(February 11, 2013 at 11:34 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 10:03 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How are you not getting this? You don't get to decide who is christian and who isn't! Your personal beliefs don't matter to anyone but you. Do you not understand that people can disagree with what you think, and their opinions and beliefs aren't somehow inferior just because they aren't yours? Do you not understand that your entire position here is the No True Scotsman fallacy? Do you not understand that you aren't the adjudicator of other people's beliefs? Or maybe you don't, maybe that's the problem. Maybe you're so unbelievably arrogant that you actually think your opinion matters more than anything else, at all times.

I've shown you where these people can justify their actions biblically, and you dismiss it out of hand based on nothing more than your own opinions, despite what's literally written down in your holy book. Being that you're not the king of religion, I feel like you lack a certain credibility there.


Everyone except you, apparently, given how much you twist the bible to suit your purposes.


Do I condemn the hundred or so people who stood by as an innocent woman burned to death? Yeah, I do. Shouldn't you?


So, god had to be an evil, spiteful monster, in order to become a good guy later? And you're perfectly okay with believing that? Seriously?


And let me guess, you're the one who gets to decide what actions are christian or not? You're just ignoring the parts of the bible that don't suit your purposes, and the problem with that is, the bible can be twisted to justify almost anything. Only those two quotes I gave you? Pretty explicit, can't be shifted to mean something else.

Neither can Malachi 3:6, by the way. Maybe look it up.


Not at all. I merely mention it to show you that statistically speaking these people were more likely to be christian than not. But you need to stop calling me a bigot, you jacked up simpleton. Because I'm not condemning the entire community, nor the race. I condemn the people who committed the crime, as I should. But I'm also not going to give the religion that probably inspired it a pass, either. Religion isn't special or immune to criticism. When it does wrong, when people do evil in its name, I'm going to have harsh words for it, too. Unlike you, who simply labels those people not christian anymore based on the amazing cosmic power to alter people's beliefs that you don't have, and move on.


Seriously, is your whole argument No True Scotsman? Weak.

I never judged anyone as being a Christian or not. (Which is the Red Herring 99% of your whole arguement is based on.)

I quite specifically said if their actions do not coinside with Christian "Law" then their deeds can not be considered Christian. whether they are saved or not is of no concern to me in this arguement. That is why I very specifically did not judge the state of their salvation.

Why isn't this a "No true scots man fallacy?" BECAUSE THERE ARE ESTABLISHED RULES TO BE AN ACTUAL CHRISTIAN! The No True Scotsmen Fallacy hinges on modification of the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Pointing to the Christian Rule book, and then pointing to the fact that these people did not have any CHRISTIAN RULES to support their actions, Makes what they did by Defination, A non Christian Act!!

Which BTW is what makes you a Bigot (By literal defination)
big·ot
noun \ˈbi-gət\
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

In your continual persuit of trying to frame their deeds as santified Christian act (even after shooting every single objection you had with a scriptural backing, AND providing you with a scriptural example of how the Apstole Peter dealt with a 'sorcerer.') You still insist By the way of your sheer desire that these men were following Christian rule. So you can persecute Christianity, and up hold your own morality as being superior. What you fail to realize (but appearently your peers on this web site do not) Is you had to sell your 'morality' to do it. You have become the same intolerant bigot that you claim witch burning "Christians" are. You sir are The king of the hypocrits.

Bullshit. Who gets to decide the HOW the "ESTABLISHED RULES TO BE AN ACTUAL CHRISTIAN" are interpreted? Magically out of all the people who claim to be a Christian, somehow out of the billions you got it right and all the others who are not interpreting the rules corectly who think they are, got it wrong.

THAT IS THE TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY. Muslims and Jews do it among their religions too, you all do it. You all do it because all of you are pulling it out of your asses.

"I got it right"

So, get in line and take a number, you all do it, everyone in every religion does this. It is as impressive as taking a dump and quite ordinary.

(February 12, 2013 at 12:22 pm)Drich Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehr...49544.html
"Mar 20, 2012 ... Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed."

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/...s-his-case

I don't know where I stand on the issue of jesus existing or not. However, I will point out that Wikipedia isn't always trustworthy.

Also, your last two sources link to the same author, Bart Ehrman, who uses Paul as a source for his research. (The Paul of the bible, obviously not credible as a source.) He also claims he has read many different historical documents from the time of Jesus's life, but he didn't name or cite them, at least not that I could see.

(February 12, 2013 at 12:08 pm)Aegrus Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 11:00 am)missluckie26 Wrote: You had me wondering for a minute if u could be my cousin Tyler but then I realized, "naw he would never say 'hell' anything

Well, this is a bit of an interesting development, as I don't think anyone in my family actually knows that I *can* swear. I don't at all when I'm not sure how people will react to it.

There's a simple solution to this issue; my profile picture is now my face. Is it anyone you recognize?

Oh my god it is you, cousin!!!!!


