So what rules do really count in the Bible, can someone explain that to me? Is coveting your neighbour's manservant equal, less bad or worse than sucking another man's dick?
Mississippi church refuses to marry black couple
- Thread starter { Emilia }
- Start date
Well, you claimed to be a member of the one true Christian church and sect and even went so far as to say that James A. Garfield was the only genuinely Christian President in American history because he was also a member...or words to some such effect.
Maybe you don't claim to wear the vestments of a clergyman and have an advanced degree in Biblical Studies or Theology, but you've made your personal credentials quite well known by asserting your Christianity is better, truer and more doctrinally pure than other brands of Christianity.
Once again, you don't do a very good job of keeping up with your own statements, so, once again someone will have to do it for you.
If you'll recall, not long ago, you said to me that I should post my credentials in order to post about the Bible and be taken seriously. The words were:
I did, because I do possess them - and pointed out to you that those credentials were on a par and exceeding many ordained ministers.
Apparently, this another one of your ad hoc standards that you apply to others but not to yourself, for the implication of the statement is that, in order to be taken seriously around these parts, a person needs to have "credentials." If persons without credentials should not be taken seriously, then that directly undercuts everything about the Bible you post. So, not only is this another ad hoc standard you apply to others and not yourself, it's a standard that, if you did apply it to others, would directly undercut anybody taking what you have to say seriously.
Try to keep up with your own arguments.
Knight Templar
Commodore
You know CE, I really don't understand this.
If what someone believes and practices religionwise IS NOT what they see as "better, truer, and more doctrinally pure" than other brands............then why practice it?
If I thought Catholicism was "better" wouldn't it be logical for me to change to it?
I assume Peacemaker considers his beliefs "better, truer, and more doctrinally pure" than mine. If he doesn't then why not change to something that is?
Perhaps because of a recognition that all religion is flawed in some way, communicated to us through fallible human beings who often have their own agendas. Perhaps out of a recognition that there is no such thing as a 'perfect' religion, let alone a 'pure' one.
Which brings one to a point of saying "This form of belief structure works best for me, most nearly matches the Infinite as I experience Him/Her/It, but YMMV".
Which brings one to a point of saying "This form of belief structure works best for me, most nearly matches the Infinite as I experience Him/Her/It, but YMMV".
Yeah, my religion is the best way for me to understand god, but a lot of that (the imagery and all) is just because of what I grew up with. Actually, one of the reasons I've stuck with it this long is because it doesn't assume that it is the only true path to enlightenment.
Wow, I see what CE said went right over your head. I don't guess we should be surprised. I guess, just like somebody has to remind you of your own words, someone will now have to spell out CE's statement for you, using your own comparison with me as starting point.
The difference between you and me in this area, I judge the merits of a discussion about biblical issues on the merits of the argument. I don't begin from the posture of "Reformed theology is superior and correct" ergo only I can speak with authority on the Bible. You, on the other hand, begin from that posture and then proceed from there.
This isn't the first time we've had this discussion - for example when you asked me once before why you should take me seriously when I don't believe the fundamentals of Christianity - (to which I referred you to the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith for a summary of my doctrinal beliefs) or that I affirm antinomianism (a baldfaced lie).
The allegation, taken in tandem with your other statements, is that if a person doesn't subscribe to the Church of Christ's POV, what they say is automatically to be disbelieved or disregarded.
We are also not alike, among other ways, in that, when it comes to a discussion about the meaning of Scripture, I provide an exegetical summary. Put another way, in a tit-for-tat discussion about the meaning of Scripture, I'm the first to say "let's exegete the text" and go from there, whereas you say stuff like "Well, that's what the OT says and it's not binding" or "Well, it says what I say it says" without actually arguing the meaning of the text exegetically.
