RE: christian terrorism? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DomKen -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 11:32:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness
Or maybe they really aren't true Christians? It takes a lot more to be a Christian than just going to church and saying you are....and on top of that lots of people will claim to be something for no other reason than to try and use it to garner support.

Like the Fred Phelps cult in Topeka is certainly not a Christian group...they just claim to be to try and further their hate based beliefs.

Practicing your "No true Scotsman" fallacy or is this really serious?



Are you actually asserting that all it takes to be a Christian is to claim to be one? The Bible certainly disagrees.

No. I'm disputing that you or anyone else can exclude a self identified christian from "christianity." Phelps and Roeder may have a good faith belief that they are obeying the tenets of the christian faith as laid out in the bible. I'm sure both could quote chapter and verse to support their positions. I will also note that no one doubts when a self identified muslim performs a despicable act that the person in question is muslim even if they violate many widely held tenets of islam in doing what ever heinous act they may have commited. What's sauce for the goose...




NihilusZero -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 11:34:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

Or maybe you could just educate yourself on what a Christian actually is instead of going by assumptions. ;)

That said...if someone strapped a bomb to themselves and ran into a day care center quoting Obama the whole time...would you REALLY be so eager to call it "Obama-led terrorism?"

Are you a biblical literalist? That's about the only sort of "christian" that does not pick and choose how to interpret the judeo-christian religious ideas so as to form their own concept of what is actually true. You cannot base the entirety of your christianity on assuming you have a better direct-connection-line to your god to be able to determine what the "true way" is more than anyone else who claims themselves to be the same.

It is, however, easier to declare a higher holy-ground when the sort of person you are claiming to be distanced from to show how correct you are is one who commits atrocitities.




Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 11:41:38 AM)

Well I try not to get into specific arguments over minutiae...which is why when I defined Christian in the thread I stuck to about the most basic literal definition..."follower of Christ."

Now, with Jesus spending his life teaching us to love one another...can you blame us for pointing out that someone who murders someone in cold blood; or many people by blowing up a building may not in fact be following Jesus?

Do you think Jesus would be happy that these people are falsely using his name to commit these atrocities?




rulemylife -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 11:44:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

Jesus after all did warn us many would come falsely using his name. I'm just pointing out that just *maybe* those falsely using his name might not actually be Christian. Don't see why that's so hard to fathom.


Well, I don't know.

Let's review.

He said:

"Isn't that what christians like to do to defend their extreme brethren? They claim that they're not true christians."

Then you said:

"Or maybe they really aren't true Christians?"

So I guess you're right, I can't fathom why I would have believed you proved his point.






Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 11:48:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
No. I'm disputing that you or anyone else can exclude a self identified christian from "christianity." Phelps and Roeder may have a good faith belief that they are obeying the tenets of the christian faith as laid out in the bible.


Jesus: Love one another, turn the other cheek, learn to forgive...etc.

Phelps: HATE! HATE! HATE!

It's blatantlly obvious that the message Phelps is spreading is not what Jesus taught...so that puts obvious doubt on them being "followers of Christ."

quote:

I will also note that no one doubts when a self identified muslim performs a despicable act that the person in question is muslim even if they violate many widely held tenets of islam in doing what ever heinous act they may have commited. What's sauce for the goose...


I do have doubts...but I'm not muslim so I doon't really argue it. If a Muslim were to point to the Koran to show how these terrorists were violating the teachings of Allah...I'd have no reason to argue with him if he said "He's not one of us!"




Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 11:50:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So I guess you're right, I can't fathom why I would have believed you proved his point.


Especially since I gave clear logical reason as to why his point is wrong.




rulemylife -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 11:53:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

Well I try not to get into specific arguments over minutiae...which is why when I defined Christian in the thread I stuck to about the most basic literal definition..."follower of Christ."

Now, with Jesus spending his life teaching us to love one another...can you blame us for pointing out that someone who murders someone in cold blood; or many people by blowing up a building may not in fact be following Jesus?

Do you think Jesus would be happy that these people are falsely using his name to commit these atrocities?


No, obviously not, but these same Christians believe that they are, so the definition of a Christian terrorist is as applicable as a Muslim terrorist.

Either you accept both definitions or reject both definitions. 




rulemylife -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 11:55:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So I guess you're right, I can't fathom why I would have believed you proved his point.


Especially since I gave clear logical reason as to why his point is wrong.


And here I thought I was pointing out the obvious lack of logic.  Silly me!




Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 11:56:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

Well I try not to get into specific arguments over minutiae...which is why when I defined Christian in the thread I stuck to about the most basic literal definition..."follower of Christ."

Now, with Jesus spending his life teaching us to love one another...can you blame us for pointing out that someone who murders someone in cold blood; or many people by blowing up a building may not in fact be following Jesus?

