Is it acceptable to be disrespectful to the Christian faith

[DeletedUser]

I stand corrected there are seven "wisdom books" Wisdom of Solomon aka wisdom, job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Song of Songs), and Sirach. Wisdom and Sirach are not primarily canon. One of the reasons why it is not considered canon could be it takes heavily from Greek philosophy of the time.

Great, you stand corrected and then sit there and assert the same thing. Ridiculous and you're wrong. It is canon, as determined by the "majority" of Christians. Are you a Protestant? Is that why you're asserting your particular denomination's stance or is it merely that you are maintaining this erroneous stance because you earlier inserted your foot in your mouth and you just can't stomach the idea of being wrong?

Sorry Willy, you failed to present supporting evidence. ciao

Getting to the heart of this debate --- the original post, as presented by the original poster, posed a "begging the question" logical fallacy. The query posed was, "is it acceptable to be disrespectful to the Christian faith," but the actual question should have been, "is it acceptable to be disrespectful to anyone posing disrespectful assertions regardless, or in support, of their faith?"

It is simply not possible to be disrespectful of inanimate objects or abstract ideas. The "Christian faith" is not a person or persons, it is an ontological abstraction.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like active discrimination!
effectively you are saying that Christians are instructed to cast all 'sinners (i.e: anyone who isn't Christian)' out of society.



A religion which actively discriminates 'sinners'? (see above)

I rest my case.

Discrimination in itself is not a bad thing. To keep you self healthy you should discriminate what you eat. To keep your spirituality healthy you should discriminate who you associate with. Bad association... 1 Cor 15:33

Go ahead and keep your case rested

 

[DeletedUser]

Great, you stand corrected and then sit there and assert the same thing. Ridiculous and you're wrong. It is canon, as determined by the "majority" of Christians. Are you a Protestant? Is that why you're asserting your particular denomination's stance or is it merely that you are maintaining this erroneous stance because you earlier inserted your foot in your mouth and you just can't stomach the idea of being wrong?

Sorry Willy, you failed to present supporting evidence. ciao

I applied plenty of logic that you willfully ignored and evidence strait from the Catholic encyclopedia. Zai jian.

 

[DeletedUser]

I applied plenty of logic that you willfully ignored and evidence strait from the Catholic encyclopedia. Zai jian.

Nope, you presented false logic (fallacious reasoning, fallacies), not logic. As well, your claim of presenting evidence from the Catholic encyclopedia, in dispute of the evidence I presented, is patently false.

 

[DeletedUser]

Nope, you presented false logic (fallacious reasoning, fallacies), not logic. As well, your claim of presenting evidence from the Catholic encyclopedia, in dispute of the evidence I presented, is patently false.

Actually you said "no true scotsman."

"rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule." -wiki
I provided specific objective rules which as usual you ignored... And around and around we go...

Your scripture quotes are not even original, you just copy and paste them from others and that is why you insist on taking every single text strait from evilbible.com right down to the same translation. I'm pretty sure using someone's work and trying to pass it off as your own is against forum rules and is dishonest to say the least. And here again is an answer to those texts http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/20...-bible_15.html. Maybe if you had bothered to actually read the book for yourself instead of relying on anti-theist propaganda you would know what I'm talking about.

 

[DeletedUser]

Discrimination in itself is not a bad thing. To keep you self healthy you should discriminate what you eat. To keep your spirituality healthy you should discriminate who you associate with. Bad association... 1 Cor 15:33

Ahem, may I point out that over here in multicultural GB it is only legal to discriminate by height (i.e: for theme park rides etc etc) and by weight (to try and prevent obesity), you are saying that it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate other people, i.e; rascism.

Go ahead and keep your case rested

I think I will.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually you said "no true scotsman."

No True Scotsman is just one of the many fallacies you used. The description of what it means, as presented by Artemis in the other thread, is incomplete. No True Scotsman is a circular argument. Review these explanations:

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/notruescotsman.htm

Your scripture quotes are not even original

Of course not, they came from Bibles! Sheesh, you're just being silly now. As to evilbible.com, it's an interesting site but it is not my source. The Bible is the source I presented in argument.

Or are you going to now claim that the passages I quoted didn't come from the Bible? Oh right, that has been your argument ... when you rage on about the Book of Wisdom of Solomon, which you erroneously claim as not canon in the majority of Christian denominations and then follow up by ignoring all 40+ other Bible passages taken from both the Old Testament and are canon in every Christian denomination. They stand as evidence to my arguments, as evidence that interpretation is not the only problem, it is the actual wording within the Bibles that demonstrates a core disrespect to women, homosexuals, non-theists, non-Christians, etc and so on.

