RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions

RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 12:57:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Ah the old No True Scotsman Fallacy. You think so? Obviously I think that a CHRISTian by definition follows CHRIST and if they don' then they are not, no matter what they call themselves. I don't think this fits your description of my argument since the goalpost is never shifted, it is absolute whereas the church indeed shifted the definition of Christian, as have other posts here, to agree with their arguments which indeed fit the description of "The No True Scottsman Fallacy" You have no idea what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. But you did definitely commit it. It was a classic. You think so? In what way? You decided that people who self identify as Christian were not Christian so as to exclude them because you don't like their behavior. That is the precise definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Arturas -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 1:17:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Ah the old No True Scotsman Fallacy. You think so? Obviously I think that a CHRISTian by definition follows CHRIST and if they don' then they are not, no matter what they call themselves. I don't think this fits your description of my argument since the goalpost is never shifted, it is absolute whereas the church indeed shifted the definition of Christian, as have other posts here, to agree with their arguments which indeed fit the description of "The No True Scottsman Fallacy" You have no idea what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. But you did definitely commit it. It was a classic. You think so? In what way? You decided that people who self identify as Christian were not Christian so as to exclude them because you don't like their behavior. That is the precise definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Hardly. Christians are defined by Jesus Christ, hence they are called Christians. The definition is in the written word and not provided by a Pope, or King on a Crusade or you or me. So you have this backwards and are trying to move the goal or criterion to fit your argument, one you cannot win because of it's core fallacy, that is you redefine Christian and add to that one already provided by Christ. I am amazed some even attempt it. But they have to in order to classify the followers of the one who said "treat others as you would have them treat you" and "love thy neighbor" as somehow bad and then point to some pope or King who did bad things with subjects they called Christians. Amazing task they have set themselves to do in pointing at Christians and blaming them for the ills of some Church and secular authorities.

mnottertail -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 1:19:33 PM)
So those of us who believe in the one-eyed god of war and confusion but treat our neighbors kindly are the true xtians while all others are not true scotsmen. Got it.

Arturas -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 1:20:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail So those of us who believe in the one-eyed god of war and confusion but treat our neighbors kindly are the true xtians while all others are not true scotsmen. Got it. I might be wrong about the treatment.

mnottertail -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 1:22:22 PM)
Yeah, a fuckin moronic dipshit like you wouldnt benefit from any treatment, I think you should continue slobbering and gulping toilet turds as you have for so long out here.

DomKen -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 1:34:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Ah the old No True Scotsman Fallacy. You think so? Obviously I think that a CHRISTian by definition follows CHRIST and if they don' then they are not, no matter what they call themselves. I don't think this fits your description of my argument since the goalpost is never shifted, it is absolute whereas the church indeed shifted the definition of Christian, as have other posts here, to agree with their arguments which indeed fit the description of "The No True Scottsman Fallacy" You have no idea what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. But you did definitely commit it. It was a classic. You think so? In what way? You decided that people who self identify as Christian were not Christian so as to exclude them because you don't like their behavior. That is the precise definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Hardly. Christians are defined by Jesus Christ, hence they are called Christians. The definition is in the written word and not provided by a Pope, or King on a Crusade or you or me. So you have this backwards and are trying to move the goal or criterion to fit your argument, one you cannot win because of it's core fallacy, that is you redefine Christian and add to that one already provided by Christ. I am amazed some even attempt it. But they have to in order to classify the followers of the one who said "treat others as you would have them treat you" and "love thy neighbor" as somehow bad and then point to some pope or King who did bad things with subjects they called Christians. Amazing task they have set themselves to do in pointing at Christians and blaming them for the ills of some Church and secular authorities. Your failing is to define Christians in a self serving manner and then assign that definition to a semi fictional entity who cannot be consulted. It doesn't change the fallacy it simply makes it worse.

GotSteel -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 4:06:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Hardly. Christians are defined by Jesus Christ, hence they are called Christians. Except that isn't true. Jesus never created his own religion separate from Judaism. Furthermore we can't exactly ask him who's doing it right and the instructions written entirely by people who were not Jesus are so convoluted and contradictory that they spawned some 30,000 different denominations. You can quote the passages you like and rationalize the disagreeing passages away and those who disagree with you can do the exact same thing.

GotSteel -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 4:13:19 PM)
Here's something else to ponder, the teachings of Paul are likely a core part of your Christianity. Paul never even actually met Jesus he just had a hallucination. What makes the writings of some guy named Paul who had a hallucination last week any less validly Christian than the writings of your Paul?

Arturas -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 5:50:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Hardly. Christians are defined by Jesus Christ, hence they are called Christians. Except that isn't true. Jesus never created his own religion separate from Judaism. Furthermore we can't exactly ask him who's doing it right and the instructions written entirely by people who were not Jesus are so convoluted and contradictory that they spawned some 30,000 different denominations. You can quote the passages you like and rationalize the disagreeing passages away and those who disagree with you can do the exact same thing. Oh yes he did define his followers, he said "follow me and I will make you fishers of men". This is a Christian, one who follows Him. You can try and make it more complicated but truth tends to be very simple.

