Find the enemy...

[JGG]

It doesn't make you an enemy and that is not what I said. I said in a less direct way that as long as someone chooses to glorify fear over love then they are giving their power to Satan instead of Jesus.

You said you can't believe in Jesus because of some fear you have, which has something to do with an unshakable observation. I don't know what you mean, but I would like you to ponder the glass half empty or half full parable, if you don't mind.

I said I can't believe in Jesus because of some fear I have? I don't remember saying that. I'm not really sure what that fear would be...

I really feel like you're repressing something important, the reason for my suspicion is that despite how much you have come to understand that Jesus and true Christianity isn't bad

Again, I want to reassert that I'm not on board with the concept of "true Christianity." The True Christian is always the one who agrees with the person making the claim. You guys can throw that back and forth amongst yourselves, but it means nothing to me. Afterall, there's a guy on Facebook who is also claiming to be a True Christian, and his views differ a great deal from yours.

As for Jesus, He may have been a good guy, and the concept of Jesus is mostly good in my eyes. But that does not translate to a belief that Jesus is God, or that God exists at all for me.

you have still been unable to ask God to make it a real experience for you.

What makes you say that? Long ago I basically begged for God to show me He was real. No dice. Since then my "experience" has pointed me in an entirely new direction. One that points to something I can't honestly call "God."

So I'll offer again, as many times as it takes, if you can articulate the problems you are having with Christianity, please don't hesitate to express it.

Christianity the faith, or the group of people? Again in regards to the faith it begins with the very concept of faith. If I have not been given adequate reason to believe something, why would I believe it? As for the group of people, I think we've chatted enough that you know where I'd go with that.

Lots of people around here will want to help you get your story straight, and some will actually be able to help because they are repentant Christians always doing what Jesus says is good and proper.

I'm not sure what this means.

 

[JGG]

Who are you to say any of these are indeed Christian? Just because one labels himself Christian does not make it so. Christ Himself tells us this.

Who am I to say that any of them are not Christian? All I can do is take them at their word. As I just said above, I don't get on board with the True Christian thing, every Christian believes themselves and those who agree with him to be a True Christian.

If the oranges you are inspecting look and taste like apples then perhaps it is an apple tree you are looking at. Meaning look for Christ in an atheist joke section of a web site maynot always yield the best this system of belief has to offer.

Maybe not. But it is there. And I don't have to limit myself to jokes pages, I can come here to CF.

What needs to change is not the fact that you are inspecting the fruit of some christians. What need to change is the pride one must have to assume that after inspecting acouple works, that you have accurately determined the whole of Christianity adheres to your findings.

Not at all. As I said, Tal was very gracious, and her words are a credit to your faith. Same with Antz, and a few others. However, these people seem to be few and far between. The word that Christians seem to be bent on getting out is how awful atheists (or for that matter most non-Christians) are, and those who talk about how they love atheists feel the need to remind us that they have to.

Are you not holding or Judging "Christianity" to the same unfair standard in which you feel you are being judged? We are the works of the few, being used to unrighteously judge the Church?

Not exactly, and here's why: I brought my complaints to Christians themselves, rather than simply complain to all the other atheists behind your backs (not that I converse with many atheists anyway). In fact the only people I have discussed any of my issues with Christianity are Christians themselves. I at least opened a dialogue, and not only that opened up a dialogue amongst yourselves.

Also, my complaints are about things which are taken directly from Christians. I didn't make a strawman Christian and then put words in his mouth to say what I wanted him to say.

Christianity is about the forgiveness of your sins. The only condition for that forgiveness is that you forgive others that have wronged you.

That's the only condition? That doesn't seem right.

Forgiveness does not mean you have to pretend you are friends, it simply means you do not righteously hold another to account for a debt that he owes you.

If you want your debts forgiven then you must in turn forgive all debts. That said, even if you forgive a debt, no one is making you walk or disciple under those who do not produce "fruit" consistent with the "Fruit" of the Holy Spirit.

