For good people to do bad things...

[Ryft]

Baptists DO accept the Nicene creed. It was a Baptist that first introduced me to the fact.

The problems with that chart were legion, Frodo. Several errors and omissions. I mean, the creeds and confessions affirmed by Reformed and Presbyterian? "Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Westminster Confession." Really? Um, wow. As if Reformed and Presbyterian reject the Athanasian Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, the Anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople, the Canons of the Council of Orange, etc. and so forth.

[Edwardo Piet]

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. « END QUOTE

But my point was he never pointed out how my cherry-picking point was correct. He merely threw in a bare assertion saying I didn't know what Christianity is, and then when I defined it, whether correct or incorrect, he still hasn't refuted or dealt with my cherry-picking point.

So apparently his point was that the incorrectmess of my cherry-picking response, was due to my incorrect view about Christianity. Oh, really? That's nice - but it's an empty statement.

So basically I'm saying, how does this part of the above follow? :

which your definition, supplied later, ended up confirming

? How does it end up confirming it?

As for your point about quoting, it's not my problem if you don't think that my post alone didn't deal with all your points. I only have one point to make - and where have you or fr0d0 refuted it?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well good on yer Retorth. My ex denomination didn't do water or spiritual baptism. Spiritual baptism isn't what's referred to anyway IIRC. What my denomination said was they substituted for what was merely a ritual. So baptism is still practices if not literally using water.

@ Evie: you were never specific over the supposed cherry picking either - we weren't talking specifics. My point on your generalist sweeping statement was that you have no understanding of what would constitute cherry picking which you then proved for us with your very inaccurate definition.

You confirmed your misunderstanding.

[Ryft]

So apparently his point was that the incorrectness of my cherry-picking response was due to my incorrect view about Christianity ... How does it end up confirming [Frodo's point]? Where have you or Fr0d0 refuted [my point]?

Msg. #100, #102, #103, #106, etc. The point you seemed to be making was that: these abortion clinic bombers were acting on their beliefs, which they could arguably cherry-pick from the Christian scriptures. Frodo said that such a conclusion could only come from someone who badly misunderstands what Christianity is, a point I supported by (i) agreeing with you that "murderous violence and terrorist activity follows from their beliefs," (ii) but agreeing with Frodo that "those beliefs are not Christian beliefs. Christianity neither commands nor condones such appalling acts; more than this, it contradicts them quite diametrically." In this way I was pointing back to what Frodo had said; i.e., only someone who horribly misunderstands Christianity could think such appalling acts could even be cherry-picked from the Christian scriptures. You have stated your case time and again but not once have you managed to actually make your case. As I said before, a case that can be stated but not made is not much of a case.

[Eilonnwy]

I've seen Fr0d0 insist that the Bible is such a perfect work of God, yet it condones slavery, rape, genocide, homophobia, etc...

Now at the same time the Bible condones wonderful things like love thy neighbor, give to the poor, etc... I would never deny these things exist in the Bible. However, it has both these things, so perfect work of God my ass.

To completely ignore all the atrocities of the Bible is outrageous. If this Bible was so perfect as Fr0d0 claims, why do these atrocities exist? Why can people "Cherry pick versus" to suit their sadistic whims? Isn't God the objective arbiter of morality? Objective morality means that only one true morality exists, so to put it off as being moral at the time is bullshit. Either it's moral or it isn't.

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Source: http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

That is immoral. Call it cherry picking all you want, but it's in there, it's in the book you call "perfect", the inerrant work of God. Bullshit. This passage passes off a major crime, a severe violation against women, as a minor fine and forces the victim to live with her abuser. This is not moral, not by our standards, and if objective morality exist it would have been immoral then too.

[Edwardo Piet]

My point was simply that some Christians do cherry-pick. If you are to say that the horror the abortion clinic bombers do isn't Christian, then that's only by your definition of Christianity, by their definition they obviously are Christians, that's why I suspected the NTS. Christians disagree on their definitions. Why is your definition true and theirs not?

There are parts in the bible that are horrific, some cherry pick in favour some cherry pick against, right? Different Christians interpret it differently, people interpret it differently.

EvF

[Retorth]

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Source: http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

And that is only if he is caught. If not?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, if he's not caught by anyone, then no one but him and the girl would know what would happen :S So we wouldn't know what would happen from then "if not"...

But I mean, the way the daugther is cheated if he is caught! Wtf! It couldn't be further from justice. Can't get much more immoral than that...

But I heard Sam Harris speak of another part in the OT, where if a woman is raped and she does not scream for help loud enough, then she shall be stoned to death! I think that's...even worse :S

EvF

[Ryft]

My point was simply that some Christians do cherry-pick. If you are to say that the horrors the abortion clinic bombers do isn't Christian, then that's only by your definition of Christianity. By their definition they [the appalling acts] obviously are Christian. That's why I suspected the NTS. ... Why is your definition true and theirs not?

1. It is not my definition (as though I have my own unique definition) but rather the definition, established from etymology and authoritative sources by consensus of historical usage set down long before you or I existed—i.e., it's not as though nobody knew what the word meant until I arrived with 'my' definition. If the word "Christian" has any reference to the person and teaching of Jesus Christ (Gk. Christianos; suffix -ianos means "slave of" or "belonging to"; q.v. Acts 11:26), then how the term is defined or what it means begins with the person and teaching of Jesus Christ—not whimsically by just any person. The point is further sharpened by the fact that the definition of the word is never predicated on anything I have said or written. Although you continually attempt to call it my definition, the facts count against you.

2. If you hold that the violent destruction of abortion providers can be substantiated by cherry-picked verses from Christian scriptures, please provide one or more examples of such. Otherwise your assertion is devoid of any reality. I believe it was Christopher Hitchens who advanced the maxim, "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

3. If you hold that a body of beliefs can be defined by anyone and that all such definitions are equally legitimate, then how would you respond to a person who claims that torturing humans for fun is consistent with Secular Humanism? There is not a damn thing you can say because, by your logic, that person is correct. By your logic, all words are meaningless because all definitions are legitimate, even contradictory ones. But again the facts count against you, for words do have meaning—before I arrived and after I'm gone.

Christians disagree on their definitions.

Please cite me a source—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant—which substantiates that.

[Edwardo Piet]

Considering that the appalling acts in the OT are part of the bible, then how is it not cherry-picking to brush them a side? Does Jesus not support the OT in anyway? Am I wrong in reading that Jesus supported the OT?

I said that Christians disagree on their definitions. Well, an example of that would be any Christian that fell into the NTS fallacy and said that other Christians weren't really Christians...but perhaps I said the wrong thing. What I mean is the fact that Christians interpret the bible in different ways, and while it may be considered Unchristian to do such appalling acts, how could you say Christians aren't Christians for doing them...when such acts are condoned in the OT, which I thought Jesus himself supported?

EDIT: Corrected the beginning of the post because I left gibberish in. It made no sense at all, as Arcanus pointed out.

EvF