I also don't get bogged down in questions about the veracity of the Bible and other apologetics questions, not because I disbelieve those items - my confessional statement (the 2nd London Baptist Confession) is very clear on what I affirm in that regard. Rather, I don't use them, as you seem to do frequently, to deflect attention away from a losing hand. I've noticed you tend to do that rather frequently - when you 're getting your goose cooked, you try to deflect attention away from that by making an incendiary statement (like questioning my credentials) or turning the conversation in a different direction yourself or going down the rabbit hole with a skeptic and failing to return to your original point later. I have no problem handling the skeptics in these parts, but I deliberately choose not to do so, because frankly, I've done so already, and besides I don't think arguments that come from the Skeptics Annotated and a host of other low lying fruit places really merit much attention. There are plenty of Christian Apologetics blogs or books for that, so, generally, I try to stick to my main point and hold my debate opponents to that as much as possible.
When it comes to other items including but not limited to statements like "homosexuality is a choice," i rebut you with information from Exodus International itself, and you're reply is twofold: Ask why you should take them seriously (presumably because they aren't believers in Church of Christ doctrine as taught in your local church and then to run to your intuitions about free will and libertarian action theory, not data, not even theology or the Bible.
So, really, you can't even get a comparison between you and me correct. It's not about what you believe about the truth of your beliefs as much as it is about the posture from which you argue your case, what you do when your back is against the wall, and, in short, how you comport yourself in these discussions,
Knight Templar
Commodore
Peacemaker is an excellent practitioner of the Strawman Argument.
For example, in regards to my views on homosexuality, he constantly refers to "Exodus International", a group that I have in no way referred to or used as a source. He then implies (or says outright) that because my views do not agree with "Exodus International" that I'm being a hypocrite with my beliefs or not being ideological or theologically inconsistent.
In other words, he sets up the Strawman just to knock it down.
For example, in regards to my views on homosexuality, he constantly refers to "Exodus International", a group that I have in no way referred to or used as a source. He then implies (or says outright) that because my views do not agree with "Exodus International" that I'm being a hypocrite with my beliefs or not being ideological or theologically inconsistent.
In other words, he sets up the Strawman just to knock it down.
You do not understand what a strawman argument is, apparently.
Add it to the ever growing list of simple concepts he completely lacks understanding of. What are we up to now, 20, 30?
He is right about you missing the point of my earlier post.
But I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you. It should have been plain and evident and I'm not going to flow chart every single point or argument I make on these boards just because the person they're aimed at can't for some reason manage to understand it.
Let Peacemaker explain it to you. I've said what I wanted to. That's it.
But I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you. It should have been plain and evident and I'm not going to flow chart every single point or argument I make on these boards just because the person they're aimed at can't for some reason manage to understand it.
Let Peacemaker explain it to you. I've said what I wanted to. That's it.
Knight Templar
Commodore
Enlighten me then.
How is it not a Strawman when someone like Peacemaker introduces a source (Exodus International) into a discusssion with me that I HAVE NOT EVEN MENTIONED, and then argues that I'm disgreeing or not consistent with a source........that I DID NOT EVEN USE!!!
He is introducing an element into the discussion simply to serve as a target he can knock down.
Classic Strawman.
No, that's not a Strawman Argument.
Strawman:
The disputant imputes to his opponent a view which his opponent doesn’t hold, or else the worst possible version of a view he does hold, and then proceeds to rebut it.
For example, the liberal media habitually debunk the Christian faith by debunking a fallen Televangelist, instead of judging the case for the faith by its most astute spokesmen.
Why is what I wrote not a Strawman argument?
Let's give KT a little lesson how the above definition and example work:
I wrote:
1. You don't need to have used Exodus as source in order for my portrayal to stick.
2. My account of that discussion is entirely accurate and portrays events as they actually unfolded. You said "Homosexuality is a choice." I replied by quoting Exodus to contradict you. You then asked why they should be believed. I explained it, and you wrote them off, presumably because they aren't CoC (that's a logical inference given you pattern) and you did, in fact, run off to your intuitions about the power of the will.