Yeah, I might be able to do that. Probably not today though.

 

[DomainRider]

Why are you all (professors) represented so poorly? Because (in this case and others like it )your cliché actions warrant such a representation.

Whoa - are you saying that crude stereotyping and misrepresentation are justifiable?

 

[DomainRider]

Who are you to say any of these are indeed Christian? Just because one labels himself Christian does not make it so. Christ Himself tells us this.

Sailing close to the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy here. Whatever the offence, one could say 'no true Christian would do such a thing', leading to the vast majority of self-styled Christians eventually being considered 'false' Christians. Usually an argument used by minority factions, it's really not particularly useful in the real world (it's often called a 'cop-out').

Christianity is about the forgiveness of your sins. The only condition for that forgiveness is that you forgive others that have wronged you.

Forgiveness does not mean you have to pretend you are friends, it simply means you do not righteously hold another to account for a debt that he owes you.

Not 'love your neighbour as yourself', then? Has the New Testament's 'Golden Rule' admonition to love others without hypocrisy or prejudice been superseded?

 

[drich0150]

Who am I to say that any of them are not Christian? All I can do is take them at their word. As I just said above, I don't get on board with the True Christian thing, every Christian believes themselves and those who agree with him to be a True Christian.

So you are saying all who represent themselves as something, have automatically been given this status, despite their actual status or actions. If this is the case then I should also like to be known as a professor of psychology, and a Dr of Atheistic studies!

Maybe not. But it is there. And I don't have to limit myself to jokes pages, I can come here to CF.

Then if these egregious "jokes" were found here why did not reference them? or directly ask the person who posted it the questions you are asking here?

One would think if someone truly was looking for answers, he would not pass up the opportunity to search for them at the source.

Not at all. As I said, Tal was very gracious, and her words are a credit to your faith. Same with Antz, and a few others. However, these people seem to be few and far between. The word that Christians seem to be bent on getting out is how awful atheists (or for that matter most non-Christians) are, and those who talk about how they love atheists feel the need to remind us that they have to.

It's not a story we have to work at getting out. The story is out there. As i have pointed out over and over this was not a story outlining who an Atheist professors can be. It focused on the art of an argument.

Not exactly, and here's why: I brought my complaints to Christians themselves, rather than simply complain to all the other atheists behind your backs (not that I converse with many atheists anyway). In fact the only people I have discussed any of my issues with Christianity are Christians themselves. I at least opened a dialog, and not only that opened up a dialog amongst yourselves.

All that was accomplished was that you pointed out a non christian behavior and ask why all christians do this. Not only are you asking why, you are holding the whole of christianity to a standard in which you have created. It's like asking why do all black people eat Sushi, because you saw a family of black people eating at a sushi place a few different times.

You are creating your own stereotype and holding all of us accountable to it. The true irony is, this is the same behavior you are up in arms about, when it is focused on who you fancy yourself to be.

I do not have to be the professor I claim to be to see that, it is not the standard you are up in arms about. It seems to be the fact that it is you who is in the cross hairs.

Also, my complaints are about things which are taken directly from Christians. I didn't make a straw man Christian and then put words in his mouth to say what I wanted him to say.

No but you found an example of a straw man Christian and want to know why we are all like that.. To the point (as your first response in your last post points out) you will not investigate the possibility that you are hold the whole of Christianity to a straw man someone else has constructed.

That's the only condition? That doesn't seem right.

Mt.18:
21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[g]
23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold[h] was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.[i] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’
30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”

How is any of this not right?

Yeah, I might be able to do that. Probably not today though.

I does take time. Though It only happens if you keep trying to apply this principle in your life.

 

[drich0150]

Whoa - are you saying that crude stereotyping and misrepresentation are justifiable?

If you put those words you butchered out of context, back in their proper place, you can easily see that I was stating one simple Fact.

All stereotypes happen for a reason. What I was pointing out was the specific behavior that lead "christians" to think what some do about professors.

