Hello everyone

This is the first time I've heard the No True Scotsman fallcy applied to religion. It just seems bizarre that you would claim that anything is not a "true" religion.As others have mentioned, you don't seem to have changed your creationist thought patterns. You've just switched sides. It's like committing the same old war crimes but now you're doing it for the "good guys".

And that's the No True Scotsman fallcy - i.e. No True Religion allows any leeway from 100% correctness.

So now the goalposts are moving. First it was No True Religion allows any leeway in its core tenets and now it's No True Christian questions the existence of God and/or Jesus. It's still the same fallacy.The bottom line is that you don't get to decide who is a True Christian and you don't get to decide what is a True Religion.

That's where you're wrong. A religion is any relatively systematic belief system. The concept of "absolute truth" is superimposed by you. Someone is a Christian if he is a member of a group of Christians, the same as he is a Smith if he is a member of a group of Smiths. If the Christians or Smiths adopt him as a member, he is one of them. They may or may not require their members to hold (profess) certain beliefs but you don't get to proclaim that they must have an inviolable set of core beliefs.I personally make a distinction between large-C Christians who are members of a Christian church and small-c christians who are followers of Christ's (supposed) teachings. You can be a christian without believing that Christ even existed. That's different. Theism is not a religion.

And arrogant.

Only Faith understands how the Vatican works, just like only Faith understands how science works.

How do you verify what's in those books?

Fundies really love that mantra, don't they? Of course, having to fend for yourself and take responsibility for your actions is much more convenient than having a Sky Daddy to do it for you and give you a Get Out of Hell Free card.

So how come your verification is so different from everybody else's?

I'm just saying that not everybody who has read those books has the same insane hatred of Catholicism that you have. Since you seem to be using the same methods of scholarship as everybody else, your insane hatred must come from somewhere else.

And here was me thinking you'd deny the hatred.

No, I don't think I "hate" them in the same venom-spitting way that you hate Catholicism. Hate usually comes from misunderstanding.

quote:

---

Matthew 5:43-45 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

---

God bless Stalin and Faith.

You're the one who's quoting out of context. Jesus said we have to count the cost of anything we do before we start. If we take up our cross to follow Him we take the risk of losing our family, of having them turn against us. It's more a question of being hated than of us actively hating.

He was saying we may have to choose between our families and Him - and note that choosing Him means loving our neighbours. He wasn't talking about the kind of fire-breathing hatred that you demonstrate.