Using Exodus to rebut you would be an excellent rebuttal, and I explained it to you then and you didn't reply. A paraphrase: They are the umbrella organization for all Christian Ex-Gay organizations. If you guys can't or won't believe your own propaganda and spokespersons on this subject, why should anybody else?
Statements about hypocrisy are only your invidious characterisation of my writing and not in the statement I made and cannot even be logically deduced from them. I wasn't say you're a hypocrite, rather I was saying you are ignorant and your intuitions about the power of the will aren't sufficient warrant.
3. Ergo, not a straw man.
You, on the other hand, did just erect a straw man by inaccurately stating what I wrote.
Elementary logic doesn't appear to be your forte.
Care to try again?
Knight Templar
Commodore
Which is exactly what you did.
You implied (actually came close to saying outright) that my position should be the same or consistent with Exodus International which is your source and not mine.
Peacemaker. The maker of Strawmen.
Nope, not even close. A strawman would be this.
X. KT actually says "Homosexuality is a choice."
Y. (Peacemaker writes of KT), "KT believes homosexuality is not a choice."
Saying "your position" should be that of Source S and telling you why that is the case, doesn't amount to stating "X is your position." That's just arguing a position in contradiction to your own via a parallel quote from an authoritative source and pointing out that it's rather dumb to to argue that position in light of the fact that the actual authority on that on your side doesn't agree with you on it. I'll trust them over your intuitions any day. What I did was make an appeal to authority. That can be illicit or licit, depending on the source. You asked me why it should be believed, which means you questioned the source. I replied, and you rebutted with, well, nothing more than you intuitions about willpower.
A strawman is statng Y is your position, when in reality it is X.
Put another way, it would be a strawman to inaccurately state the position of Person X or Person Y. I accurately addressed the position you hold, and I accurately described the conversation here.
You've now misrepresented what I said TWICE. That means you're now mirror-reading: This is a special case of the straw man argument. The disputant imputes his own assumptions and standards to his opponent, and then accuses him of hypocrisy for failing to measure up.
Knight Templar
Commodore
^Nice way to wiggle out of it Peacemaker.
And they claim I move the goalposts
And they claim I move the goalposts
^Nice way to wiggle out of it Peacemaker.
And they claim I move the goalposts
Peacemaker shreds your position (Biblical scholarly credentials) and you move goalposts. Fail again to defend yourself, this time about stawman arguments, and try to laugh your way out of the embarrassing mess of posted diarrhea you gave us, hypocrite.
Knight Templar
Commodore
^Nice way to wiggle out of it Peacemaker.
And they claim I move the goalposts
Peacemaker shreds your position (Biblical scholarly credentials) and you move goalposts. Fail again to defend yourself, this time about stawman arguments, and try to laugh your way out of the embarrassing mess of posted diarrhea you gave us, hypocrite.
Wrong on all counts GovKod.
I don't give a flying rip what Peacemaker's credentials are. He hasn't even proven they exist but even if they did it is clear he is agenda driven and not truth driven in any case.
As I'm certain you can see.
And this is basically what I meant earlier when I said that KT believes his church and his doctrine to be better and superior. Of course most churchgoers of any sect or denomination consider the one to which they belong and attend to be the superior one in their eyes. But what I meant was almost precisely what you typed above, Peacemaker. KT seems to believe that if someone doesn't tow the line of the Church of Christ then they aren't taken seriously and their beliefs are disregarded or even mocked as being "not really Christian." They're not "real" Christians even if they've spent their entire lives in their respective church and devoted themselves to the Bible and the word of God. Without the doctrine and approval of the Church of Christ, you're lost and screwed.
They've somehow gotten it all wrong and been misled. I mean, come on, now...we've already heard that the Roman Catholic Church isn't a real Christian church, and that's more than 1 billion members of the human race being disregarded in one fell swoop. Without even saying a word about any other denominations and churches, he's called one-seventh of the planet's population deluded and misguided for nothing more than recognizing the Bishop of Rome(the Pope)as their spiritual leader. They read the Holy Bible, pray and worship God and Jesus Christ, but they're not "real" Christians.