Is this a true Christian?

[renew]

An interesting but incorrect interpretation of my words. I very much look forward to giving you a full reply BUT before I do so, would you mind editing your post or starting all over again. You have blatantly inserted a lot of your own words to make them look as if they were mine.

My apologies, I will be more precise in the future with you, so you do not feel such disarray. I haven't completely mastered the quote feature, soon enough though.

Because your 'error' is so obvious, it may just be an accident. You would probably like to be understood correctly and not be seen to be blatantly putting wholly fictitious words in my mouth; that is against the rules of course. I honestly don't want to have to criticise you any more that is reasonably necessary. You must already be embarrassed quite enough by displaying such a bigoted view.

I pretty sure you being a bit testy here, over such a trival matter. Your being courageous aren't you, sly devil you.

I will have a look tomorrow to see if you have corrected your little 'error'. Then I will reply in full. I bet you can't wait!

This is about as much correction you are going to get from me, after that do what you wish.

[Aardverk]

You may find the preview button helpful renew.

Your reasoning does not define courage. You are referencing reason with thoughts, which can be debated. A little madness doesn't hurt anyone, as long as it is used in moderation.

I was only agreeing with you renew! I have never defined courage but it has been defined two or three times in this thread.

I entirely disagree with you that ‘a little madness does not hurt anyone’. A 'little madness' may very easily get someone killed. There is 'courage', 'false courage' and 'madness'. For hundreds of years soldiers were given alcohol to give them the 'false courage' to go into battle. One step back from madness - and it got them killed.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by ‘referencing reason with thoughts that can be debated’! Would you like to expand on that or shall I just ignore it?

As you clearly stand by your belief that we should be unfair to fools and villains AND you deny the ability to ‘reason’ to anyone with whom you disagree, I will draw the obvious conclusion. The assumption made in my last post appears to be wrong.

Well, then the ones that have been placed under physcological care and stand up on chairs and start rambling on about have great their aunt marys chocolate cake is, have courage by your understanding.

No, renew. I have said nothing remotely like that. This is another example of you making up words. It’s that vivid imagination of your working over-time again!

For you to define by universal terms then all terms apply.

What on earth does that mean? It could be a profound statement for all I know but I need a little context before I can even try to understand it.

Let's compare: Women standing up for equal rights vs. this man standing up for _____(you are going to have to fill the blank in due you seem to understand what he was standing up for) That is if you would like to keep it in universal thought.

The word you are seeking is ‘beliefs’. The oaf was standing up for HIS ‘beliefs’ in exactly the same way that the suffragettes stood up for THEIR ‘beliefs’. The fact that some of us disagree with his ‘beliefs’ is exactly the same as the fact that many people disagree(d) with the suffragettes ‘beliefs’. All people have a right to their ‘beliefs’ – there is after all nothing we can do about them except try to educate them (he was trying to educate you). In civilised countries all people also have a right to free speech except where that speech constitutes a crime. Fortunately YOU have no right to deny the oaf his freedom of speech. Equally fortunate is the fact that HE has no right to deny you and me freedom of speech. Are you really going to disagree even with that basic freedom? Take care now!

 

So you are giving this man an IQ over 99, interesting. I would have chosen a bit lower on the scale.

IF I had put a comma after, suffrage, my sentence would have meant that I believe in equality for everyone with an IQ over 99. There is however no comma, from which you should have realised that my quip about an IQ over 99 only applies to the universal suffrage. I have made it abundantly clear throughout this thread that I believe in fairness for all including fools and villains. That is, as near as damn it, equality for all. (I hesitate to say so, because it may confuse you, but I do actually believe that 'equality' can be conditional. That really is a different subject worthy of in depth consideration. I only say it now as we are in danger of changing from 'fairness' to 'equality' and you may think up an example where 'equality' should rightly be forfeited. Please note that whilst 'equality' and 'fairness' are similar, they are not the same thing.)

‘Universal suffrage for everyone with an IQ over 99’ was a light hearted quip and possibly in poor taste. I apologise for making it as it has obviously confused you. I’m sure those with an IQ over 99 will understand the quip but this is not really the place for a serious discussion on that subject. I apologise again; perhaps it can be a subject for a new thread.

As for the oaf’s IQ, neither of us have sufficient information to make a realistic assessment and I certainly said nothing which can have been read to imply that he has an IQ over 99. On the contrary, I said earlier in this thread, ‘he is a red-neck who has probably never had an original thought in his life’. That does rather imply a lower than average IQ – so on this small matter we are probably in full agreement.

I note that you have STILL not even tried to justify your beliefs that we should be unfair to villains and fools. Do you have doubts about that belief now?

---

"Bigot: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."


If the cap fits.........

[Epimethean]

Aard has a way of getting his interlocutors completely disinterested.

[reverendjeremiah]

Well...my answer is thus:

If a person considers himself a follower of Christ, then he is a "true" Christian.

This includes the man in the video.

[Epimethean]

So we are what we believe we are, Rev, or is that limited to things that depend strictly on the imagination?

[Aardverk]

Aard has a way of getting his interlocutors completely disinterested.

Sadly for you, I have always been more interested in serious discussion than shouting childish insults and running away.

Sadly for me, you have proved incapable of serious discussion and have not even tried to justify your bigoted views. No challenge at all.

[renew]

You may find the preview button helpful renew.

Yes the preview selection is a very nice feature, however, it is the quote selection I need to master.

Your reasoning does not define courage. You are referencing reason with thoughts, which can be debated. A little madness doesn't hurt anyone, as long as it is used in moderation.

I was only agreeing with you renew! I have never defined courage but it has been defined two or three times in this thread.

