Continuation of the "Ultimate Gift" Thread

Rrhain responds to me:

quote:

---

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is when somebody makes an ad hoc justification essentially through the use of equivocation. That is, a person argues that "All X are Y." Another person points out that "Here is x, which is an X, which is not Y." The original person than says that "The x is not a 'true' example of X."

---

So you are implying there are absolutely no fakes?

quote:

---

Who are you to tell anybody that they're not a "true" Christian?

---

I'm noone to judge but you can't judge a group from one person. I question but noone is perfect.

quote:

---

These people are Christians, messenjaH. And they are exploiting the suffering of others in order to proselytize.

---

Again, some obviously do, noones perfect. Christians should not be doing what you are claiming they do judging from the teachings of Christ.Again, I have to call into question what you claim about what the intent of these christians are and what in fact they are doing.PEACE BE WITH YOU------------------
-chris

Refer to message 37------------------
-chris

messenjaH responds to me:

quote:

---

But to blatantly ignore commands and to act in a wrong way I begin to doubt the one you follow.

---

Who are you to tell them they weren't commanded? The Bible contains commandments to both go around and make a nuisance of yourself, teaching the word of god to others and it also commands people to shut up about it, do one's good deeds in secret, and know that god, who sees everything, will know and that's all that matters.Who made you the judge of which one people are supposed to follow?We get it, messenjaH. You don't like what they're doing. We don't like it, either. But unlike you, we don't go around saying that they're not "true" Christians just because we don't like what they're doing. They are Christians, they believe they have been commanded to do so, and who are we to tell them otherwise?

quote:

---

Then why do they call it the true scotsman?

---

For the same reason they call it a "red herring."They just do.Why is it that clocks "run" in English but "walk" ("andar") in Spanish? Why is it that we say we're going to "paint the town red" when we're going out for a wild night? Why are extremely, even imposingly attractive people said to be "built like a brick shithouse"? Why is it wise as an "owl" and cunning as a "fox" rather than some other animal?There are all sorts of turns of phrase in language that are arbitrary. Most likely, one of the more famous examples of the logical fallacy was described using a scenario that included a Scotsman, and the phrase "no 'true' Scotsman" stuck and has been used ever since.Why is it called the "Pythagorean theorem" when so many cultures figured it out independently and in some cases, even before Pythagoras? Why are they called "Laplace transforms" even though Oliver Heaviside came up with them first? