The No true Scotsman Fallacy

[Hammster]

Is it wrong to be rude?

Non sequitur.

 

[Hammster]

I believe earlier you said Lucifer which is not the same thing.

They are the same. He knew it, too.

 

[smaneck]

Fallacy of Equivocation. Different concept of wisdom; one deals with the personification of the idea of wisdom in and of itself, whereas the other deals with God the Holy Spirit, who is constantly referred to with the masculine pronoun in the New Testament.

Never argued about the gender used in the NT. Doesn't mean it is a different concept of wisdom.

That's an admitted Fallacy of Begging the Question.

I take it that means that he did not use the masculine pronoun in reference to Sophia as part of the Trinity.

Winking smileys in that context may be a violation of the rules as they were recently amended, particularly when to jab.

That doesn't mean it is. If they don't like emoticons they would remove them from their software.

What I find telling is your resistance to the notion of a Divine Feminine.

 

[smaneck]

Non sequitur.

Not hardly.

 

[Hammster]

Not hardly.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[smaneck]

They are the same. He knew it, too.

As I have already established this simply isn't true. The term translated as Lucifer in the Tanakh is heylel meaning 'shining one.' In Isaiah 14 it is clearly a reference to the King of Babylon. According to wiki:

"It the Vulgate) (uses the same word four more times, in contexts where it clearly has no reference to a fallen angel: 2 Peter 1:19 (meaning "morning star"), Job 11:17 ("the light of the morning"), Job 38:32("the signs of the zodiac") and Psalms 110:3 ("the dawn").[46] To speak of the morning star, lucifer is not the only expression that the Vulgate uses: three times it uses stella matutina: Sirach 50:6 (referring to the actual morning star), and Revelation 2:28 (of uncertain reference) and 22:16 (referring to Jesus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

It would seem that evangelical Christians are as confused about Lucifer as Mormons are.

 

[PaladinValer]

Never argued about the gender used in the NT. Doesn't mean it is a different concept of wisdom.

Well, actually, it does.

The Holy Writ needs to be taken as a whole, not parts. The only actual argument towards the silly idea of God the Holy Spirit as feminine is that which is found in your very post. It is a poor argument and easily defeated by pointing out the Fallacy of Equivocation as given earlier and that fact that, although many languages are "gendered", a desk is not held by any Spanish-speaker as inherently and actually feminine in any way, shape, or form.

I take it that means that he did not use the masculine pronoun in reference to Sophia as part of the Trinity

Illogical and invalid reasoning as explained earlier.

That doesn't mean it is. If they don't like emoticons they would remove them from their software.

That's not the point raised, and since they haven't removed them, we all simply need to be more careful. If we don't like a rule, we have four choices: violate it at our peril, discuss it with staff, amend our habits and comply, or cease participation.

What I find telling is your resistance to the notion of a Divine Feminine.

Disagreeing with the idea that God the Holy Spirit is feminine is not a denial of the concept of a feminine or neuter nature of God. False Equivocation again, as well as False Dichotomy.

 

[WirSindBettler]

Just a wee clarification: You are correct when you say that a person dying of starvation may eat food normally considered haram. But this is not an act that 'takes precedence over the application of sharīah'; it is the application of sharīa.

My mistake. What would be a more correct way to phrase it? Based upon what I know of Islam (be it through classes or casual reading), sharīʿah can be seen as the sail that leads the boat, rather than simply Islamic law, so perhaps I should have rephrased it.

 

[LoAmmi]

Just a wee clarification: You are correct when you say that a person dying of starvation may eat food normally considered haram. But this is not an act that 'takes precedence over the application of sharīah'; it is the application of sharīa.

That's the same as Jews view the Torah. If a Jew is starving and the only food available to them is a ham sandwich, they would be required by Jewish law to eat that sandwich in order to live.

 

[WirSindBettler]

As I have already established this simply isn't true. The term translated as Lucifer in the Tanakh is heylel meaning 'shining one.' In Isaiah 14 it is clearly a reference to the King of Babylon. According to wiki:

"It the Vulgate) (uses the same word four more times, in contexts where it clearly has no reference to a fallen angel: 2 Peter 1:19 (meaning "morning star"), Job 11:17 ("the light of the morning"), Job 38:32("the signs of the zodiac") and Psalms 110:3 ("the dawn").[46] To speak of the morning star, lucifer is not the only expression that the Vulgate uses: three times it uses stella matutina: Sirach 50:6 (referring to the actual morning star), and Revelation 2:28 (of uncertain reference) and 22:16 (referring to Jesus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

It would seem that evangelical Christians are as confused about Lucifer as Mormons are.

Thank you for quoting Wikipedia as a reliable source.

 

[A New Dawn]

But whose interpretation of scripture are *we* using? Because there are multiple interpretations of well, really, all scripture. So "we" over here believe that this scripture means this and "we" over there hugely disagree and "we" others completely disagree with you both. That IS "we" declaring that someone is or isn't a Christian. It's not scripture. Scripture can't get up and speak for itself. It's the interpretation of other humans of what scripture means, and it is framed by that human's worldview, prejudices, concepts, education, etc.

If something isn't in the Bible, it isn't in the Bible, no matter who's interpretation you are using. There is a difference between interpreting a scriptural passage differently, and having a teaching based on nothing in the Bible.

 

[A New Dawn]

You can declare whatever you like, people of different denominations and or different religions do it all the time. They do it out of necessity in most cases, a necessity in convincing themselves they have it right.

You're right. Some people declare to be Christian when they aren't, trying to convince themselves and the world they are something they aren't.

 

[A New Dawn]

You're mistaken, because I was told I wasn't Christian many times and I've heard Christians telling other Christians they weren't Christian. I've also seen this done many times before right here on this site. So, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, Christians definitely go after other Christians and claim they're not Christian.

Then they, themselves, do not understand that judging is God's prerogative. Hence, they may not be true Christians. Seriously, this time.

 

[seekingsolace]

Appears to be a noticeable chip on the shoulder to me.

Perhaps the eye.

 

[Ironhold]

"The actual theology is that everyone who has ever existed and who ever will exist is the spiritual sibling of one another."

Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan. Exactly what I said.

Any particular reason why you insist upon going the "shock value" route instead of the "full explanation" route?

 

[bhsmte]

You're right. Some people declare to be Christian when they aren't, trying to convince themselves and the world they are something they aren't.

When they are not Christians according to whom?

 

[seekingsolace]

When they are not Christians according to whom?

God

 

[bhsmte]

God

And do you have insight into how God will go about determining that?

 

[seekingsolace]

And do you have insight into how God will go about determining that?

Ask God.

 

[bhsmte]

Ask God.

I will take that as a no.