(December 14, 2013 at 4:39 am)genkaus Wrote: Thank you for laying out the detailed, step-by-step generation of your particular brand of No True Scotsman fallacy.If you can't admit to what is clearly on page then there is no reason to read anything else you have written.
First of all, there is no reason to assume that whatever crap is written in your Bible can be validly considered as a criteria for a "True Christian" - much less what is written in Mat 7.
Second of all, in the absence of the words "here are the terms and conditions for being a True Christian", there is no indication that the verses you quoted are meant to draw the line between True and False Christians - that is your subjective interpretation. The only thing a literal interpretation tells here is who can't enter Heaven - and even that is not made very clear.
Quote:Third of all, and quite interestingly, I might add, literal interpretation of this verse undercuts the point you've been making all along - that your god's morality is not based on works. Here, your Christ asks people to do god's will and speaks against those who practice lawlessness - clearly, he regards your works as the criteria for entering heaven. Its just that those works don't happen to include prophesying in his name or casting out demons or doing wonders.How did you make the jump between 'God's morality is based on works' and what Christ said in Mat 7?
How is a call to following the law mean one's righteousness/morality is bound to it?
(December 13, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Then why isn't the majorty of christianity practiced this way? look at catholicism, it is works based. It claims to be the orginal version of Christianity. If it is as you say, and christianity was based in a 'works free enviorment' to attract members then why was their a focous on works for 2/3's of the church's history?
genkaus Wrote:You miss the point - the whole works-free propaganda is only to attract followers. Once you become a follower, the religion has to milk you for all you are worth, which means, shifting the focus back on works. This is just one of the many fundamental contradictions within Christianity.I missed the point?

If 2/3's of the Chruch History (1500+ years before the reformation) is/was based on Works then how was it to attract members based on works free living?
Quote:Actually, that wasn't my assertion.I don't have to. Merrium webster has done this for you.
If you think you can identify an act of murder without a moral judgement then go ahead and try.
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
To unlawfully kill another person. There is no moral judgement in the determination if someone breaks a law or not. Now i will admit that there is an element of moral judgement in the creation of said law, but the simple fact of identifying murder is not a matter of morality. It is seeing if the death of person A by person B meets the law requirements of killing another person.
Quote:The reason you can't is because the definition of murder that you appeal to is "unjustified killing". The reason you appeal to this definition is because that is the only way you can excuse all the horrific killings committed or commanded by your god - your excuse is that those killings were justified. And in regarding them as justified, you are making a moral judgement.If you will note in the defination above I still 'appeal to the unsanctioned killing of a person or people.
Quote:Facts don't depend on perspective - mine or yours. The the 1920's Germany could not identify the misrepresentation does not mean the facts were not misrepresented. That they did not have any point of reference before does not mean facts changed - just their knowledge of those facts.Ah, i see the problem! You don't have a full understanding of the word 'facts.'
That Hitler pushed propaganda as facts did not magically make his statements factual. No more than Kim's propaganda being factual.
That something is presented and accepted as fact does not make it one and any change in the presentation or acceptance does not constitute a change in facts.
As i said Facts can mean truth but the word is not limited to truth. Merrium-webster also defines a fact as: 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
I am going to assume you have an idea of what objective reality is, but just incase you don't:
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/modern/des...ality.html
Simply put in the way I am using this word to describe Hitler's 'facts' in the propaganda he issued. a 'fact' is a statement that can be proved or disproved, as per the loose understanding of objective reality.
(December 13, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Drich Wrote: I did not say it was factual, but that it was upheld as fact, and taught as fact. Then that fact changed when more information was made avaiable.
Quote:Repeat after me - "Something being upheld as a fact or taught as a fact does not automatically become a fact". Keep repeating until it sinks in.Repeat after me - "I will look words up before i try and teach others their meaning." Keep repeating until it sinks in.

Quote:All facts are true by definition. What the Nazis and North Korea have done is misrepresent and lie about facts. That those lies are accepted as facs does not make them factual.What you said is a fact, just not a true one. The merrium webster defination proves it wrong, although it still is a fact.