Oh, and what you're referring to is called plagiarism. Quoting the Bible is not plagiarism, particularly when I indicated where I obtained it from, but nice try. Finally, I did read the Bible and other tomes of religion, divination, and philosophy, having been tutored in theology. But again, nice try using an ad hominem (another fallacy) to attempt to discredit my arguments by attacking me rather than the arguments.

 

[DeletedUser]

No True Scotsman is just one of the many fallacies you used. The description of what it means, as presented by Artemis in the other thread, is incomplete. No True Scotsman is a circular argument. Review these explanations:

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/notruescotsman.htm

You are just relying on pseudo legal jargon because you lack the ability to reason affectively.

Of course not, they came from Bibles! Sheesh, you're just being silly now. As to evilbible.com, it's an interesting site but it is not my source. The Bible is the source I presented in argument.

Or are you going to now claim that the passages I quoted didn't come from the Bible?

Maybe you used another anti-theist website quoting the same misinformation, but its not coincidental all the scriptures are the same right down to the same translations. The information is not your originality, you are just parroting another's thought.

 

[DeletedUser]

No True Scotsman is just one of the many fallacies you used. The description of what it means, as presented by Artemis in the other thread, is incomplete. No True Scotsman is a circular argument.

How is it inclomplete? The first line says No True Scotsman is a circular argument. It doesn't use 3 paragraphs to explain that, but it does explain that it's a semantic argument - which means that it's not a matter of whether or not your statement is true, but that it's "truth" depends on how you define the "Scotsman".

 

[DeletedUser]

Ahem, may I point out that over here in multicultural GB it is only legal to discriminate by height (i.e: for theme park rides etc etc) and by weight (to try and prevent obesity), you are saying that it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate other people, i.e; rascism.
I think I will.

Great Britain forces you to associate with every one? Not likely. You chose who you associate with, and I bet you discriminate too. You probably don't associate with people you don't like, or are abusing heroin either. You don't associate with people who might steal from you, or do you harm. Discrimination is not always a bad thing. You should discriminate on who you associate with for your protection. You don't want to invite a robber in for tea and crumpets do you?

A Christian would do well not to associate with those who are discouraging and harmful to their faith. That does not mean denying some one for a job, just that you do well to chose your friends wisely.

 

[DeletedUser]

You are just relying on pseudo legal jargon because you lack the ability to reason affectively.


Maybe you used another anti-theist website quoting the same misinformation, but its not coincidental all the scriptures are the same right down to the same translations. The information is not your originality, you are just parroting another's thought.

That sounds very......convincing.....

On topic, regarding the original question in the thread title, since when did non-Christians have to ask Christians whether they can be disrespectful to Christianity or not? :laugh:

 

[DeletedUser]

Hi Arty, I'll respond to your question in your Common Fallacies thread.

You are just relying on pseudo legal jargon because you lack the ability to reason affectively.

lol, understanding fallacious reasoning is not "pseudo legal jargon," it's a step to critical thinking, a study in logic as to what constitutes an argument as logically invalid. All logical fallacies are essentially errors in reasoning.

Maybe you used another anti-theist website quoting the same misinformation, but its not coincidental all the scriptures are the same right down to the same translations. The information is not your originality, you are just parroting another's thought.

Hehe, the passages come from the same Bibles. While I do visit many sites to assist in my presentations, these are my primary utilities regarding various renditions of the Bible -- http://www.biblegateway.com and http://bible.cc/

Once again, Willy, you don't argue the points, instead you continue on with your tangents, your distractions. If I didn't know better, I would think you're attempting to avoid defending your disrespectful attitude towards others not of your faith.

 

[DeletedUser]

That sounds very......convincing.....

On topic, regarding the original question in the thread title, since when did non-Christians have to ask Christians whether they can be disrespectful to Christianity or not? :laugh:

Why, ever since Christians started killing and torturing heretics, unbelievers, blasphemers and apostates.

 

[DeletedUser]

Great Britain forces you to associate with every one?

Once more you take comments out of context.

You chose who you associate with, and I bet you discriminate too. You probably don't associate with people you don't like, or are abusing heroin either. You don't associate with people who might steal from you, or do you harm. Discrimination is not always a bad thing. You should discriminate on who you associate with for your protection. You don't want to invite a robber in for tea and crumpets do you?

You just don't get it do you? since you resolved to use dictionary definitions earlier, I shall now too; there are two senses of the word Discriminate, you are using the first;
1 recognize a distinction; differentiate : babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion. See note at distinguish .