Arturas -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 5:54:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Ah the old No True Scotsman Fallacy. You think so? Obviously I think that a CHRISTian by definition follows CHRIST and if they don' then they are not, no matter what they call themselves. I don't think this fits your description of my argument since the goalpost is never shifted, it is absolute whereas the church indeed shifted the definition of Christian, as have other posts here, to agree with their arguments which indeed fit the description of "The No True Scottsman Fallacy" You have no idea what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. But you did definitely commit it. It was a classic. You think so? In what way? You decided that people who self identify as Christian were not Christian so as to exclude them because you don't like their behavior. That is the precise definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Hardly. Christians are defined by Jesus Christ, hence they are called Christians. The definition is in the written word and not provided by a Pope, or King on a Crusade or you or me. So you have this backwards and are trying to move the goal or criterion to fit your argument, one you cannot win because of it's core fallacy, that is you redefine Christian and add to that one already provided by Christ. I am amazed some even attempt it. But they have to in order to classify the followers of the one who said "treat others as you would have them treat you" and "love thy neighbor" as somehow bad and then point to some pope or King who did bad things with subjects they called Christians. Amazing task they have set themselves to do in pointing at Christians and blaming them for the ills of some Church and secular authorities. Your failing is to define Christians in a self serving manner and then assign that definition to a semi fictional entity who cannot be consulted. It doesn't change the fallacy it simply makes it worse. But He can be consulted. His teaching is in print for all to read and you don't need me or anyone else to interpret them. I'm not sure how this is self-serving, explain that to me because I don't know how I benefit by explaining this to you. It's a cost of my time but all I am charged to do is tell you and you have the ball. Drop it or not.

DomKen -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 8:11:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas But He can be consulted. His teaching is in print for all to read and you don't need me or anyone else to interpret them. I'm not sure how this is self-serving, explain that to me because I don't know how I benefit by explaining this to you. It's a cost of my time but all I am charged to do is tell you and you have the ball. Drop it or not. No one but the truly crazed fundamentalists believe the historical person said anything reported in the Bible. The four gospels were each written at least a full generation later by people who were reporting stories they could not possibly have witnessed.

GotSteel -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/19/2014 7:04:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No one but the truly crazed fundamentalists believe the historical person said anything reported in the Bible. The four gospels were each written at least a full generation later by people who were reporting stories they could not possibly have witnessed. That's overstating things, for instance the Jesus Seminar an effort to apply modern scholarship to determine the historical accuracy of the gospels found that Jesus Christ likely did say about 20% of what's been attributed to him.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/19/2014 7:19:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Hardly. Christians are defined by Jesus Christ, hence they are called Christians. The definition is in the written word and not provided by a Pope, or King on a Crusade or you or me. Sorry but in declaring that neither self identified Christians nor the Church organisation are Christian, it appears that you are doing the defining here. Of course you are free to claim that you are God but that would be as silly as your attempts to blame shift the many horrors visited upon humanity by self identified Christians and organisations claiming to represent Christ on Earth over the centuries away from the ideology that inspired them and in whose name they acted and continue to act.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/19/2014 7:26:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No one but the truly crazed fundamentalists believe the historical person said anything reported in the Bible. The four gospels were each written at least a full generation later by people who were reporting stories they could not possibly have witnessed. That's overstating things, for instance the Jesus Seminar an effort to apply modern scholarship to determine the historical accuracy of the gospels found that Jesus Christ likely did say about 20% of what's been attributed to him. That's better than what people attribute to Benjamin Franklin or Mark Twain on the Internet! ;-)

GotSteel -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/20/2014 4:12:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas But He can be consulted. His teaching is in print for all to read and you don't need me or anyone else to interpret them. In that case, you're not a Christian.

hot4bondage -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/20/2014 5:05:19 AM)
~FR~ "Francis said during a drug enforcement conference in Rome that even the most limited of tries to give legal status to the drug is 'not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint,' but such would 'fail to produce the desired results,' AP reported." I think this more than cancels out anything he's done to repair the image of the Roman Catholic church. A far more accurate statement would be "Prohibition is not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but it HAS FAILED to produce the desired results." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/pope-francis-legalizing-marijuana-just-say-no/

MercTech -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/20/2014 6:27:20 PM)
Hey, you can always go old school for a definition of a Christian... old school as in the Council of Nicea in 1054 that came up with the "Apostles Creed". Go way back and subscribing to that belief was all that was required to be a "christian".. at least in Western Europe. Apostles' Creed 1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 1l. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/20/2014 6:55:30 PM)
FR Who cares what some bearded old headbanger with opinions that are thousands of years out of date says? ETA: I didn't mean you, Arturas.

Kirata -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/20/2014 7:22:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas His teaching is in print for all to read and you don't need me... Well that's a relief. K.

GotSteel -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/20/2014 8:38:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech old school as in the Council of Nicea in 1054 that came up with the "Apostles Creed". Um I think you've got your dates and events confused.

Page: << < prev 23 24 25 26 [27]

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.6835938