For good people to do bad things...

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

First, as I have argued previously, that fallacy is committed only when there is an ad hoc shifting of the goal posts,

Perhaps I've misunderstood the NTF: my interpretation is that it's a self sealing fallacy wherein the proponent misuses a definition which has been clearly established to mean something else to make a point..

In this case you are using an argument from authority to claim that 'Christian' has a clear catholic (ahem) and unambiguous meaning,it does not. For goodness sake Christians can't even agree amongst THEMSELVES! No offence ,but [for you] to claim otherwise seems a little disingenuous.


I did not say or mean to imply that the bad behavior of any number of Christians abrogates any moral code.

I DO assert that Christians are just ordinary people; not especially good and not especially bad.Like most ordinary people,they are capable of great good and great evil. Sometimes good people do evil things and sometimes bad people do good things.In my opinion behaviour in extremis rarely defines a person.

My argument was based on historical evidence: That over a thousand years, good Christians have done some very evil things,with the approval and encouragement of their leaders and within personal conscience.

I guess we'll have to agree to differ. That's all I have to say,except that I think you're probably smarter than me,so will usually win an argument. Fortunately for me, I do not conflate losing an argument with being wrong [necessarily]

[Edwardo Piet]

I already responded to the "Jesus supported the Old Testament" question. Please incorporate my response within your reply, such that it reflects the point rather than ignores it.

Because I am still saying "If Jesus supports the OT as a whole", because I want to know if he supports the whole of the OT or not, and whether that would include the immoral bits. Because you said "maybe" and how it's layed out clearly in the Bible. And rather than sit down and read the Bible right now, I'm going to simply ask if you believe he supports the whole of the OT or not?

I already addressed this point [...]

I understand your point that it doesn't follow from Christian beliefs. But now I wonder is how specifically you are defining Christianity, because you seem to think that all Christians agree on the definition?

You say such immoral acts are not Christian. So above I am asking if Christ condones any of the horror in the OT, in which case there would be a contradiction. Or if not (and I assume you think not), then do you just brush aside all the horror in the OT? And what do you think the purpose of all that immoral stuff in there is?

Well, any time when part of the Bible (I never said specifically NT) that is unpleasant is chosen to be metaphorical, when it could just as easily be read literally, is cherry-picking.

First, the issue does not pivot on some Old Testament passage being metaphorical versus literal.

No, but it's certainly my main point. If the OT is to be respected by Christians and not just tossed aside, how is it decided what parts are to be literal and what metaphorical, without ever cherry-picking? How can Christians never cherry-pick?

As for your second point, I'll just say that I'll accept that some parts are explicitly metaphorical. I am talking about the case when bits that aren't explicitly metaphorical, are to either be interpreted literal or metaphorically, and if this can really be done without ever cherry-picking by Christians.

[Are you saying that no Christians cherry-pick?]

That is not even close to what I said.

Not even close? Well that was all my original point was (an obvious one I thought): That some Christians cherry-pick. To which fr0d0 responded that I only think that because I don't know what Christianity is. Which is entirely irrelevant to my point about whether Christians cherry-pick or not. So if that's not even close, do you agree with me after all, that there are Christian cherry-pickers?

EvF

[Ryft]

I want to know if [Jesus] supports the whole of the Old Testament or not ... I am asking if Christ condones any of the horror in the Old Testament ...

First, yes he "supports" the Old Testament. And yet, how can you respond to this without knowing the sense in which he supports it? Second, the dictionaries I've checked don't show "support" and "condone" as being synonyms. What dictionary are you using? Or was that an intentional prevarication? Third, do you argue for an absolute objective morality? That is, are those events in the Old Testament considered "horrors" in an absolute, objective sense?

I understand your point, that it doesn't follow from Christian beliefs. But what I wonder is how specifically you are defining Christianity ...

If you are inquiring about the criteria by which a belief is determined to be Christian or not, I've already provided that.

How is it decided what parts are literal or metaphorical without ever cherry-picking?

Biblical exegesis.

Do you agree with me after all, that there are Christian cherry-pickers?

Well of course there are! I've dealt with many myself. And so?

[theVOID]

You know you've got nothing meaningful to say Arcanus, when you have to make half your post a critique of grammar when you understand fully what he was trying to say.

You're a slippery fucker Arcanus.

[Ryft]

He says as if my post critiqued grammar in any way... *rolls eyes*

[Violet]

Sometimes people say the wrong thing when they are trying to speak their mind... and this is just a miscommunication of what a person was trying to say

I would guess that EvF was asking just this: Does Jesus condone the horrors of the Old Testament in his support of it?

[theVOID]

You did! Instead of answering EvF's question you resorted to pointing out an incorrect use of the words "support" and "condone" when you knew entirely what he meant and then you try to mask the question further by tacking questions around his definition of horrors.

Slippery fucker indeed, at least fr0d0 doesn't attempt to hide the fact that he dodges questions.

[Ryft]

I would guess that EvF was asking just this: Does Jesus condone the horrors of the Old Testament in his support of it?

The point of my response was that the two words mean rather different things, that they are not synonyms; ergo, his need to clarify what he is asking. In some cases it's safe to assume the person's meaning, but with a potential boobytrap like supporting or condoning "horrors," I'm not going to assume anything nor step blissfully onto land mines.

[theVOID]

I would guess that EvF was asking just this: Does Jesus condone the horrors of the Old Testament in his support of it?

The point of my response was that the two words mean rather different things, that they are not synonyms; ergo, his need to clarify what he is asking. In some cases it's safe to assume the person's meaning, but with a potential boobytrap like supporting or condoning "horrors," I'm not going to assume anything nor step blissfully onto land mines.

Wow, you claim to be able to make sense of biblical verse but you can't manage to understand what EvF meant to say?



You know completely what he meant, you just know that if you answer truthfully you are going to 'step on land mines' and you cant' avoid it, thus the dodge.

[Edwardo Piet]

First, yes he "supports" the Old Testament. And yet, how can you respond to this without knowing the sense in which he supports it?

That's what I'm asking.

Second, the dictionaries I've checked don't show "support" and "condone" as being synonyms. What dictionary are you using? Or was that an intentional prevarication?

I changed it to condone because you said to me before that "It depends what you meant by support".

Third, do you argue for an absolute objective morality? That is, are those events in the Old Testament considered "horrors" in an absolute, objective sense?

No, I do not believe in any form of absolute objective morality. Why, do you think what I describe as the "horrors" in the OT...aren't horrors?

If you are inquiring about the criteria by which a belief is determined to be Christian or not, I've already provided that.

Fair enough, but don't different believers in and followers of Christ disagree on how Christianity is defined to some extent? Or are they all within your definition? Just to clarify.

How is it decided what parts are literal or metaphorical without ever cherry-picking?

Biblical exegesis.

my stress is on the "ever"...can this really be done without there ever being any cherry-picking? (And you confirm my answer on the quote of yours that I'm about the quote next actually).

Do you agree with me after all, that there are Christian cherry-pickers?

Well of course there are! I've dealt with many myself. And so?

Well that was my entire point that was made to fr0d0 in the first place, that this entire debate has sprung from. I said that, and he said that I said it because I don't understand what Christianity is.

EvF