Whereas I am talking about the second;
2 make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, sex, or age : existing employment policies discriminate against women.

Once more, I rest my case.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, understanding fallacious reasoning is not "pseudo legal jargon," it's a step to critical thinking, a study in logic as to what constitutes an argument as logically invalid. All logical fallacies are essentially errors in reasoning.

Yes, but the way you are using the the "fallacy" argument is not logical. Just saying "fallacy" is not a golden bullet. You have to prove the argument is a fallacy.

Hehe, the passages come from the same Bibles. While I do visit many sites to assist in my presentations, these are my primary utilities regarding various renditions of the Bible -- http://www.biblegateway.com and http://bible.cc/

"Assist" does not quite describe what you are doing. Blatantly ripping off without giving credit to the source is more close.

Once again, Willy, you don't argue the points, instead you continue on with your tangents, your distractions. If I didn't know better, I would think you're attempting to avoid defending your disrespectful attitude towards others not of your faith.

You do know better because the topic is "Is it acceptable to be disrespectful to the Christian faith" and you are the one arguing pro-disrespect." Attacking my faith and then calling me defending my faith as a Tangent and distraction...

Whereas I am talking about the second;
2 make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, sex, or age : existing employment policies discriminate against women.

Once more, I rest my case.

I was not arguing for "prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, sex, or age."
I was saying you to be discriminating in who you associate. It seems you are the one who does not understand. I am arguing its not okay to be "disrespectful to the Christian faith." You should take a look at what side of the argument you are on before you make accusations.

You post a lot for some one who has rested their case.

Why, ever since Christians started killing and torturing heretics, unbelievers, blasphemers and apostates.

So on that logic its okay to disrespect all Germans and all Americans and all Japanese and all ect... There are plenty of groups of people, that a fraction of members of that group, have persecuted others in the past.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, but the way you are using the the "fallacy" argument is not logical. Just saying "fallacy" is not a golden bullet. You have to prove the argument is a fallacy.

Geez, okay from this day forward I will spend a helluva lot of extra forum space educating you as to exactly how you pose fallacious reasoning (flawed logic) in your various ridiculous and unsubstantiated arguments and thus, in the process, become a pawn to your intentions --- which is to derail a discussion so you don't have to bother debating the topic at hand.

No, it's not going to happen. You know, quite frankly, it's not my job to educate you on your dependencies, on your logical fallacies, on your inability to present logical arguments. I will occasionally provide you with links to sites that you can visit so you can educate yourself, but I will not cater to you, will not participate in your efforts to derail a discussion.

The topic of the discussion is right there in the title of this thread, stop tangentializing like some child with ADD.

Hehe, the passages come from the same Bibles. While I do visit many sites to assist in my presentations, these are my primary utilities regarding various renditions of the Bible -- http://www.biblegateway.com and http://bible.cc/

"Assist" does not quite describe what you are doing. Blatantly ripping off without giving credit to the source is more close.

Umm, I quoted the Bible, various bibles, and I provided both what book of the Bible it can be found and what version of the Bible it was obtained from. Are you done being obtuse?

You do know better because the topic is "Is it acceptable to be disrespectful to the Christian faith" and you are the one arguing pro-disrespect." Attacking my faith and then calling me defending my faith as a Tangent and distraction...

Ahh, but that's the thing, you are not defending the Christian faith (your pocket version perhaps, but you have not provided substance on this avenue for me to ascertain exactly what, if anything, you're defending), you are arguing semantics and repeatedly going on tangents, like asking me to educate you on logical fallacies and debating the canonism of "one" Bible passage.

Normally, at this point, I would run through all the previous posts and point out all the tangents, all the distractions and off-topic ramblings you presented in this thread, but I'm not going to bother this time around. If anyone else is interested, I'm sure they can entertain themselves with that.

You post a lot for some one who has rested their case.

I'm aware this comment was addressed to Tigermite, but I bet it's inconvenient for you that he continues to defend his initial assertions. Honestly, you really seem to want to get the last word in regardless of the fact you haven't added anything new to this discussion since the 3rd page.

I was not arguing for "prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, sex, or age."
I was saying you to be discriminating in who you associate. It seems you are the one who does not understand. I am arguing its not okay to be "disrespectful to the Christian faith." You should take a look at what side of the argument you are on before you make accusations.

