Actually I was exaggerating,
No, you were lying. None of those sentences you quoted were the fallacies you indicated. And, once again, you're off-topic.
you stated yourself you are unwilling to provide insight as to the reason a fallacy applies.
No, I said I wasn't going to be catering to you. You indicated I had to "prove" something is a logical fallacy, I don't. I merely need to point it out. Nonetheless, I have been providing insights into fallacies as they are presented. In the ONLY case where I didn't, it was self-evident. -- <
click here>
Hellstromm said:
3) As far as the Catholic religion goes, I stated before that there is a difference between a true Christian than some one who calls them selves Christian. If you need to figure out the difference all you have to do is study the life of Jesus and his disciples and see if they match up with said organization.
Logical fallacy -
No True Scotsman
This, above, is the only instance in this entire thread where I didn't initially provide insight as to why something you wrote was a fallacy, but as I said it was quite obvious when you posed the "no true Christian" assertion.
But, just to cater to your blind-bat behavior, your comments were a wordy presentation of claiming certain Christians weren't "true Christians," effectively washing your hands of those who act or think differently than you do by claiming that "no true Christian" would hold to such standards
(the standards being arbitrary, based on a person's interpretation of the Bible, which in itself is an exegetical fallacy).
Also, fallacies don't "apply," they "exist." I have been providing insight as to where you pose fallacies, I'm just not going to waste my time educating you on what
is a fallacy when that's something you should do on your own
(and I'm courteous enough to provide you links on occasion, so you can get that edumacation without having to Google for it).
And, once again, you're off-topic while my response tries to bring it back on-topic.
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.
Being Christian has NOTHING to do with that and who you associate with is only a reflection on you if you're worried about what other people think
(shallow?). I, frankly, respect the people I'm with and don't bother to concern myself with what "other" people think, precisely because what is inside a person is invisible to the casual observer.
As to affecting how you act and think, everyone does regardless of whether you associate with them. Be it through close or casual encounters, commercials or media, movies or music, books or paintings, you are influenced by everything and everyone. No doubt you're affected, but in your earlier assertions you made the comment that the Bible instructs you to,
"turn away from unrepentant sinners and not to mix company with such ones" and in your convenience you failed to provide insight as to what constitutes an unrepentant sinner, which just so happens to constitute
ALL non-Christians. Worse, based on your earlier arguments, it also constitutes all non-"true" Christians.
That, my dear sir, is segregation. And since we've all been having fun quoting dictionaries:
seg·re·gate [v. seg-ri-geyt]
verb (used with object)
1. to separate or set apart from others or from the main body or group; isolate: to segregate exceptional children; to segregate hardened criminals.
2. to require, often with force, the separation of (a specific racial, religious, or other group) from the general body of society.
While I understand the notion of choosing who you associate with, when you put it into a context of,
"true Christians should only associate with true Christians," you're going into a whole shebang of nausea, of advocating segregation
(an extreme form of disrespect). Even ignoring the imposition of segregation, disassociating yourself from non-"true" Christians is, at the very least, disrespectful.
Yet again, you're off-topic while my response tries to bring it back on-topic.
You are dishonest in your debates. You advocate disrespect and turn around and act as if you are the one being disrespected.
lol, I'm not the one being disrespected. I'm not a woman, I'm not homosexual, I'm not a pseudo-Christian, I don't even cater to the notion of "sin"
(if someone calls me a sinner, I chuckle at their inanity). As to advocacy, I advocate resisting persecution, hatred, separationism. I advocate people stand up against oppression, hold their head high and not be talked down to by a bunch of hypocrites. So yes, I advocate disrespecting those who pose disrespect. There's no friggin' way you can talk rationally with a bible-toting bigot, so the very least you can do is push back, the very least you
must do is make it abundantly clear --- to everyone else --- that powerful religious groups advocating disrespect based on gender and religious affiliation cannot be reasoned with and thus instead must be told, via the Laws of Man, that their forms of oppression will not be tolerated.
Do you find that disrespectful?