 

[drich0150]

Sailing close to the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy here.

But "we" didn't quite make it aground did we?

Whatever the offense, one could say 'no true Christian would do such a thing', leading to the vast majority of self-styled Christians eventually being considered 'false' Christians.

But only if there was some Absolute Standard or even a book that could help one differentiate between a true "Scotsman" and one simply wearing the title.

Usually an argument used by minority factions, it's really not particularly useful in the real world (it's often called a 'cop-out').

So what you are saying here is if I put red and blue lights on my car it makes me a "cop?"
Or does society have a standard that separates police officers from ordinary citizens?

Not 'love your neighbor as yourself', then? Has the New Testament's 'Golden Rule' admonition to love others without hypocrisy or prejudice been superseded?

Maybe you can help me out I am having trouble looking up "The Golden rule." This is a link to a bible key word search. The "golden rule" does not seem to be in the bible.BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible word or phrase in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

The default is the NIV but you can search every translation if you'd like.

Or you can save some time and take my word for it. The "golden rule" is a work of religion, and is not a direct teaching of scripture. It is a doctrine created by man in an effort to better worship or give God praise. The problem with religious doctrine (rather than direct biblical teachings) is the can blur the lines between what the bible actually says and what is simply believed by the faithful, or in your case the mistaken.

The "golden rule" is not your key into heaven. At best it is a partial representation of our Greatest command:
Mt22:
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Biblically speaking, the golden rule was never established as a means of salvation or a way to obtain forgiveness.

 

[oi_antz]

I said I can't believe in Jesus because of some fear I have? I don't remember saying that. I'm not really sure what that fear would be...

From post #27

BleedingHeart said: "Why are we the enemies?"
Didn't OiAntz answer this question for you in your last thread?

You said: I would say, apparently not sufficiently. I'm still bothered by what seems an unshakeable observation.

Therefore, you say you can't believe in Jesus because of some sort of fear you have of an "unshakable observation". Am I not correct?

Again, I want to reassert that I'm not on board with the concept of "true Christianity." The True Christian is always the one who agrees with the person making the claim. You guys can throw that back and forth amongst yourselves, but it means nothing to me. Afterall, there's a guy on Facebook who is also claiming to be a True Christian, and his views differ a great deal from yours.

Good for him, I'm sure we could talk together and find agreement on many things. I would say though that his understanding of things that I don't understand could be an issue you are looking at as a disagreement, whereas it is more likely to be a misunderstanding. Of course, I am speculating because I don't know who you are talking about and I don't know what it is that you have identified as being a difference between our gospels.

As for Jesus, He may have been a good guy, and the concept of Jesus is mostly good in my eyes. But that does not translate to a belief that Jesus is God, or that God exists at all for me.

Oh He exists for you alright. He's still a good guy too.

What makes you say that? Long ago I basically begged for God to show me He was real. No dice. Since then my "experience" has pointed me in an entirely new direction. One that points to something I can't honestly call "God."

Well like I said in the honesty thread, belief and disbelief both start with a decision and are increased gradually. If you are thinking in favour of God then your faith will grow. If you are thinking in favour of atheism then your faith will diminish. God has obviously chosen to tolerate atheism in our world, amongst other things that He doesn't encourage. I would just encourage you to address your fears, what is it that propels you to think against the reality of God? Maybe your academic position, do you think that might be some sort of thorn in your side with regards to accepting the reality of God? BTW, what topics do you profess? Knowing that you're a professor explains why I have noticed a high degree of critical thinking behind your comments.

Christianity the faith, or the group of people? Again in regards to the faith it begins with the very concept of faith. If I have not been given adequate reason to believe something, why would I believe it? As for the group of people, I think we've chatted enough that you know where I'd go with that.

I think you've been given adequate opportunity to believe, but you've also been given adequate opportunity to disbelieve. Faith is entirely that: to live in the hope of God's promise. Faith is described a lot in Hebrews 11 too.

I'm not sure what this means.

