The Greatest Muslim

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Ah, the old "true Christian" fallacy, dressed up in a beard and turban.

By the way, your buddy's going to roast in hell, right? Probably not much worse that Lebanon anyway.

What's a "true Christian" fallacy?

I hope not! We've had some interesting conversations. Always friendly and respectful.

I have to be true to my faith, don't I? I didn't invent hell!

Do you think I get some kind of perverted thrill thinking that anyone will go to hell?

Originally posted by josephw
What's a "true Christian" fallacy?

I hope not! We've had some interesting conversations. Always friendly and respectful.

But weren't you just saying in the other thread that personal character, no matter how good, has nothing to do with going to heaven or hell, that going to heaven is not a matter of dessert? Why would you here appeal to his virtuous character when contemplating his fate?

The "true Christian" fallacy is in essence asserting both "All Christians are sinners" and "No true Christians are sinners," as if "true Christian" means something different than "Christian" and that some Christians are not "true Christians."

Originally posted by josephw

I have to be true to my faith, don't I?

Well, no, of course not. That is the essential epistemic flaw of fundamentalism. That you currently believe something is not sufficient justification for committing yourself to henceforth believing it permanently.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But weren't you just saying in the other thread that personal character, no matter how good, has nothing to do with going to heaven or hell, that going to heaven is not a matter of dessert? Why would you here appeal to his virtuous character when contemplating his fate?

The "true Christian" fallacy is essence asserting both "All Christians are s ...[text shortened]... hing different than "Christian" and that some Christians are not "true Christians."

If going to heaven is not a matter of dessert, can I gorge myself on Tiramisu?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Who is the greatest Muslim of all time?

Abu al-Haytham.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But weren't you just saying in the other thread that personal character, no matter how good, has nothing to do with going to heaven or hell, that going to heaven is not a matter of dessert? Why would you here appeal to his virtuous character when contemplating his fate?

The "true Christian" fallacy is essence asserting both "All Christians are s ...[text shortened]... hing different than "Christian" and that some Christians are not "true Christians."

If I saw an airplane falling out of the sky, and knew that all on board were going to die, and that some of them were "good" people, should I ignore the fact the their fate is sealed?

All Christians are "sinners" saved by grace. But, and I mean but with a capital b, there is the doctrine that says a Christian has a dual nature. The old nature, which is the flesh, and the new nature, which is the spirit of Christ.

The "new man" cannot sin.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well, no, of course not. That is the essential epistemic flaw of fundamentalism. That you currently believe something is not sufficient justification for committing yourself to henceforth believing it permanently.

That has happened to me too.
But I know and understand the basic fundamentals of "the faith", and the reality of a literal hell is one of them.

I would be a fake and a phony if I were to deny the fundamental truths of God's word.

Originally posted by josephw


All Christians are "sinners" saved by grace. But, and I mean but with a capital b, there is the doctrine that says a Christian has a dual nature. The old nature, which is the flesh, and the new nature, which is the spirit of Christ.

The "new man" cannot sin.

That's another fine example of the fallacy. I'm sure you could formulate several other variations, based on the theme of using quotes to implement equivocation.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That's another fine example of the fallacy. I'm sure you could formulate several others.

To you it appears as a fallacy because it doesn't fit into the world view you have constructed for yourself.

It has been asserted that the Christian is identified with Christ by the baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit. The believer is then a new creature, a new creation, a new man! That new man is so totally identified with Christ that God then sees the believer just as fit for heaven as his own son.

But since you appear to reject this assertion it is only obvious that you would find ways, however erroneous, to call it false.
And by your own reasoning, just because you say it's a fallacy doesn't make it so.

Originally posted by josephw
To you it appears as a fallacy because it doesn't fit into the world view you have constructed for yourself.

It has been asserted that the Christian is identified with Christ by the baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit. The believer is then a new creature, a new creation, a new man! That new man is so totally identified with Christ that God then sees th ...[text shortened]... it false.
And by your own reasoning, just because you say it's a fallacy doesn't make it so.

My identification and analysis of the fallacy makes no appeal to my worldview. My critique on this matter would be the same, regardless of whether I were the John the Baptist or the greatest Muslim of all time.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
My identification and analysis of the fallacy makes no appeal to my worldview. My critique on this matter would be the same, regardless of whether I were the John the Baptist or the greatest Muslim of all time.

Then how do you know it's a fallacy?

Originally posted by josephw
Then how do you know it's a fallacy?

Because I'm very, very smart.


Do you think there is a fallacy in this bit of reasoning, one that you can identify without appealing to your worldview:

Premise 1: Nothing is better than a baloney sandwich.
Premise 2: A baloney sandwich is better than nothing.
By (2) I'd prefer to have a baloney sandwich rather than nothing.
By (1) I'd prefer to have nothing rather than a baloney sandwich.
Thus, I can never be content after choosing between having a baloney sandwich or having nothing.

Anwar Al Sadat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Al_Sadat

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Because I'm very, very smart.


Do you think there is a fallacy in this bit of reasoning, one that you can identify without appealing to your worldview:

Premise 1: Nothing is better than a baloney sandwich.
Premise 2: A baloney sandwich is better than nothing.
By (2) I'd prefer to have a baloney sandwich rather than nothing.
By (1) I'd prefe ...[text shortened]... s, I can never be content after choosing between having a baloney sandwich or having nothing.

Do you think the spiritual forums should be renamed the BWA spiritual forums? I think it is only right.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Do you think the spiritual forums should be renamed the BWA spiritual forums? I think it is only right.

Yes, there I many changes that I think ought to be made in the world. That is certainly one of them.

As for another, I think we could all benefit from having an official Muslim History Month. February is already taken. I think September is free.

Finally, bbarr needs to return and straighten some of these people out. I've been doing more than my fair share of the instruction lately.