For good people to do bad things...

[Edwardo Piet]

I said:

Well, it all comes down to the cherry-picking. Even for literalist fundamentalists.

For instance, on the one hand God says 'thou shalt not kill', but then on the other hand the bible is full of examples to the contrary.

EvF

fr0d0 responded with:

Cherry picking to you Evie, because you have no idea what Christianity is.

Surely that implies the NTS? Because when I said that different believers in Christianity take different views and cherry pick differently (which I would thought is obvious? Different Christians interpret differently? All the different view points can't all be 100% correct, many are bound to be cherry-picking), he responded with how it's only Cherry picking to me because I don't understand what it "is" - as in, truly is, as in - I'm not really understanding (true) Christianity unless I understand it like he does. NTS.

My point was that many Christians interpret scripture differently, so to say that I don't understand what it is, when I was merely stating that many cherry-pick and there are different view points, is to say his view takes credit over other Christian views when he can't be arguing that without support without committing the NTS fallacy. He's basically implying that unlike him who truly understands it, those who don't - the other Christian view points I was referring to - are wrong, how can they be wrong? He's just saying they are - NTS. Because he and they can't both be right, because there would be contradictions.

And if he's not saying they are, then what is he on about when he says I don't understand what it is? All I was saying is different Christian believers cherry-pick different parts.

Fr0d0, what was your point when you say I didn't understand what Christianity "Is"? Because you said that before I mentioned any definition of my own, which is why I believed attacking me on my vague definition to be entirely irrelevant to my original point - because when I'd made my point I hadn't even made my definition yet!, Whether I know what Christianity is or not has got absolutely nothing to do with my point that many Christians cherry-pick and they all interpret scriptures differently how does that=I don't understand Christianity?

Everyone is welcome to correct any of my mistakes I may have made of course.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Arcanus has already answered you concisely and comprehensively Evie. I can add no more.

[Ryft]

Frodo is free to correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe his point was that the incorrectness of your "cherry-picking" response is a consequence of your incorrect view about what Christianity is. I have already made the case as clearly as possible yet evidently you still do not grasp it (and are displeased with the critical attention your definition of 'Christian' has been receiving), so let's try a different tactic.

I said that "murderous violence and terrorist activity follows from their beliefs, but those beliefs are not Christian beliefs. Christianity neither commands nor condones such appalling acts; more than this, it contradicts them quite diametrically." And your rejoinder to this seems to be that they might disagree, that they might produce cherry-picked verses from the Bible uniquely interpreted to indeed support such appalling acts. In order for your rejoinder to have rational warrant, can you demonstrate (as opposed to simply imagining) what verses could be cherry-picked to disprove my statement? For if your case can only be stated but not actually made, then it is a failed rejoinder.

P.S. Has it escaped your notice that Frodo no more assumes they are not True Christians™ than you assume they are True Christians™?

[Edwardo Piet]

My point is that fr0d0 objected to my statement of simply the fact that Christians (however many) do cherry-pick. So what does fr0d0 mean when he says that that statement of mine=I don't understand what Christianity is?

If he agrees with my point, then his response was completely unrelated.

And I would have thought that, if he disagrees it then he's either saying 1. No Christians cherry-pick [despite the fact different Christians disagree over different matters and there are contradictions in their views!] Or 2. He doesn't like me mentioning Christianity in the light of such cherry-pickers I mentioned, he sees them as non-true Christians - so me mentioning Christians that are Cherry-pickers makes him feel the need to say I 'don't know what Christianity"is" '.

Please note, that all this occurred before I gave a definition. I thought it was rather odd than me simply mentioning Christians who do cherry-pick made him jump to me 'not knowing what Christianity is'.

Finally, and importantly. I am not setting up a false dichotomy/dilemma here, I accept as many alternatives so fr0d0's reasons as possible. I just can't currently think of any others yet, I'd be happy to hear his response (and your's Arcanus) - because I just found his original response before I even gave a definition rather odd if not simply NTS.

So I am simply trying to get fr0d0 to clarify what he meant when he said I don't know what Christianity is, because he said that before I gave a definition, and he gave it in response to a post of mine, when it was completely unrelated to my point it seems?

EvF

[Ryft]

Hrmm. Let me try again: I believe his point was that the incorrectness of your "cherry-picking" response is a consequence of your incorrect view about what Christianity is, which your definition, supplied later, ended up confirming.

Is that about the size of it, Frodo?

[fr0d0]

Exactly Arcanus.

You call 'cherry pick' Evie when you don't understand what would constitute such. As Arcanus has detailed, Christianity is uniform in it's stated beliefs.

You seem to think anyone is free to make up their Christianity on the fly like some religious pick and mix, and not what is demonstrated to you:

It's not about whether or not you understand that definition; it's about whether the definition or its source is recognized in Christian orthodoxy as authoritative. The sacred Scriptures are authoritative, for example, as are the apostolic creeds (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:6) and specific ecumenical creeds (e.g., the Athanasian Creed). Your say-so, or the dictionary? Not so much. You should review the second chapter of Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, which itself has been around for nearly 200 years; i.e., you missed goal posts that have actually never moved.

[Rhizomorph13]

Fr0d0,

Christianity is uniform? I grew up Nazarene and we thought that baptism was just a nice outward display of an inward commitment. The Baptist church down the road preached that baptism was a requirement to get into heaven. There are also dissagreements on the nature of God between different sects of Christianity. Some think he is one triune being while others think he is three beings separate from each other while still another idea is that he is one being that manifests as one of the three part depending on the need of the time. Christianity is not uniform in its beliefs and Christians do cherry pick the bible.

Rhizo

[fr0d0]

Arguments over baptism are cosmetic. Srsly. Disagreements on the triune God separate Christianity from religious sects. ie Christianity isn't flexible.

Christianity is uniform

[Rhizomorph13]

So what do you true christians believe?

Rhizo

[Eilonnwy]

Arguments over baptism are cosmetic. Srsly. Disagreements on the triune God separate Christianity from religious sects. ie Christianity isn't flexible.

Christianity is uniform

If Christianity was uniform there would not be vast sects of different Christian religions. That's not uniformity. Each doesn't just squabble over "cosmetic" trappings of Christianity, but many have severe disagreements with the basic principles of Christianity, especially when you consider Catholicism vs. Protestantism