war! what is it good for?

Originally posted by FMF
You reckon the God you worship was deliberately setting up a situation in which his followers could and would continually condemn each other, if they wanted to, because they were permitted to 'cherry pick'?

Deliberate or otherwise, strife and disagreement is a fact of mans existance. If you want to place blame on God thats your choice.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
They cannot be commandments and loose take it or leave it depending on your mood type hints. By getting personal you just demonstrate that you have no real response to the question. The fact is the bible has issues with it's own internal logic. This is not an evolution versus creation type argument it's about wether the bible adequately answers one of the g ...[text shortened]... t questions faced by mankind either it does'nt or it's been let down by it's spokespersons.

What ?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If we Christians did not go to war, who would protect robbie's freedom to
be a JW?

Us rational secularists would we just will not stand for religious codes being enshrined into civil law and we will root them out.

Originally posted by Rajk999
What ?

Doh?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
no christian has ever gone to war.

indeed, whether its a no true Scotsman is irrelevant, A Christian is forbidden to go to
war on the basis of Biblical principles.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If we Christians did not go to war, who would protect robbie's freedom to
be a JW?

Jehovah the God of the Universe. even if i were incarcerated in solitary confinement in
a cement bunker, five hundred feet below castle Heidelberg, i would still have the
freedom to worship, for i would still have the facility of prayer, even if i got killed as a
conscientious objector i would be resurrected in the resurrection of the righteous and
the unrighteous which Christ mentions.

(Isaiah 2:2-4) 2 And it must occur in the final part of the days [that] the mountain of
the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains,
and it will certainly be lifted up above the hills; and to it all the nations must stream.
And many peoples will certainly go and say: “Come, you people, and let us go up to
the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct us
about his ways, and we will walk in his paths.” For out of Zion law will go forth, and
the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem.  And he will certainly render judgement
among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they
will have to beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning
shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war
anymore.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
indeed, whether its a no true Scotsman is irrelevant, A Christian is forbidden to go to
war on the basis of Biblical principles.

No, that's a no-true Scotsman argument and is thus a logical fallacy.

There are MANY Christians who have gone to war, The Crusades would be a good example.

If you can't accept that there are Christians who don't think as you do and who have, and still
do, go to war. Then the conversation is over because you are talking irrational nonsense.
You are also demonstrably wrong and look stupid.

No true Scotsman (NTS) arguments are logical fallacies for a reason, and that this is a NTS argument
is thus far from irrelevant.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, that's a no-true Scotsman argument and is thus a logical fallacy.

There are MANY Christians who have gone to war, The Crusades would be a good example.

If you can't accept that there are Christians who don't think as you do and who have, and still
do, go to war. Then the conversation is over because you are talking irrational nonsense.
You a ...[text shortened]... ogical fallacies for a reason, and that this is a NTS argument
is thus far from irrelevant.

I knew you would try this, its simply a mater of discernment, its irrelevant whether its a
logical fallacy or anything else, why, because it can easily be discerned that the defining
characteristics of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Christ, which by
example, forbids the use of force, therefore those persons who claimed to be
Christians and went to war are nothing of the sort, by definition of the term Christian as
defined by the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

I can claim to be anything, is it a logical fallacy that if by definition of my actions its
rather apparent that i am not what i claim, hardly, this is in essence the argument you
are making and its nonsense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I knew you would try this, its simply a mater of discernment, its irrelevant whether its a
logical fallacy or anything else, why, because it can easily be discerned that the defining
characteristics of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Christ, which by
example, forbids the use of force, therefore those persons who claimed to b ...[text shortened]... am not what i claim, hardly, this is in essence the argument you
are making and its nonsense.

Unfortunately for your argument the 'teachings of Christ' in the bible are not open to ONLY
one interpretation.

Also the definition of a 'Christian' is not as cut and dried as you claim and it is certainly not
just up to you to get to define it.

The Label Christian pre-dates you and your brand of Christianity by millennia.

You can use verses in the bible to support almost any point of view.
And Neither you nor I get to tell someone they are NOT a Christian simply because they don't
subscribe to YOUR particular interpretation of it.

This IS a classic no true Scotsman argument.


Now if you were talking about someone claiming a label where you could clearly and objectively
prove that there position was incompatible with or contradictory to that label as its generally understood
then you might be right.
Chairman Mao claiming to be a democrat would be an example.

Or if someone claimed to believe in the Greek pantheon of gods and not in YAHWEH or Jesus then you
could justifiably say that they were not a Christian.