What don't you understand about it? I think it's pretty clear what it means, why can't you understand what I said?

 

[BleedingHeart]

"So you are saying all who represent themselves as something, have automatically been given this status, despite their actual status or actions. If this is the case then I should also like to be known as a professor of psychology, and a Dr of Atheistic studies!"
Except you don't sincerely believe that, whereas a lot of "fake Christians" would sincerely consider themselves Christians.

I think he's saying that the definition for a Christian is kind of confusing at times. In the broadest sense, it would be belief that Jesus is Lord and yadadadada. That's the definition I use and the definition most atheists would use.

There is the Bible for reference of course, but the problem with that is that I'm told I'm not supposed to take it literally, except for the parts I can take literally for reasons never really made clear to me. Which has led to all of the different interpretations by different groups of people with different biases.

So on one hand I might have the American liberal Christian who ignores Leviticus calling homosexuality an abomination and the American conservative Christian who doesn't ignoreLeviticus until he calls on Christians to put homosexuals to death. If I were to ask one of them on the subject, the conservative Christian would probably tell me I've got the wrong interpretation or some excuse of that nature.
I could prove that you are not an atheist or a professor, but how can I prove you really are/are not a Christian if the only tangible reference can supposedly only be taken literally part of the time.
The only way it could be proven if God teleports out of nowhere and starts pointing out the real Christians. Crap is confusing.

 

[drich0150]

Except you don't sincerely believe that, whereas a lot of "fake Christians" would sincerely consider themselves Christians.

So your saying all i have to do is believe that I am a professor or a Doctor then that makes me a professor or a Doctor? What of the actual standards that define these two professions? Does my belief negate all of the school and effort that is normally required?

I think he's saying that the definition for a Christian is kind of confusing at times.

Actually no "his" response clearly states what "he" believes. In that he is not willing to use any of the discretion that he would normally use to "sift" wheat from chaff.

He wishes to inspect "Spiritual fruit." But not willing to segregate it. Meaning if the goal was to discern apples from oranges then under his efforts all Apples, oranges, pears, grapes or anything thing else someone represented as an apple would be deemed as an apple. Then he holds the apple farmer responsible when the grapes someone told him was an apple tasted differently.

In the broadest sense, it would be belief that Jesus is Lord and yadadadada. That's the definition I use and the definition most atheists would use.

If we are indeed speaking of Christianity and not what atheists deem as christian would it not make sense to Follow what Christ actually said about the subject?

Mt7:
True and False Disciples

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!’

There is the Bible for reference of course, but the problem with that is that I'm told I'm not supposed to take it literally, except for the parts I can take literally for reasons never really made clear to me.

Which makes a easy way to dismiss something you know nothing of. (It's confusing so it better not to try and understand it.. I'll just think as I am told.) Is this what your statement means?

Which has led to all of the different interpretations by different groups of people with different biases.

This is wrong why?

So on one hand I might have the American liberal Christian who ignores Leviticus calling homosexuality an abomination and the American conservative Christian who doesn't ignoreLeviticus until he calls on Christians to put homosexuals to death. If I were to ask one of them on the subject, the conservative Christian would probably tell me I've got the wrong interpretation or some excuse of that nature.

Actually no, If both are trying to serve God in all the understanding given them, or to the capacity they have been given, then that is all that is required of them. Granted they will have different reasons on how they have interpreted scripture. But the worship scripture is not the Command. Our greatest command is to Love God with all of our being. How that manifests itself from person to person will vary as our personalities and cultures vary.

I could prove that you are not an atheist or a professor, but how can I prove you really are/are not a Christian if the only tangible reference can supposedly only be taken literally part of the time.

As it has already been established it is by our fruits that we will be known.

The only way it could be proven if God heliports out of nowhere and starts pointing out the real Christians.

In a sense yes. It is discernment from the holy Spirit that helps us identify Spiritual gifts and fruit.

