has not evolved. And just admit you are a born-again Christian. What I believe is that you said it evolved. Not sure what that has to do with what you think I am, but I will say that if I admit that, then we'd both be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2021 1:58:46 GMT
What I believe is that you said it evolved. Not sure what that has to do with what you think I am, but I will say that if I admit that, then we'd both be wrong. Everything "evolves" or "devolves" as in it changes over time. My beef was the claim either me or someone had said Christianity evolved into pedophilia as if to say the Church itself "evolved into" child sex cult. That is what some right wingers are saying the Democratic Party evolved into. No one ever said it here of the church that I know of. I certainly never said it. , so there's no beef to be had. And since evolution is change (as you just clarified), it's impossible for something to evolve without changing. So when you say something has evolved - in this case, Christianity - it's a contradiction to then assert that you never said it evolved "into something." I believe these to be objective statements and as such, nothing personal is intended. That statement presumes that Christianity is a church, and you should know by know that I like to challenge such presumptions to preclude a disingenuous discussion. If I do that, will you call me names?
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Apr 16, 2021 2:46:37 GMT
Everything "evolves" or "devolves" as in it changes over time. My beef was the claim either me or someone had said Christianity evolved into pedophilia as if to say the Church itself "evolved into" child sex cult. That is what some right wingers are saying the Democratic Party evolved into. No one ever said it here of the church that I know of. I certainly never said it. , so there's no beef to be had. And since evolution is change (as you just clarified), it's impossible for something to evolve without changing. So when you say something has evolved - in this case, Christianity - it's a contradiction to then assert that you never said it evolved "into something." I believe these to be objective statements and as such, nothing personal is intended. That statement presumes that Christianity is a church, and you should know by know that I like to challenge such presumptions to preclude a disingenuous discussion. If I do that, will you call me names? Perhaps a fitting end to this thread would be a quote from "Hannah and Her Sisters", 1986, from the character of Frederick (Max von Sydow)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2021 2:54:21 GMT
Nobody said that, so there's no beef to be had. And since evolution is change (as you just clarified), it's impossible for something to evolve without changing. So when you say something has evolved - in this case, Christianity - it's a contradiction to then assert that you never said it evolved "into something." I believe these to be objective statements and as such, nothing personal is intended. That statement presumes that Christianity is a church, and you should know by know that I like to challenge such presumptions to preclude a disingenuous discussion. If I do that, will you call me names? Perhaps a fitting end to this thread would be a quote from "Hannah and Her Sisters", 1986, from the character of Frederick (Max von Sydow) Nice one. I hate to ruin your ending, but I have one of my own: I don't think this world is what God had in mind. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2021 2:55:34 GMT
Nobody said that, so there's no beef to be had. And since evolution is change (as you just clarified), it's impossible for something to evolve without changing. So when you say something has evolved - in this case, Christianity - it's a contradiction to then assert that you never said it evolved "into something." I believe these to be objective statements and as such, nothing personal is intended. That statement presumes that Christianity is a church, and you should know by know that I like to challenge such presumptions to preclude a disingenuous discussion. If I do that, will you call me names? By "something" I was referring the pedophilia part. You misunderstood what I wrote and maybe I should have been more clear. Nor have I said that the core teachings of Christianity have changed...after all, they are right there in the same Bible everyone has used since it was put down in the current form around 400AD. But it has "evolved." What I don't understand is why you are pounding me so hard about it. However, if this is this will make you happy: Damn, admin, you caught me in a contradiction. What a hypocrite I am...you got me. I'm sorry, Paul. I should have said " nobody claimed that."
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Apr 16, 2021 2:58:26 GMT
Perhaps a fitting end to this thread would be a quote from "Hannah and Her Sisters", 1986, from the character of Frederick (Max von Sydow) Nice one. I hate to ruin your ending, but I have one of my own: I don't think this world is what God had in mind. Hey, you and the others did all the debating, you are entitled to have the last word!
|
|
