Where did life begin? (Merged)

[Orange_Crush]

I think it's telling that you're pointing out that I'm swine who shouldn't be bothered with instead of pointing out that the arguments I'm making aren't sound.

Aren't we all here to elicit responses?

Actually, I pointed out why I haven't engaged your arguments.

 

[Septic]

I understand that argument, but youre falsely applying it. you're makimg an argument about somethimg you don't understand and reject.

Perhaps you could elaborate on how you came to this conclusion?

Are you suggesting that I can't understand why the fallacy doesn't apply because I'm not a christian? Is this the basis of your argument?

 

[omaha_vol]

Perhaps you could elaborate on how you came to this conclusion?

Are you suggesting that I can't understand why the fallacy doesn't apply because I'm not a christian? Is this the basis of your argument?

You dont understand it because you dont understand and/or reject the Bible. I believe His argument is, a true christian will not continue to live as the world does while claiming claiming to be a christian. Is that his argument?

 

[Orange_Crush]

You dont understand it because you dont understand and/or reject the Bible. I believe His argument is, a true christian will not continue to live as the world does while claiming claiming to be a christian. Is that his argument?

It is not a True Scotsman fallacy. Septic calls it one because he either:

• doesn't understand Christian doctrine
• doesn't actually know what makes a True Scotsman fallacy a True Scotsman fallacy, or
• knows both and is being disingenuous

A true Scotsman fallacy is a true Scotsman fallacy because one changes the definition of the "Scotsman" ad hoc--i.e. for the purpose of preserving the argument.

The definition of "Christian" was not changed, and the clarification came from scripture as opposed to being an ad hoc change to preserve the debate point.

 

[distrovol]

Thank you, OC. I do recall your objective reality analysis in the previuos God thread.

As to the word "valid", that probably wasn't the correct one to use. Perhaps I should have said logical or reasonable from a fairness prospective? I look at these things a lot though my children's eyes and know they will hear these arguements from their peers and want to be able to contextualize it in ways they understand. I want them to be equipped with the full armor to be able to boldly defend their faith.

 

[Orangeslice13]

You seem quite enamoured with the KJV translation. May I ask why?

edit: don't know why it quoted slice, tried to quote BigO95

Holy quote snafuu Batman

 

[omaha_vol]

It is not a True Scotsman fallacy. Septic calls it one because he either:

• doesn't understand Christian doctrine
• doesn't actually know what makes a True Scotsman fallacy a True Scotsman fallacy, or
• knows both and is being disingenuous

A true Scotsman fallacy is a true Scotsman fallacy because one changes the definition of the "Scotsman" ad hoc--i.e. for the purpose of preserving the argument.

The definition of "Christian" was not changed, and the clarification came from scripture as opposed to being an ad hoc change to preserve the debate point.

Correct, he defends his argument without understanding same christianity that He rejects

 

[Orange_Crush]

Thank you, OC. I do recall your objective reality analysis in the previuos God thread.

As to the word "valid", that probably wasn't the correct one to use. Perhaps I should have said logical or reasonable from a fairness prospective? I look at these things a lot though my children's eyes and know they will hear these arguements from their peers and want to be able to contextualize it in ways they understand. I want them to be equipped with the full armor to be able to boldly defend their faith.

I wasn't condemning your verbiage. I just thought it a convenient way to start the response.

Sorry if I misrepresented my intentions.

 

[Orangeslice13]

It reminds me of the scene in “Oh brother where art thou” when delmar gets saved and is told. It’s good that G-d has forgiven you but the state of Mississippi tends to be a little more hard nosed on the subject

 

[Orange_Crush]

It reminds me of the scene in “Oh brother where art thou” when delmar gets saved and is told. It’s good that G-d has forgiven you but the state of Mississippi tends to be a little more hard nosed on the subject

Loved that movie. It actually gave me a deep appreciation for bluegrass music that I'd never had.

 

[distrovol]

There are 3 documentaries about the history of the Bible. Done by Chris Pinto. The 1st is called Tears Among The Wheat. Their very good docs and give a in depth history of the Bible. Also, James White, of alpha and omega ministries. He's written and studied in great lengths concerning the Bible.

I'll have to check these out. Any of them on Netflix or Youtube?

 

[The Ron Mexico]

You people (that’s right. I said it) are ruining VN with your inability to quote.

 

[Orangeslice13]

You people (that’s right. I said it) are ruining VN with your inability to quote.

You’re black so you’re allowed to say “you people “

 

[Orange_Crush]

Speak for yourself, jerk!

 

[The Ron Mexico]

You’re black so you’re allowed to say “you people “

Indeed. But don’t forget America hating gay Marxist.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Indeed. But don’t forget America hating gay Marxist.

Wait. What? Groucho was...?

 

[SWIL]

fyp

Thanks. Any thoughts on the actual content of the video? Oh, you didn't watch it, did you?

 

[The Ron Mexico]

Thanks. Any thoughts on the actual content of the video? Oh, you didn't watch it, did you?

I did watch it. In fact, I watched it as soon as you posted it.

I just felt the need to add exclamation points to poke fun at our esteemed colleague that is a Baptist minister.

My thoughts on the content of the video are:
1: I believe they make several good points with regard to asking to see evidence.
2: No group is above criticism. Be it religious or otherwise.
3: I cannot call myself an atheist because I think there are far too many questions left unanswered. The term “supernatural” is something we apply when we don’t understand something. We may someday understand those things scientifically and then they will just become “natural”.