I know this can be confusing without God point everything out to you as you go. But a simple rule of thumb is if it does not seem "Christ like" Then it probably is not of the true Christian faith.

 

[oi_antz]

"So you are saying all who represent themselves as something, have automatically been given this status, despite their actual status or actions. If this is the case then I should also like to be known as a professor of psychology, and a Dr of Atheistic studies!"
Except you don't sincerely believe that, whereas a lot of "fake Christians" would sincerely consider themselves Christians.

I think he's saying that the definition for a Christian is kind of confusing at times. In the broadest sense, it would be belief that Jesus is Lord and yadadadada. That's the definition I use and the definition most atheists would use.

There is the Bible for reference of course, but the problem with that is that I'm told I'm not supposed to take it literally, except for the parts I can take literally for reasons never really made clear to me. Which has led to all of the different interpretations by different groups of people with different biases.

So on one hand I might have the American liberal Christian who ignores Leviticus calling homosexuality an abomination and the American conservative Christian who doesn't ignoreLeviticus until he calls on Christians to put homosexuals to death. If I were to ask one of them on the subject, the conservative Christian would probably tell me I've got the wrong interpretation or some excuse of that nature.
I could prove that you are not an atheist or a professor, but how can I prove you really are/are not a Christian if the only tangible reference can supposedly only be taken literally part of the time.
The only way it could be proven if God teleports out of nowhere and starts pointing out the real Christians. Crap is confusing.

Hi BleedingHeart. You can consider scripture in it's original intended context. You can also consider how the scripture is relevant to the situation at hand. I think you should never contort it from the intended context though. Also remember that prophecy is not meant to be understood by everyone so it has an ambiguous context. All scripture that has a clear context (such as historic, parable and quotes), you actually have as much right to claim authority on as a Christian does, and please don't feel that you don't have that right. We can do with more honest people of various beliefs defending the proper context of Biblical studies. Just whatever you do, don't lie about it! That means if you can't understand it, don't pretend that you do, that's how we come unstuck. All the best with that, remember that it's the same book for me as it is for you As for "true Christian" and "false Christian", I'm coming to realise that Christian is just Christian and we have some Christians that live sinfully and therefore don't have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, while those that are purely repentant (and it takes some training), who always do what Jesus tells them to do, they have The Holy Spirit in it's fullness and thereby comply with Phillipians 2:15

14 Do everything without complaining and arguing, 15 so that no one can criticize you. Live clean, innocent lives as children of God, shining like bright lights in a world full of crooked and perverse people.

And remember the Holy Spirit wants to live in a holy temple, this is how you can see whether someone is living a holy life or if they are living a life that separates them from God:

Galatians 5:16-26 - Passage[bless and do not curse]Lookup - New Living Translation - BibleGateway.com

And remember the verse we hinged on in the honesty thread:

Matthew 6:23 (New Living Translation)

23 But when your eye is bad, your whole body is filled with darkness. And if the light you think you have is actually darkness, how deep that darkness is!

So don't believe everything someone says because you can't guarantee that anyone will always be correct, but filter what people tell you by what you know God has told you and then you'll be in control of your own beliefs. One day you might like to be Christian, meanwhile it is wise not to lock the door on Jesus just because of the way some people represent Him, and I think you're more mature than to go doing that anyway.

 

[BleedingHeart]

So your saying all i have to do is believe that I am a professor or a Doctor then that makes me a professor or a Doctor? What of the actual standards that define these two professions? Does my belief negate all of the school and effort that is normally required?

Okay, you are right. That was a silly example on my part and I wasn't thinking.

 

[razeontherock]

Responding to post 31, only a couple points I can address:

I have dived right into the us vs. them mentality. I've pretty much given up on it. But it's because I know that I'm the "them." I'm the "bad guy."

Obviously I don't know you well enough, but you seem to be showing signs of burn-out with your profession. Don't! If for no other reason than, we need good teachers. Besides, I watched my Dad go through that, take the early retirement package, finish up several degrees with bright ideas for a second career, and ... go back to teaching. As a volunteer

I agree, that's the stand conservatism takes. Staying where we are, or restoring the past. I'm not promoting tribalism, that's what conservatism is based on!