Do you think Jesus would be happy that these people are falsely using his name to commit these atrocities?


No, obviously not, but these same Christians believe that they are, so the definition of a Christian terrorist is as applicable as a Muslim terrorist.

Either you accept both definitions or reject both definitions. 



And as I believe I already said, I reject both definitions.

Edit: To add...if a Muslim were to point to the Koran and show me why a terrorist isn't acting on Muslim belief...I'd feel like a total moron if I tried to convince the Muslim that the terrorist is one as well.




DomKen -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 12:01:55 PM)

no matter how you squirm, and based on your nick I think you are simply trolling, your defence is the no true scotsman fallacy.




Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 12:05:02 PM)

So you really do believe someone with total disregard to Jesus's teaching is actually following Jesus when he does so? Interesting.




Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 12:11:55 PM)

Oh, and why is it "Trolling" to simply not want those of us that follow Jesus to not be painted with the same brush as those who don't follow Jesus while they commit their atrocities?

Seriously, your previous post was thoughtful and rational even though I disagreed, so I explained rationally why I disagreed. I'd like the same courtesy. If you find flaw in my reasoning in my response to you, please show the flaws instead of just resorting to Ad Homs.




rulemylife -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 12:23:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

No, obviously not, but these same Christians believe that they are, so the definition of a Christian terrorist is as applicable as a Muslim terrorist.

Either you accept both definitions or reject both definitions. 



And as I believe I already said, I reject both definitions.


Edit: To add...if a Muslim were to point to the Koran and show me why a terrorist isn't acting on Muslim belief...I'd feel like a total moron if I tried to convince the Muslim that the terrorist is one as well.


No, that's not what you said:

I do have doubts...but I'm not muslim so I doon't really argue it.
If a Muslim were to point to the Koran to show how these terrorists were violating the teachings of Allah...I'd have no reason to argue with him if he said "He's not one of us!"


Saying you have doubts is not exactly the same forceful rejection of using the term Muslim terrorism as you would like everyone to forcefully reject the phrase Christian terrorism.






Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 12:30:13 PM)

Oh, so now you're moving the goalposts from "reject" to "want everyone to forcefully reject?"

Okay, so yes I think it's equally fair for Muslims to speak out against the term "muslcim terrorism". I know I already reject the definition as I explained.




Arpig -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 12:42:09 PM)

Repy to truthiness, not rule (Darn quick reply!!![:@])

Ok Truthi, I will readily agree that I fail to see the connection between Christ's teachings and any terrorist act or the teachings of Phelps, et al. However, these people do what they do in the name of christianity. Christianity as they interpret it, and their interpretation is every bit as valid as yours, they read the same bible and draw different conclusions. You are the false prophet in their eyes.

I disregard the arguements of those muslims who distance themselves from the terrorists, saying that they are not real muslims for the same reason. The acts are motivated by the perpetrator's religion. In the case of the act under discussion in this thread, the perpetrator claims to be a christian, and therefore his actions are christian terrorism. The only way your version of christianity could be used to define who is and who is not a christian would be if it were the only version of christianity, which it isn't.

I can understand your desire to distance yourself and your beliefs from the actions of this madman, but the fact remains that he did what he did in the name of christianity, and therefore his act of terrorism was christianity inspired, and is therefore christian terrorism.

To claim that he isn't a twue "follower of christ" is to impose your interpretation of what it takes to be a follower of christ on him. He has is own interpretation, likely shared with a number of others in his local congregation. Phelps and his ilk have followers, there are those out there who see the christian message the same way he does, just as there are muslims who see the koran's message in the same light as Osama. Who are you to dictate what is and what isn't the correct interpretation of christ's teachings, what is the source of your authority that you can speak in the name of christianity?




Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 12:59:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Repy to truthiness, not rule (Darn quick reply!!![:@])

Ok Truthi, I will readily agree that I fail to see the connection between Christ's teachings and any terrorist act or the teachings of Phelps, et al. However, these people do what they do in the name of christianity. Christianity as they interpret it, and their interpretation is every bit as valid as yours, they read the same bible and draw different conclusions. You are the false prophet in their eyes.


All entirely true, I can't disagree with you there. You have Jesus's teachings available to you though...those books are everywhere. =) So in all seriousness, I'm simply asking...could one not use some logic and reasoning to see if someone is even remotely following Christ's teachings?

I'm not talking about all the "one TWUE Cwistian" arguments that I try and avoid due to their silliness (I'm non-demoninational for that reason)...but some things are just very basic, logical facts that really can't be mistaken. Jesus taught us to love one another; to give of ourselves to the needy; to be forgiving of others. How can you misinterpret that?

quote:

I disregard the arguements of those muslims who distance themselves from the terrorists, saying that they are not real muslims for the same reason. The acts are motivated by the perpetrator's religion. In the case of the act under discussion in this thread, the perpetrator claims to be a christian, and therefore his actions are christian terrorism. The only way your version of christianity could be used to define who is and who is not a christian would be if it were the only version of christianity, which it isn't.


