RE: No True Scotsman
June 22, 2014 at 12:22 pm
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2014 at 12:34 pm by Lek.)
(June 22, 2014 at 2:08 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: What did Jesus teach?
Pray by yourself in a closet.
Sell everything and give it to the poor.
If someone asks you for something give it to him and don't ask for it back.
Don't think lustful thoughts.
Pluck out your eyes and cut off your body parts to keep from sinning.
Don't worry because you can't do anything about it.
Don't build your house on sand. Look good when fasting.
Turn the other cheek.
Pray for your enemies and forgive them (with all of that you shouldn't have any enemies).
Don't judge other people. If they stopped telling you their problems you wouldn't have cause to think
that they're idiots.
Give your kids fish instead of serpents to eat.
Squeeze through the narrow gate instead of passing through the wide one.
Don't trust tv preachers.
Hate your family but love your neighbors.
And the big one: do everything he said or he will toss you into the lake of fire.
I must say you have a unique way of interpreting scripture. Maybe not, though. I see it interpreted that way a lot in this forum. No wonder you can't believe.
(June 20, 2014 at 11:38 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Condemning people to hell, for merely being born (and hence, according to the New Testament, being a sinner by nature) is immoral, Lek. Sorry, the core message of Christianity is immoral and all actions that follow from that, while some may be very, very good, are still poisoned by irrational motives, motives that often lead to immoral atrocities. One cannot value human life while tolerating--no, committing one's life to worship of the deity responsible for--the idea that these lives deserve and will face eternal punishment forever and ever... for simply not converting.You're making stuff up. Nobody's condemned to hell for being born. Every single person born can be saved. We've already been through the part about people who don't have the chance to hear the gospel.
(June 22, 2014 at 4:51 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: ITT: Lek defends the No True Scotsman with the No True Scotsman. Makes sense; he's used to circular reasoning.
*yawn*
I was hoping for something more interesting here. Yeah... I'm probably delusional.
ETA: When I was looking for something more interesting, I was talking about the lek's arguments. The responses in this thread have been great.
What I'm saying is that the No True Scotsman argument is valid in this case and I've defended that position. What you're saying is "oh, he's using that argument, so it's invalid."