If you use your influence to promote this, of COURSE conservatives will perceive you as an enemy; Christian or not. If you somehow really believe the vitriolic tribalism you're espousing here, I couldn't ask you to teach the opposite; but I could ask you to keep it under wraps in the classroom, and point out it would be a benefit to all involved, not least of all YOU.

I'm sorry if you feel bad about the role conservatism takes on, but if so then be more progressive. Or just don't associate yourself with the label.

This is the same twisted style of manipulation you employed in the quote before it, pretending I had stated that conservatism is only interested in the status quo or regression. Do you really think you fool your students with this sort of thing?

 

[razeontherock]

Sailing close to the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy here.

Sorry, but you should be able to see for yourself how this really doesn't apply to Christianity, and that within it's realm it makes no sense. Since you don't seem to be able to, let me help you; it doesn't apply. We are given clear indicators, and where we were born is not among them.

Yet the truthful dividing line is not the ability say whether an individual is a Christian or not, but rather some specific behavior.

 

[drich0150]

Okay, you are right. That was a silly example on my part and I wasn't thinking.

Most people simply go silent when faced with an error like this one. It takes a big person to admit an error so openly!
Thank you, your response was refreshing.

 

[DomainRider]

But "we" didn't quite make it aground did we?

Not 'we', you. That's why I said 'close', meaning 'not quite there'.

But only if there was some Absolute Standard or even a book that could help one differentiate between a true "Scotsman" and one simply wearing the title.

I was referring to an interpretation of your posted opinion. Any individual can use the fallacy to attempt to refute criticisms of the individuals in some named group, e.g. Christians.

So what you are saying here is if I put red and blue lights on my car it makes me a "cop?"

No. 'Cop-out' in this context means an evasion or excuse to avoid addressing a difficulty. The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy is an example.

Maybe you can help me out I am having trouble looking up "The Golden rule." This is a link to a bible key word search. The "golden rule" does not seem to be in the bible.

Indeed. That's why I put it in quotes, implying 'of that kind'. The Golden Rule is basically the ethic of reciprocity, I really didn't expect you to literally go looking for the words.

Assuming your post isn't all sledgehammer sarcasm, I apologise for not spelling these things out for you in simpler language. Your previous posts gave me the impression you would be able to grasp the meaning.

 

[DomainRider]

Sorry, but you should be able to see for yourself how this really doesn't apply to Christianity, and that within it's realm it makes no sense. Since you don't seem to be able to, let me help you; it doesn't apply. We are given clear indicators, and where we were born is not among them.

Yet the truthful dividing line is not the ability say whether an individual is a Christian or not, but rather some specific behavior.

You may have misinterpreted my meaning. If some Christians have taken actions that could be considered unChristian, and an individual suggests that if they took those actions they weren't 'true' Christians, then that is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. In the posts in question, this didn't actually happen, but the question "how do you know they were Christian? anyone can call themselves Christian" in response to a report of Christians being unChristian, is very similar, and similarly questionable. This was the point I was making.

 

[razeontherock]

Yup, that's exactly the meaning I got previously. My point still stands, that this doesn't follow the no true Scotsman fallacy, and I see this so often I'm not real patient with it anymore. Compare:

A) a Scotsman is a Scotsman, regardless what he does.

B) "They are not all Israel, who are of Israel" (Romans 9:6)

While I include the reference to the passage so you can check it for yourself, i don't expect you to. There's really no 2 ways of interpreting this: birthright has nothing to do with it.

A =/= B, the two don't compare, and the no true Scotsman fallacy is simply inapplicable to Christianity. [/rant]

 

[DomainRider]

Yup, that's exactly the meaning I got previously. My point still stands, that this doesn't follow the no true Scotsman fallacy, and I see this so often I'm not real patient with it anymore.