I entirely disagree with you that ‘a little madness does not hurt anyone ’. A 'little madness' may very easily get someone killed.

AA, when you look at the glass are you seeing it half empty?

There is 'courage', 'false courage' and 'madness'. For hundreds of years soldiers were given alcohol to give them the 'false courage' to go into battle. One step back from madness - and it got them killed.

Now we are sub defining courage. So you have problem with men/woman that are placing their lives on the line not to have a drink, was it mandatory that they do this, or was it an option?

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by ‘referencing reason with thoughts that can be debated’! Would you like to expand on that or shall I just ignore it?

Oh, I just wrote that to make you think..............

As you clearly stand by your belief that we should be unfair to fools and villains AND you deny the ability to ‘reason’ to anyone with whom you disagree, I will draw the obvious conclusion. The assumption made in my last post appears to be wrong.

Let's reword it so you better comprehend, I believe in nothing, I know what my current understanding is, and until a fact comes along to change this current understanding, then I will expand on what I know to be my current understanding.. understand.

To reason with someone is to get them to come to ones current understanding, however, both must be able to reason with each other, when one is not being reasonable then there is no reason to reason, get my reasoning.

Well, then the ones that have been placed under physiological care and stand up on chairs and start rambling on about have great their aunt marys chocolate cake is, have courage by your understanding.

No, renew. I have said nothing remotely like that. This is another example of you making up words. It’s that vivid imagination of your working over-time again!

You really assume a lot about me, however I do have a wonderful vivid imagination and yes at times I need it to work over time, quite wonderful at times, you should try it, great things have come about with vivid imagination.
The matter with the chocolate cake was a comparison to your definition of courage.

For you to define by universal terms then all terms apply.

What on earth does that mean? It could be a profound statement for all I know but I need a little context before I can even try to understand it.

Just another thing I wrote to make you think.....

The word you are seeking is ‘beliefs’. The oaf was standing up for HIS ‘beliefs’ in exactly the same way that the suffragettes stood up for THEIR ‘beliefs’.

Your comparison is in poor, perhaps this is where clarification needs to be inserted, his beliefs are not the beliefs of the god he is so called representing, he is lying through his teeth in a loud and obnoxious manner.

All people have a right to their ‘beliefs’ – there is after all nothing we can do about them except try to educate them (he was trying to educate you).

A belief is a thought, and to deter anyone from their thoughts is incomprehensive, there are ones who understanding when knowledge is being handed out, they are the same ones that know this man was full of nothing useful or educational. Should I assume you did?

In civilised countries all people also have a right to free speech except where that speech constitutes a crime. Fortunately YOU have no right to deny the oaf his freedom of speech. Equally fortunate is the fact that HE has no right to deny you and me freedom of speech. Are you really going to disagree even with that basic freedom? Take care now!

A little warning at the end of your sentence, your concern for my well being is overwhelming. I am not denying the man of his free speech. He can freely speak all he wants, if he did it naked running down the street, alright. It is the content of his speech that is in question.

I have made it abundantly clear throughout this thread that I believe in fairness for all including fools and villains. That is, as near as damn it, equality for all. (I hesitate to say so, because it may confuse you, but I do actually believe that 'equality' can be conditional.

I have to break this down, it helps me understand what you are saying, trying to keep the subject in perspective, please bear with me. Thank you in advance.

That really is a different subject worthy of in depth consideration.

Before you go into an in depth conversation about it, you could always direct me to your thought process on the matter with either a link or a thread of the subject at hand.

I only say it now as we are in danger of changing from 'fairness' to 'equality' and you may think up an example where 'equality' should rightly be forfeited. Please note that whilst 'equality' and 'fairness' are similar, they are not the same thing.)

Noted.

‘Universal suffrage for everyone with an IQ over 99’ was a light hearted quip and possibly in poor taste. I apologise for making it as it has obviously confused you. I’m sure those with an IQ over 99 will understand the quip but this is not really the place for a serious discussion on that subject. I apologise again; perhaps it can be a subject for a new thread.

There is no reason to apologize, I understood what you were saying and yes I agree it was in poor taste.

That does rather imply a lower than average IQ – so on this small matter we are probably in full agreement.

Yes.

I note that you have STILL not even tried to justify your beliefs that we should be unfair to villains and fools. Do you have doubts about that belief now?

---

Depends on what your 'definition' is of a villain or fool, then I will let you know what my current understanding is.

"Bigot: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."


If the cap fits.........

Give you a bit of assuming so you have a better understanding, I don't wear caps, shoe would have been better, due to I have more shoes then hats. You can even go so far to say, some of my hat's and shoes match, then you would have to add a handbag to the mix also, then the nail polish, accessorize, accessorize, and above all else, it is the outfit that brings it all together.
That AA is universal thinking at its finest.

p.s. did you happen to notice my sig for religious views.....

[Godscreated]

Well...my answer is thus:

If a person considers himself a follower of Christ, then he is a "true" Christian.

This includes the man in the video.

I do not agree rev.j, one could claim to be a baseball player yet may have never stepped on a field to play. I could claim to be an English teacher, but would soon be found not to be, as everyone here knows, all to well.

[reverendjeremiah]

So we are what we believe we are, Rev, or is that limited to things that depend strictly on the imagination?

Its merely the sum of a title. The bare minimum definition is "follower of christ". If someone is a follower of christ, then he is a "true christian" regardless of all of the extra that others may add on.

An atheist may actualllly like christianity and respect it, while another cant stand it. Both are still "true atheists" if they are "without theism".

[Epimethean]

I was thinking that might be what you meant, Rev. It would have to be an issue of belief or lack of belief rather than profession or vocation.