war! what is it good for?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How does Matt 10:34 harmonise itself with you?

Illustrative use of the term sword, context demonstrates that division is caused by the
stance unbelieving family members may take towards the Christian.

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.

nope. none of them were christian. if they go to war they have suspended their belief in christ, they have decided to serve another master and can no longer be considered christians.

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.

Except that the 'teachings of Christ' are so open to interpretation that his definition is NOT
restrictive enough to justify the claim that no Christian (true or otherwise) has gone to war.

And even if it were, that definition is not one I will accept and is not one that the society at
large generally excepts either.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
nope. none of them were christian. if they go to war they have suspended their belief in christ, they have decided to serve another master and can no longer be considered christians.

That is patently and obviously wrong.
Many people who believe in the god of the bible and JC have gone to war.

Claiming otherwise is a blatant NTS fallacy and I will not buy it for one second.

You do not just get to declare anyone who doesn't follow your particular version
of Christianity and interpretation of the teachings of the bible as NOT-Christian.

They claim to be Christian and have just as much right to do so as you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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? ...[text shortened]... when
in actual fact the teachings of Christ and more importantly the example are quite clear.

If the teachings of Christ were clear then there would be no dispute over them.

The fact that there are not hundreds but thousands of different denominations of
Christianity who ALL disagree about some aspect of the bible teachings and that's
even before you get to different people in the same denomination arguing over what
it's really saying.

To claim that the meaning of the bible is obvious and clear is disingenuous and naive at best.
At worst it's a blatant falsehood.

The very fact that all these arguments exist over what the bible means is proof positive that
it is far from clear.


So to use your own example, A lawyer, someone who argues and practices the law is considered
a lawyer, despite the fact that they do not necessarily all agree on what precisely the law indicates
in a given situation, or what acts are justified under it.

So your definition of a Christian as someone who follows the teachings of Christ (and I don't think
this definition is reasonable) does not get you to the statement that "no Christian has ever gone to war"
because you cannot get the 'teachings of Christ' to unambiguously preclude war or violence.


More than that, if you go back into history, most people couldn't read the bible and relied solely on
what the priests told them it said.
So when the Pope instructed Christians to go on a holy crusade to liberate Jerusalem in the name of
god and JC and that fighting in the war would guarantee going to heaven the vast majority of faithful
Christians who went on these crusades would not have any ability to check what the bible said or think
to question what the priests were telling them to do.

So even if you think that what the pope said was wrong and not in keeping with the spirit or letter of
biblical morality then that still doesn't allow you to claim that NONE of the people who went on the crusades
were Christian.

The idea is just simply absurd.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That is patently and obviously wrong.
Many people who believe in the god of the bible and JC have gone to war.

Claiming otherwise is a blatant NTS fallacy and I will not buy it for one second.

You do not just get to declare anyone who doesn't follow your particular version
of Christianity and interpretation of the teachings of the bible as NOT-Christian.

They claim to be Christian and have just as much right to do so as you.

claiming that because a majority has abandoned the teachings and gone to war proves
what? that the majority have abandoned the teachings and gone to war, that is all, its
an essentially meaningless assertion in this context, and anyone can look at the
example of Christ and discern that he refused to engage in violent action, even in the
face of death, there is nothing to interpret about that, its a simple fact. When the early
Christians were persecuted, they did not resort to violence against their person with
more violence, again, there is nothing to interpret, its a simple historical fact, your
rhetorical arguments have no place here.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If the teachings of Christ were clear then there would be no dispute over them.

The fact that there are not hundreds but thousands of different denominations of
Christianity who ALL disagree about some aspect of the bible teachings and that's
even before you get to different people in the same denomination arguing over what
it's really saying.
e people who went on the crusades
were Christian.

The idea is just simply absurd.

we are concerned with the example of Jesus Christ, God knows I've made that plain
enough and clearly that example excluded the use of violence. How will you dispute
this googly one?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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? ...[text shortened]... when
in actual fact the teachings of Christ and more importantly the example are quite clear.

I never challenged the idea that the defining characteristics of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Christ. I am saying that the NTS fallacy occurs when the defining characteristic begs the question.

As follows:

You say, No Scotsman would lose the Scotch game.

I say, But Angus lost the Scotch game , and he was born to a Scotsman in Scotland.

You say, Aye, then Angus is not a true Scotsman.

I say, Ah, so that's your definition of a true Scotsman? Of course, if that is your definition, you are right. But there are a lot of false Scotsman, then, aren't there?

You say, Aye. It is that.

This does not dispute your definition of a true Scotsman, but the definition does beg the question.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we are concerned with the example of Jesus Christ, God knows I've made that plain
enough and clearly that example excluded the use of violence. How will you dispute
this googly one?

Matthew
10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Originally posted by Rajk999
God said eat, and also said dont eat [too much].

God said answer a fool and also said dont answer a fool.

I guess on his day off he should have removed dunces from his creation that cant use their judgement as to when and how to apply commandments.

If you want think like a robot thats your business pal.

Wow. Way to go in rationalizing away the contradictions.

Old Testament advice for conquering a city.

And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself . . . But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deuteronomy 20:13-16). "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies . . . And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house . . . thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife" (Deuteronomy 21:10-13).

Thus, while the men are to be killed, the women and children are to be taken as slaves. Pretty women are to become the wives of conquering men who find them attractive. However, women and children in places the Lord gives His chosen people as an inheritance are to be killed (along with every other living thing).

Originally posted by googlefudge
That is patently and obviously wrong.
Many people who believe in the god of the bible and JC have gone to war.

Claiming otherwise is a blatant NTS fallacy and I will not buy it for one second.

You do not just get to declare anyone who doesn't follow your particular version
of Christianity and interpretation of the teachings of the bible as NOT-Christian.

They claim to be Christian and have just as much right to do so as you.

it doesn't matter what anyone in society particularly believes. there has never been a shortage of hypocrites.

where christianity is involved, there is a book of laws that defines what a christian is and how a christian should behave and it even tells us that we shall know christians by the way they behave. and none of the versions of the bible are in conflict concerning these things.

every version of the bible instructs christians to turn the other cheek, bless their enemies and not seek vengeance. people don't misinterpret these, they ignore them or mangle the meanings in their heads to justify their disobedience.

so i will stand by my statement that no christian ever went to war and i will add to it; neither voluntarily nor forced.

but i would like to clarify that when i say they never went to war, i mean that they never went with the intention of murdering/killing another human being in combat. they can be ordered by the ruling authority to play a non-combative role in military campaigns (medical, logistics, etc). they cannot be ordered by the ruling authority to kill someone (that's god's domain).

Originally posted by JS357
I never challenged the idea that the defining characteristics of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Christ. I am saying that the NTS fallacy occurs when the defining characteristic begs the question.

As follows:

You say, No Scotsman would lose the Scotch game.

I say, But Angus lost the Scotch game , and he was born to a Scotsman in Sc ...[text shortened]... does not dispute your definition of a true Scotsman, but the definition does beg the question.

interesting concept, is there a book of laws defining what a scotsman is, what scotsmen do and how a scotsman should behave? i've never seen one personally.

Originally posted by moon1969
Wow. Way to go in rationalizing away the contradictions.

Ecc_3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of WAR , and a time of peace.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Matthew
10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
10:34 [b]Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.[/b]

this has already been covered, its merely the illustrative use of the term 'sword',
context demonstrates that Christ was referring to division among families, that of the
stance that family members take towards the believer, not to literal warfare.