The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy isn't about birthplace, birthright, or about fixed definitions of groups, it's a general fallacy about groups, the fallacy of spuriously contingent membership, i.e. dynamically redefining the group to exclude members with undesirable characteristics or actions in the course of a discussion. It's primarily used with reference to religious and political groups...

I'm not really sure why you object to it so strongly - if you were to say: "Some atheists regularly say 'oh my God!' or 'thank Christ for that!' so they are hypocritical", and I responded "If they say that, they're not true atheists", I would be using the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, because using those exclamations doesn't imply a belief in God, i.e. atheism isn't contingent on the use of popular exclamations. Similarly, an 'unChristian' act doesn't disqualify a person from being Christian, so claiming that it does is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Are we still at loggerheads?

 

[drich0150]

Not 'we', you. That's why I said 'close', meaning 'not quite there'.

Then why mention it?

I was referring to an interpretation of your posted opinion. Any individual can use the fallacy to attempt to refute criticisms of the individuals in some named group, e.g. Christians.

My posted "opinion" was indeed a judgment based on the Absolute standard in which i spoke. The difference between a Scotsman fallacy and a righteous judgment in this instance is the use of the Absolute Standard that i referenced earlier.

Anyone can use the Scotsman fallacy at any point, for the reasons you have indeed pointed out. What makes it a fallacy is not having a true standard to define the "Scotsman." Not the case with Christianity. We not only have a true standard we have an absolute standard. One that will completely point out the actions of a "true christian."

(We are getting closer to the shoreline)

No. 'Cop-out' in this context means an evasion or excuse to avoid addressing a difficulty. The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy is an example.

Ever heard of a pun? this was kinda meant to be along the same lines. I was playing to your ego alittle to see if you would be one to sacrifice the continuity of the conversation for an opportunity to flash and preen yourself over a statement you could have taken one of take two ways.

I did this by making the comparison, of one wishing he was a cop and someone who went though the process of becoming one, to show you that that "wishing and wanting does not make you who you claim to be. Thus invalidating your usage of cop-out in this discussion. Because no matter if one is in the minority in his thinking or not, if that person aligns his thoughts or actions with an absolute standard then by the standard he represents all of his thoughts actions are indeed valid.
-or-
two allowing the freedom for you to assume that I thought you were indeed speaking about cops.

By your decision, and your response. It shows me some of the goals you have for this discussion.

Seeking a biblically based response to the OP's questions or the question you spun off our original dialog is not a high priority.

You seem to be fixated in simply "winning" the conversation much like the professor and the student in the OP, any way you can. Even if it means to attack someone's intelligence rather than the actual Merritt of the argument you are presenting.

This behavior also tells me that if you have to stoop to that level "we" are at the limits of your understandings of such matters. Why else would one who fancied himself an "educated man" default to a personal attack when he could flourish all of the knowledge he has obtained?

If that is the case then I might have to simply let you have the argument.

Indeed. That's why I put it in quotes, implying 'of that kind'. The Golden Rule is basically the ethic of reciprocity, I really didn't expect you to literally go looking for the words.

(Taken from post 44)
Not 'love your neighbor as yourself', then? Has the New Testament's 'Golden Rule' admonition to love others without hypocrisy or prejudice been superseded?

In this case "quotes" would indicate an actual quote from scripture, because as i have already demonstrated the quoted material in question was indeed apart of a Greater command. If you meant anything other than the very direct questions you originally asked from the actual quoted material, then it was up to you to give some indication of it. Otherwise know that my actions in answering the posted questions was well within reason.

Assuming your post isn't all sledgehammer sarcasm, I apologies for not spelling these things out for you in simpler language. Your previous posts gave me the impression you would be able to grasp the meaning

I prefer Jack hammer, but if you'd like to dumb it down for me anyway, It would make life easier to come up with the sarcasm in which you speak.

After all "I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is.."
-Forrest, Forrest Gump.

(see, quotes means a quote)