(October 1, 2015 at 9:24 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(October 1, 2015 at 9:20 am)Drich Wrote: so county or state?
(prison)

Neither. I live in the UK.

So are you back?

(October 1, 2015 at 9:44 am)Drich Wrote: Because the 'No true scots' fallacy center around not being able to disqualify a person from being apart of a social grouping ...

Drich, just so the intended meaning of your post gets through, "being apart of" means the complete opposite from "being a part of" and I think you meant the latter.

It's like being "a theist" or "atheist" if that helps you to remember.

(October 1, 2015 at 9:52 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 1, 2015 at 9:24 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Neither. I live in the UK.

So are you back?

Not sure. 
Don't really want to commit, theres still a lot I should be getting on with.
Right now however things are moving at a snails pace so I have a fair bit of time on my hands.

(October 1, 2015 at 9:44 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 1, 2015 at 9:10 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

did you read those definations?

Because the 'No true scots' fallacy center around not being able to disqualify a person from being apart of a social grouping when their are no rules governing that particular objection/attempted disqualification.

The example being 'no true Scotsman' would put sugar in his porage... well their aren't any rules concerning being a Scotsman and sugar in porage. however one could indeed say no scot could be born in Germany from a strictly German decent. why? Because a Scotsman in this case would be referring to one's country of origin, and as such where and to whom one is born defines one's country of orgin.

Like wise Their are terms and conditions that make one Christian. If one charges that another can not be a Christian, and conduct something like the Spanish Inquision then yes we can look at those acts and see where they were in direct violation of the laws governing Christianity.

Now I will concede their are times when people say a true Christian won't XYZ and XYZ is not in the bible. Yes that would be an example of a no true scots fallacy applied to Christianity. However the No true Scots fallacy does not refer to the term 'No true christian' never being used. Because clearly their are times when behavior exceeds the boundries of a given social group that would disqualify a given person or who group of people from said group because their actions clearly breaks the rules of said group.

We understand what you mean when you give your definition of Christian, because we recognize you as a Bible Idolator.

However, the point remains that a person can be a Christian without ever having seen, read, or even heard of a Bible. 

All they have to do is be told of Jesus the Savior, and accept that Jesus died to atone for our sins so we can go to heaven to be with God.

That's a Christian, period. All the Bible does is record the various stories that make up Christianity's lore-set and alleged history.

So when you Bible Idolators tell us your various versions of what is and isn't in the Bible, and say this particular version (or that one) is the Only Right Way To Be A Christian™, that's the No True Scotsman.

^This. So this!^

Bible Idolator . . . perfect.  Of course, this won't result in even a moment's serious reflection on Drich's part. Those who wear blinders (oh, sorry: who are in full possession of The Truth) aren't the most reflective people, and they can never be wrong when it comes to their most cherished, fundamental beliefs.

(October 1, 2015 at 8:47 am)Drich Wrote: Again the point being that all men are falliable including the Great Peter and Paul, and every 'pope' or other religious leader since the church was first established. Which is why we must make a great divide between the religions of man, and the prescribed worship of God. If the religions of man is not directly supported by the bible then that religion no matter how old or 'traditional' is not following the prescribed worship God Himself places in the bible. Therefore that action/worship can not be considered Offical Christian Worship. Does all worship need be 'official' or it is considered a sin? No, absolutely not. Just so long as it does not violate any of the established sin/laws.

(emphasis mine)

Yet what was in the bible was decided by the traditions of man. Were it not for specific traditional decisions about what to include in the bible, we would have a view of God that differs from the one you preach. You're dealing from both sides of the deck. You can't claim tradition doesn't matter and then turn around and claim that the correct view of God rests on the bible. The bible itself rests on tradition.

"Bible Idolator"

whadafuq ??????????


What rectal fissure in Satan's anus did that term ooze out of ??

(October 1, 2015 at 1:32 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: "Bible Idolator"

whadafuq ??????????


What rectal fissure in Satan's anus did that term ooze out of ??

I guess I'm the rectal fissure in Satan's anus, because I made it up.

I think it perfectly describes those who make a god out of the Bible, emotionally bound to it and quoting it as though it is as infallible (in spite of significant evidence to the contrary) and effectively worshiping the Word, refusing to really evaluate its claims.

(October 1, 2015 at 10:53 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 1, 2015 at 9:44 am)Drich Wrote: did you read those definations?

Because the 'No true scots' fallacy center around not being able to disqualify a person from being apart of a social grouping when their are no rules governing that particular objection/attempted disqualification.

The example being 'no true Scotsman' would put sugar in his porage... well their aren't any rules concerning being a Scotsman and sugar in porage. however one could indeed say no scot could be born in Germany from a strictly German decent. why? Because a Scotsman in this case would be referring to one's country of origin, and as such where and to whom one is born defines one's country of orgin.

Like wise Their are terms and conditions that make one Christian. If one charges that another can not be a Christian, and conduct something like the Spanish Inquision then yes we can look at those acts and see where they were in direct violation of the laws governing Christianity.

Now I will concede their are times when people say a true Christian won't XYZ and XYZ is not in the bible. Yes that would be an example of a no true scots fallacy applied to Christianity. However the No true Scots fallacy does not refer to the term 'No true christian' never being used. Because clearly their are times when behavior exceeds the boundries of a given social group that would disqualify a given person or who group of people from said group because their actions clearly breaks the rules of said group.

We understand what you mean when you give your definition of Christian, because we recognize you as a Bible Idolator.

However, the point remains that a person can be a Christian without ever having seen, read, or even heard of a Bible. 

All they have to do is be told of Jesus the Savior, and accept that Jesus died to atone for our sins so we can go to heaven to be with God.

That's a Christian, period. All the Bible does is record the various stories that make up Christianity's lore-set and alleged history.

So when you Bible Idolators tell us your various versions of what is and isn't in the Bible, and say this particular version (or that one) is the Only Right Way To Be A Christian™, that's the No True Scotsman.

Again, Christ decides who is and who is not 'Christian.' No one else nor does our actions. While detailed knowledge of the bible is not Mandated, what is mandated is that we honor what it is we have been given. So if we do indeed have access to the bible then it is by that standard we will be judged. No one here who can read anything I wrote can claim to not have access to the bible. therefore when I speak to you (anyone who can read this) I am speaking to those who will be responsible to what is in the bible.