Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Not Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses

[Dave Ellis]

All you have to do is look at our more recent history to know that the whole record is a mess of human error and influence. Unfortunately (for you and the secular world), you are also missing the controlling factor presiding over all world events, and just what is and just what is not included: The providence of God.

There is a consequence to turning a blind eye to the elephant in the room.

The irony is you're turning a blind eye to the overwhelming body of evidence that goes against your point.... namely the entirety of recorded history.

If that's not overlooking the elephant in the room, I don't know what is.

 

[Poster0]

In your opinion, do Christians ever do bad things, bad things that may hurt others?

Yes, but they acknowledge their wrong and ask forgiveness. Hitler never did that.. Hitler did not follow Christ and so he cannot be labeled a true Christian.


Mathew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

 

[Dave Ellis]

If you need to ask then there isnt much sense debating it. Been there, done that.

I'll take that as you have no reasonable answer.

 

[Cearbhall]

erm, she's locked up because some irresponsible decievers were desirous to apprehend power and authority, and cast out anyone holding this particular persuasion, not because of anything she did wrong.

I don't think you possibly could have portrayed the situation in a more overdramatic fashion.

Why should her livelyhood be jeopardized over some daytime rioters that have all the time of day to spread abominations?

"Daytime rioters" being the Supreme Court and the governor of her state? Because she's subject to the law just like everyone else. She did not do her job, and she refused to stand down.

 

[Dave Ellis]

What exactly is this No True Scotsman fallacy?

Hitler supposedly claimed to be a Christian, however if i say Hitler wasn't a Christian because no true follower of Christ would engage in the things that Hitler did, would that be considered the No true Scotsman fallacy?

Im thinking the answer is no, its not fallacy. But im interested in hearing what you, or others would say. Thanks.

Actually, yes, that is the fallacy.

The fallacy name stems from the following writing by Antony Flew in his 1975 book "Thinking about thinking":

"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton (England) Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen (Scotland) man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion, but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says: "No true Scotsman would do such a thing"


The fallacy is that the subject is trying to redefine terms to get out of admitting their original position is flawed. Hamish McDonald doesn't get to define what a Scotsman is.

In the Hitler case, you don't get to define him as not a Christian just because your personal views don't line up with his. You can claim his views doesn't align with your interpretation of Christianity, but you can't say he wasn't a Christian.

 

[loveofourlord]

erm, she's locked up because some irresponsible decievers were desirous to apprehend power and authority, and cast out anyone holding this particular persuasion, not because of anything she did wrong. Why should her livelyhood be jeopardized over some daytime rioters that have all the time of day to spread abominations? If She were only correct about one of a thousand issues, this would be it in my view.

yeah...thats it, not because the court told her to quit, resign, or allow someone else to do her job and refused, it's because people just want to jail anyone that dislikes gays, thats why the WBC is protesting from jail right?

 

[Archivist]

Uh huh. I think we can follow ordinances of men as unto the Lord, until the spirit does not permit, in any case that it must be because of an obvious difference in obeying God or man, even if we must be thrown into fiery furnaces or lions dens or what have you. Addressing Numbers, lets read Hebrews 7.....

"And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: [21] (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: ) [22] By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. [23] And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: [24] But this man , because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. [25] Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. [26] For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; [27] Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. [28] For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."

None of which has anything to do with the oath taken by a Jentucky clerk.

 

[Poster0]

Well, everyone's at least a little bit biased, I'll agree with you there. I'm not a computer.

I'm not considering it because I don't know of any such objective guidelines. I would have to pick someone's definition, and that would toss objectivity out the window. For example, the Pope would tell me that you yourself are not in the true Christian Church. He has more authority on the topic than anyone else I can think of, so that's probably who I would go with if I wanted to be objective while using some definition other than self-identity. Perhaps I should listen to him. Be careful what you wish for.

At last you could admit that the comparison is ridiculous anyway. Hitler was also clearly a German. If i decide that i want to criticize Germans and i used Hitler as an example of why Germans are bad, then would i not get accused of bigotry? Are you a bigot? If not then use your own values to dismiss this bigoted hate mongering against Christians.

 

[katherine2001]

Wrong. Violating an oath is, according to Scripture, a sin. Contempt of court is a matter for the courts.

Yes, God expects us to keep any oaths we make. That is specifically why Jesus warned us about making or taking oaths.

 

[Dave Ellis]

At last you could admit that the comparison is ridiculous anyway. Hitler was also clearly a German. If i decide that i want to criticize Germans and i used Hitler as an example of why Germans are bad, then would i not get accused of bigotry? Are you a bigot? If not then use your own values to dismiss this bigoted hate mongering against Christians.

If you say that since Hitler was a German, then all Germans are bad, you are a bigot. The reason is not all Germans are like Hitler.

Where you're misrepresenting our position is that we aren't asserting that all Christians are bad. However, it is a fact that Hitler was a self-identified Christian and many of his policies were based upon Christian writings. That does not mean that all Christians share his interpretations of those writings, or care about those writings at all.

 

[Desk trauma]

<Brienne of Tarth> Oath breaker! </Brienne of Tarth>

 

[Poster0]

Actually, yes, that is the fallacy.