However if you are simply talking about someone who believes in JC but disagrees about how to interpret
the bible on specific topics then you really can't claim they are not a Christian, or (True Christian) without
falling into a no true Scotsman fallacy.
You can reasonably say that a particular interpretation is incompatible with being a JW for example, but even then
you might get potential disagreement from other JW's.
But ruling out entire sects of Christianity because they disagree with your personal interpretation of what it
says in the bible is not reasonable or valid.

For starters it would leave large parts of history where no 'Christians' by your definition actually existed.

And that's even before you get to people believing in something but not always living up to it.

So, no, your argument is not even close to being valid.

And Christians have most certainly and indisputably gone to war.
And still do today.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I knew you would try this, its simply a mater of discernment, its irrelevant whether its a
logical fallacy or anything else, why, because it can easily be discerned that the defining
characteristics of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Christ, which by
example, forbids the use of force, therefore those persons who claimed to b ...[text shortened]... am not what i claim, hardly, this is in essence the argument you
are making and its nonsense.

"the defining characteristics of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Christ, "

You seem to be a pretty reasonable person, robbie. What you are doing here is molding the definition of "Christian" -- might I say, "True Christian" to be a person who FOLLOWS the teachings of the Christ, not, for example, one who strives (and in some way, may fail) to follow the teachings of the Christ. Most of us here are willing to cast as a Christian, those people who profess the faith, regardless of our judgement of their fidelity in practicing that faith. So we have to modify the generally accepted definition to the definition you present.

The NTS argument, if challenged as such, usually gets to the point where its perpetrator has to come out of the closet with the restrictive definition that makes his case arguable. You have just done that.

Originally posted by JS357
"the defining characteristics of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Christ, "

You seem to be a pretty reasonable person, robbie. What you are doing here is molding the definition of "Christian" -- might I say, "True Christian" to be a person who FOLLOWS the teachings of the Christ, not, for example, one who strives (and in some way, may fai ...[text shortened]... set with the restrictive definition that makes his case arguable. You have just done that.

All else is semantics and rhetorical arguments like the googly one tried to pull, my
definition is sound,

I am a policeman because I police and enforce the law

I am a doctor because I practice medicine

I am a lawyer because I practice law

and suddenly for no apparent reason

I am a Christian because I practice the teachings of Jesus Christ becomes a
restrictive definition? Why is that JS357

Originally posted by googlefudge
Unfortunately for your argument the 'teachings of Christ' in the bible are not open to ONLY
one interpretation.

Also the definition of a 'Christian' is not as cut and dried as you claim and it is certainly not
just up to you to get to define it.

The Label Christian pre-dates you and your brand of Christianity by millennia.

You can use verses ...[text shortened]...
And Christians have most certainly and indisputably gone to war.
And still do today.

I have neither the energy nor the inclination to dismantle this fallacious post, believe
what you want, my definition is both practical and sound, void spirits statement rings
true, no Christian ever went to war.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have neither the energy nor the inclination to dismantle this fallacious post, believe
what you want, my definition is both practical and sound, void spirits statement rings
true, no Christian ever went to war.

How does Matt 10:34 harmonise itself with you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
All else is semantics and rhetorical arguments like the googly one tried to pull, my
definition is sound,

I am a policeman because I police and enforce the law

I am a doctor because I practice medicine

I am a lawyer because I practice law

and suddenly for no apparent reason

I am a Christian because I practice the teachings of Jesus Christ becomes a
restrictive definition? Why is that JS357

The difference is there is no big dispute about what it means to enforce laws or practice medicine or the law. There are public certification programs (police, law, and medical school, exams-- and board certs for the latter 2).

After all, there are people who say JW's and Mormons are not Christians, right? You should be quite used to getting the NTS argument aimed at you, and possibly seeing it used by JWs against others. I've seen it here, between other Christians and JWs. So it seems disingenuous of you to compare a NT Christian argument to a NT cop argument.

Originally posted by JS357
The difference is there is no big dispute about what it means to enforce laws or practice medicine or the law. There are public certification programs (police, law, and medical school, exams-- and board certs for the latter 2).

After all, there are people who say JW's and Mormons are not Christians, right? You should be quite used to getting the NTS argum JWs. So it seems disingenuous of you to compare a NT Christian argument to a NT cop argument.

this is not so, in fact its the very reason we have lawyers is that the law is open to
interpretation, yet still the lawyer is defined by what he practices, despite this fact, yet
suddenly because the teachings of Christ are also open to interpretation a Christian
can no longer be defined by what he or she practices, who is being disingenuous? It
simply to my mind a very convenient way for moral relativism to be expounded when
in actual fact the teachings of Christ and more importantly the example are quite clear.