 

[Septic]

It is not a True Scotsman fallacy. Septic calls it one because he either:

• doesn't understand Christian doctrine
• doesn't actually know what makes a True Scotsman fallacy a True Scotsman fallacy, or
• knows both and is being disingenuous

A true Scotsman fallacy is a true Scotsman fallacy because one changes the definition of the "Scotsman" ad hoc--i.e. for the purpose of preserving the argument.

The definition of "Christian" was not changed, and the clarification came from scripture as opposed to being an ad hoc change to preserve the debate point.

LOL.

The christian god has a mean streak a mile wide.

The definition being spun is an ideal of what constitutes a "true christian" and it is absolutely being shifted to exclude those who the defenders don't want because of a perceived shame of inclusion.

Making a claim that "no true christian" would rape or murder is an attempt to preserve it from refutation.

It's a fallacy and you should know better. Ironically, the first link I found actually uses a version of this as an example.

 

[distrovol]

LOL.

The christian god has a mean streak a mile wide.

The definition being spun is an ideal of what constitutes a "true christian" and it is absolutely being shifted to exclude those who the defenders don't want because of a perceived shame of inclusion.

Making a claim that "no true christian" would rape or murder is an attempt to preserve it from refutation.

It's a fallacy and you should know better. Ironically, the first link I found actually uses a version of this as an example.

The person committing the rape or molestation is not a true Christ follower at the time of the act, but possibly could be redeemed and restored later.

 

[Orange_Crush]

LOL.

The christian god has a mean streak a mile wide.

The definition being spun is an ideal of what constitutes a "true christian" and it is absolutely being shifted to exclude those who the defenders don't want because of a perceived shame of inclusion.

Making a claim that "no true christian" would rape or murder is an attempt to preserve it from refutation.

It's a fallacy and you should know better. Ironically, the first link I found actually uses a version of this as an example.

Perhaps you could go back and show where distro changed his definition of what a Christian is. If he did, I apologize for mis-characterizing you. If he didn't, then you can't have a Scotsman fallacy, as the literal definition of such a fallacy is to have changed the definition ad hoc.

(And I'm sure you could find innumerable bad examples of such a fallacy on the internet. The fact that you're having to search out examples may be indicative that you need to grasp the definition of the fallacy as opposed to asking others to think for you.)

Note: I think distro took a couple of wrong turns in the discussion, so I don't agree with him. But I also can't see where he changed his definition of what a Christian is, and he's said where he gets his definition, which would allay concerns of ad hoc-ism, so... Like I said...

Have a good day.

 

[Orange_Crush]

LOL.

The christian god has a mean streak a mile wide.

The definition being spun is an ideal of what constitutes a "true christian" and it is absolutely being shifted to exclude those who the defenders don't want because of a perceived shame of inclusion.

Making a claim that "no true christian" would rape or murder is an attempt to preserve it from refutation.

It's a fallacy and you should know better. Ironically, the first link I found actually uses a version of this as an example.

And by the way, I have no shame in who is included. Kind David took a man's wife and then murdered her husband--while God's king over Israel and a follower of God. The disciple/apostle John asked to call down fire from heaven and commit genocide against an entire Samaritan village. Peter tried to murder a guard but missed.

We are all sinners. I'm a sinner saved by grace. Who am I to start weighing sins and looking down on anyone else? What do I have to be shamed from inclusion?By all rights, maybe every other Christian should be ashamed of mine?

Now... If you and Mercy want to start throwing stones about Christian doctrine on grace, and calling it "immoral" or "unethical", then ground your morality and ethics as more than preference. Put it in an objective context and we can talk.

Otherwise, you sound ridiculous.

 

[Septic]

The person committing the rape or molestation is not a true Christ follower at the time of the act, but possibly could be redeemed and restored later.

I see.

So you're saying Christians that sin aren't and can't be defined as Christians? My understanding was that there was no man without sin. This is a game changer.

If that is the case, I capitulate.

 

[Mick]

I see.

So you're saying Christians that sin aren't and can't be defined as Christians? My understanding was that there was no man without sin. This is a game changer.

If that is the case, I capitulate.

Bible verse in 3.......2.......1.......

 

[Septic]

Perhaps you could go back and show where distro changed his definition of what a Christian is. If he did, I apologize for mis-characterizing you. If he didn't, then you can't have a Scotsman fallacy, as the literal definition of such a fallacy is to have changed the definition ad hoc.

(And I'm sure you could find innumerable bad examples of such a fallacy on the internet. The fact that you're having to search out examples may be indicative that you need to grasp the definition of the fallacy as opposed to asking others to think for you.)

Note: I think distro took a couple of wrong turns in the discussion, so I don't agree with him. But I also can't see where he changed his definition of what a Christian is, and he's said where he gets his definition, which would allay concerns of ad hoc-ism, so... Like I said...

Have a good day.

Your assertion is that he didn't change the definition of christian, my response is that he didn't need to. Christians, as I understand it are still Christians even if the screw up from time to time. No?

Further, from a puritanical standpoint there isn't a sliding scale of sin. IOW stealing doesn't merit a stiffer heavenly punishment that lying.

Also, the link was for your benefit since you seem to be whiffing on the application.