The fallacy name stems from the following writing by Antony Flew in his 1975 book "Thinking about thinking":

"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton (England) Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen (Scotland) man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion, but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says: "No true Scotsman would do such a thing"


The fallacy is that the subject is trying to redefine terms to get out of admitting their original position is flawed. Hamish McDonald doesn't get to define what a Scotsman is.

In the Hitler case, you don't get to define him as not a Christian just because your personal views don't line up with his. You can claim his views doesn't align with your interpretation of Christianity, but you can't say he wasn't a Christian.

Its slanderous bigotry. No rational person would actually use Hitler as an example of a follower of Christ. Followers of Christ that are recorded in scripture never killed anyone, and they warned about false Christians who call themselves Christian but dont follow Christs example. Christ said His kingdom is not of this world and that his followers dont fight. So Christ Himself declares that Hitler is not His follower. It it surely subjective reasoning to suggest that Hitler was a follower of Christ. It is also bigotry.

 

[Cearbhall]

At last you could admit that the comparison is ridiculous anyway.

Erm. I don't think I said anything of the sort, but whatever gets us out of this Godwin's Law rabbit hole, I suppose...

If i decide that i want to criticize Germans and i used Hitler as an example of why Germans are bad, then would i not get accused of bigotry? Are you a bigot?

Where did I use Hitler as an example of the idea that Christians are bad? I don't believe any such thing. I merely pointed out that being Christian does not exclude a person from being bad. Quite a different story.

 

[rhymnrzn2zion]

I don't think you possibly could have portrayed the situation in a more overdramatic fashion.

"Daytime rioters" being the Supreme Court and the governor of her state? Because she's subject to the law just like everyone else. She did not do her job, and she refused to stand down.

Not even close. Simply put, those men are out of the way that clamour for gay rights and marriages. If not for a costly, unprofitable and great effort and struggle (at everyone elses expense) they wouldnt have a sizeable army of media and protesters, and appealates, and donors, and sympathizers, to get the laws altered.

Whats worse though, in my opinion, is we have nice people everywhere which are not even gay who get taken up in support of this ungodliness, in the name of "open mindedness": yet, we can be open-minded and none beguiled by the devil at the same time. Indeed, open-minded is the blessing that leads to faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Cearbhall]

Its slanderous bigotry. No rational person would actually use Hitler as an example of a follower of Christ.

Gee, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that it was up to me, a non-Christian, to decide who's Christian or not. I generally frown upon such people who try to dictate groups to which they don't belong, but I guess I should think about letting my head inflate more.

Thats subjective analysis, not objective. You are allowing personal feelings to get in the way of objective reasoning.

Personal feelings? What feelings? I was talking about history and the construction of human religions.

 

[Poster0]

If you say that since Hitler was a German, then all Germans are bad, you are a bigot. The reason is not all Germans are like Hitler.

Where you're misrepresenting our position is that we aren't asserting that all Christians are bad. However, it is a fact that Hitler was a self-identified Christian and many of his policies were based upon Christian writings. That does not mean that all Christians share his interpretations of those writings, or care about those writings at all.

Yes but if i say that Hitler was a German in attempt to criticize the German race then that its bigotry. If i say that Al Capone was an Italian in an attempt to criticize the Italian race then that is also bigotry. That is also exactly what is being done here when people say Hitler was a Christian.

 

[Poster0]

Gee, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that it was up to me, a non-Christian, to decide who's Christian or not. I generally frown upon such people who try to dictate groups to which they don't belong, but I guess I should think about letting my head inflate more.

Personal feelings? What feelings? I was talking about history and the construction of human religions.

How about just learning what a bigot is.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Its slanderous bigotry. No rational person would actually use Hitler as an example of a follower of Christ. Followers of Christ that are recorded in scripture never killed anyone, and they warned about false Christians who call themselves Christian but dont follow Christs example. Christ said His kingdom is not of this world and that his followers dont fight. So Christ Himself declares that Hitler is not His follower. It it surely subjective reasoning to suggest that Hitler was a follower of Christ. It is also bigotry.

Then by your definition, the Christian church for the overwhelming majority of the last 2,000 years was not really Christian.

I'm sorry, you don't get to define terms for everyone else. There are a lot of self-identified Christians in the world today who are pretty sympathetic to guys like Hitler. They can back their views with scripture as much as you can.

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes but if i say that Hitler was a German in attempt to criticize the German race then that its bigotry. If i say that Al Capone was an Italian in an attempt to criticize the Italian race then that is also bigotry. That is also exactly what is being done here when people say Hitler was a Christian.

Would you like to quote that person and address him/her, then? We don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes but if i say that Hitler was a German in attempt to criticize the German race then that its bigotry. If i say that Al Capone was an Italian in an attempt to criticize the Italian race then that is also bigotry. That is also exactly what is being done here when people say Hitler was a Christian.

No, it isn't. I made that quite clear when I said I fully accept that not all Christians are bad. In fact, I think a majority of them are good.

You're conflating the religion with the followers of that religion. We are criticising the ideas that led to Hitler's acts. You're taking it as a broad-brush attack on all people who identify as Christian. In essence, you're missing the point.