Bolded for emphasis, though really it's the same point I made above. I can't really argue from a Muslim point...simply because I'm not one and have little knowledge of the details of their beliefs. I don't know what passages lead to the differences in their interpretation. I just know that because I have a book that has some very, very clear guidelines of what Jesus asks of us and thus know when someone isn't following those guidelines (again, I'm referring to the very basic principles of love, forgiveness...not the minutiae that leads to those silly arguments)...I would want to be as open minded if a Muslim were to say "He's not one of us!"


quote:

I can understand your desire to distance yourself and your beliefs from the actions of this madman, but the fact remains that he did what he did in the name of christianity, and therefore his act of terrorism was christianity inspired, and is therefore christian terrorism.


Kind of an important distinction needs to be made here. How do we know it was really "Christian inspired?" Would it not be equally possible, and likely, for someone who doesn't believe in Jesus at all to claim to do so to add weight to his belief? Note that I'm not saying this is the case...I can't tell you what's in his heart...if he really does believe he is following Jesus...but neither can you or anyone else. So "Christian Terrorism" is a faulty generalization there I think. Jesus did, after all, warn us that many would falsely come in his name.


quote:

To claim that he isn't a twue "follower of christ" is to impose your interpretation of what it takes to be a follower of christ on him. He has is own interpretation, likely shared with a number of others in his local congregation. Phelps and his ilk have followers, there are those out there who see the christian message the same way he does, just as there are muslims who see the koran's message in the same light as Osama. Who are you to dictate what is and what isn't the correct interpretation of christ's teachings, what is the source of your authority that you can speak in the name of christianity?


This kinda goes back to the first quote here, but wanted to point out - I don't claim to dictate what is and isn't the correct interpretation of Christ's teachings. Personally, I think the words of Jesus speak for themselves...so I would just ask you to read what he says and ask yourself..."Is shooting someone in cold blood what Jesus would have wanted?"

I'd honestly want to ask the man who killed Tiller that same question if he really thought he was performing God's will.

Thank you though for the reasoned, thoughtful reply. =)




Arpig -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:13:46 PM)

Granted, the guy may or may not really believe he was doing God's will, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I think we can, for the purposes of this discussion, assume he did. It is those same teachings that you point to that have led him, and the Phelpsian types (Hey I just invented a new word[:D]) to their admitedly bizarre beliefs.

quote:

I just know that because I have a book that has some very, very clear guidelines of what Jesus asks of us and thus know when someone isn't following those guidelines (again, I'm referring to the very basic principles of love, forgiveness...not the minutiae that leads to those silly arguments)...

I agree with you about what those basic guidelines are, however apparently many people out there disagree, and since neither you or I have any authority to state what is and what is not the proper interpretation, we are not in a position to say what is and what isn't christian. Keep in mind, according to the Catholics, protestants are not real christians, and are doomed to  Hell.

On a slight side note, years ago I used to have a book called The Gospel According to Jesus, I heartily recommend it, its a good thought provoking read.
http://www.thesatirist.com/books/GospelJesus.html
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Jesus-Translation-Unbelievers/dp/0060923210




DomKen -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:19:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

Oh, and why is it "Trolling" to simply not want those of us that follow Jesus to not be painted with the same brush as those who don't follow Jesus while they commit their atrocities?

Seriously, your previous post was thoughtful and rational even though I disagreed, so I explained rationally why I disagreed. I'd like the same courtesy. If you find flaw in my reasoning in my response to you, please show the flaws instead of just resorting to Ad Homs.

I didn't resort to ad hominen. I did point out that your nick is a term for telling a lie popularized by Colbert so it is hard to take you seriously.

You still haven't addressed the point though, why isn't your and others dismissal of various bad actors as 'not christians' not simply the no true scotsman fallacy?




Arpig -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:26:19 PM)

Having just read up on the "No true scotsman fallacy", I have to agree with DomKen. the arguement about true christians is exactly that.




Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:28:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I didn't resort to ad hominen.


I was referring more to your accusation of trolling instead of addressing an attempt at a serious and rational argument...thus attacking me and not the argument. =)
quote:


You still haven't addressed the point though, why isn't your and others dismissal of various bad actors as 'not christians' not simply the no true scotsman fallacy?

I *have* addressed it though, by describing the book that defines what a Christian is; and explainning why these bad actors don't meet that definitiion.

If I made bologna sandwiches and offered them as pepperoni pizza, and someone pointed at the definition of pepperoni and pizza to dispute that my sandwiches were not pizza...would that be a "no true scotsman" fallacy too?




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625