I wasn't going to bother participating in your and Tiger's discussion, but seriously --- wtf?!? You're advocating segregation. Look, every day we interact and associate with people, and yes we make decisions as to the types of people we would prefer not to associate with due to their lack of manners, inappropriate comments, cleanliness, negativity, etc. But you're not arguing this. As you previously indicated, you are advocating keeping women separate from men, homosexuals separate from heterosexuals, whites separate from blacks (oh wait, they started allowing that one in 1989, silly me). You're arguing for the reintroduction of segregation. How can you stomach that sort of stance?!?

 

[DeletedUser]

Geez, okay from this day forward I will spend a helluva lot of extra forum space educating you as to exactly how you pose fallacious reasoning (flawed logic) in your various ridiculous and unsubstantiated arguments and thus, in the process, become a pawn to your intentions --- which is to derail a discussion so you don't have to bother debating the topic at hand.

No, it's not going to happen. You know, quite frankly, it's not my job to educate you on your dependencies, on your logical fallacies, on your inability to present logical arguments. I will occasionally provide you with links to sites that you can visit so you can educate yourself, but I will not cater to you, will not participate in your efforts to derail a discussion.

The topic of the discussion is right there in the title of this thread, stop tangentializing like some child with ADD.

LOL, Thats a falacy! I win! Judgmental language

Umm, I quoted the Bible, various bibles, and I provided both what book of the Bible it can be found and what version of the Bible it was obtained from. Are you done being obtuse?
?!?

Judgmental language

Ahh, but that's the thing, you are not defending the Christian faith (your pocket version perhaps, but you have not provided substance on this avenue for me to ascertain exactly what, if anything, you're defending), you are arguing semantics and repeatedly going on tangents, like asking me to educate you on logical fallacies and debating the canonism of "one" Bible passage.

Straw man

Normally, at this point, I would run through all the previous posts and point out all the tangents, all the distractions and off-topic ramblings you presented in this thread, but I'm not going to bother this time around. If anyone else is interested, I'm sure they can entertain themselves with that.

Straw man

I'm aware this comment was addressed to Tigermite, but I bet it's inconvenient for you that he continues to defend his initial assertions. Honestly, you really seem to want to get the last word in regardless of the fact you haven't added anything new to this discussion since the 3rd page.

Straw man

I wasn't going to bother participating in your and Tiger's discussion, but seriously --- wtf?!? You're advocating segregation. Look, every day we interact and associate with people, and yes we make decisions as to the types of people we would prefer not to associate with due to their lack of manners, inappropriate comments, cleanliness, negativity, etc. But you're not arguing this. As you previously indicated, you are advocating keeping women separate from men, homosexuals separate from heterosexuals, whites separate from blacks (oh wait, they started allowing that one in 1989, silly me). You're arguing for the reintroduction of segregation. How can you stomach that sort of stance?!?

Straw man
-Hellstromm style of debate

 

[DeletedUser]

Geez, when I point out a fallacy I provide insights as to what it is, how the fallacies are posed, etc., and I'm not making crap up just to be a troll. None of the claims of fallacy in your last post are even remotely correct.

You're obviously done debating the topic. You failed to demonstrate why it is not acceptable to be disrespectful to people of faith who are likewise disrespectful and have instead resorted to trolling. Ultimately people of faith are not immune to receiving disrespect, just as they are not innocent of posing disrespect.

 

[DeletedUser]

Geez, when I point out a fallacy I provide insights as to what it is, how the fallacies are posed, etc., and I'm not making crap up just to be a troll. None of the claims of fallacy in your last post are even remotely correct.

You're obviously done debating the topic. You failed to demonstrate why it is not acceptable to be disrespectful to people of faith who are likewise disrespectful and have instead resorted to trolling. Ultimately people of faith are not immune to receiving disrespect, just as they are not innocent of posing disrespect.

Actually I was exaggerating, but "you are advocating keeping women separate from men, homosexuals separate from heterosexuals, whites separate from blacks (oh wait, they started allowing that one in 1989, silly me). You're arguing for the reintroduction of segregation. How can you stomach that sort of stance?!?"
Straw man is correct, as that was not at all what I was arguing, and no you stated yourself you are unwilling to provide insight as to the reason a fallacy applies. I was just explaining that if you are christian the friends you keep are a reflection on you and affect how you act and think. You are dishonest in your debates. You advocate disrespect and turn around and act as if you are the one being disrespected.

 

[DeletedUser]

Er...no? If you could actually read and reason the logic would be that we should ask their permission first.

"Why, ever since Christians started killing and torturing heretics, unbelievers, blasphemers and apostates." Your exact words. You are implying that this is the norm rather than a fraction of a larger group in the past. Just because you say something as a joke does not mean its not offensive.