Just jokin. You aren't him

(February 12, 2013 at 4:58 pm)missluckie26 Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 12:08 pm)Aegrus Wrote: Well, this is a bit of an interesting development, as I don't think anyone in my family actually knows that I *can* swear. I don't at all when I'm not sure how people will react to it.

There's a simple solution to this issue; my profile picture is now my face. Is it anyone you recognize?

Oh my god it is you, cousin!!!!!


Just jokin. You aren't him

That's good. That would have been awkward.

(February 12, 2013 at 10:58 am)Drich Wrote: But that is exactly what it means. If troop of girl scouts decides to break off from the offical organization, and sell their own brand of cookies, wear different uniforms, rewrites it own rules and bi-laws, are they still to be considered 'Girl Scouts?' What if they still identify themselves by that name? What if a 37 year old man wanted to call himself a girl scout? Does it make him one? In a word, no.

You still haven't demonstrated to us why your special blend of religion, which ignores all the rules you don't feel like following, is the definitive version. Please do this, before you keep on brashly telling us which groups aren't following proper christian etiquette.

If you can't, then all your assertions boil down to are the rantings of a blowhard with no authority of his own.

Quote:Why? Because there are rules that one must fall under to be considered apart of an organization. You all have been arguing the 'No true scotsmen fallacy' against Christianity so long unchecked you actually believe it. What your arguement does not take into consideration is the fact that Christianity is a organization like any other. As such there are rules and regs that determine who and what are christian. If this group who calls themselves christians does X and X is not a 'sanctioned' Christian behaivor, then its real simple. those who do X do not do it under or for Christianity.

Except no one denomination of christianity can quite agree on what those rules are, and you in particular don't seem to match with any of those sects completely. So, again I ask you: why is your specific version of christianity the only right and correct one? You never seem to answer this question.

Quote:Should Christianity also be responsiable for those people getting the witch hunters high/drunk before sending them out, when clearly Murder is a sin, Drinking, and doing Drugs is a sin?

The Christian Faith has already condemned every part of what these people have done. what more is their to do?

To demonstrate that I don't have a bias in this, at least not one that affects my argument, I will give the Catholic church- and I think the Pope but I can't say for sure just off the top of my head- props for urging sanctions against witchcraft when it causes demonstrable human harm, where those sanctions didn't seem violent themselves. I hope.

Quote: I can explain it to the "educated," the problem is the 'educated' think the know better, and ignore what has been explained:
The bible repersents 2 Different religions. Judism, and Christianity. These are divided by what are known as covenants or "testaments." The Old Testament refers to Judaism, and The New Testament refers to all things Christian.

Done..

Congrats, you've spouted your opinion once again. Now show us why you're credible.

Quote: Actually no. The Evil will try and use 'religion' to mask the evil in their hearts. This is the lesson History teaches. This is the lesson Christ taught. One does not have to be uneducated to be Evil.

It's also a very good way to make good people do bad things, by tricking them into believing they're doing good things.

(February 12, 2013 at 5:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Except no one denomination of christianity can quite agree on what those rules are, and you in particular don't seem to match with any of those sects completely. So, again I ask you: why is your specific version of christianity the only right and correct one? You never seem to answer this question.

Exactly.
List of Christian denominations
http://christianity.about.com/od/denomin...ntoday.htm

Quote:Number of Christian Denominations:

According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries, so there is overlapping of many denominations.

Drich, could you tell us which of these are True Christians™, and why?

(February 8, 2013 at 10:36 am)Drich Wrote: Was she a sourcer or whatever they accused her of? Did she present herself that way?

Just saying if that region was known to burn witches then why be a witch? If she was a witch then she knew the risks involved. If a police officer gets shot and killed in a specific community for doing his job, does the BBC or any other self rightous group/person comdemn that whole community? Or do we seek justice by looking for the person or people who comitted the actual crime? Why should this be any different? Oh that's right the 'self righteous are on an ironic witch hunt to persecute the religious!

Drich, I think maybe you're missing the bit where WITCHES DON'T EXIST.

(February 12, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Aegrus Wrote: Drich, I think maybe you're missing the bit where WITCHES DON'T EXIST.

I think he thinks they do: I pulled him up on this exact point a few pages back, and instead of answering me, or assuring me he's living in reality and knows witches don't exist, he just restated his original point.

Actually, restating his original point is all Drich does.

(February 12, 2013 at 8:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Aegrus Wrote: Drich, I think maybe you're missing the bit where WITCHES DON'T EXIST.

I think he thinks they do: I pulled him up on this exact point a few pages back, and instead of answering me, or assuring me he's living in reality and knows witches don't exist, he just restated his original point.

Actually, restating his original point is all Drich does.

He keeps refusing to answer my posts, too. I'm quickly realizing why no one bothers to respond to him with sources and logical discourse.

At least profanity typically gets some sort of answer out of him, even if it's a worthless one.

I've been following this thread, and Drich still hasn't answered the question about whether or not the god of the NT and the OT is the same. It's a simple but intriguing question.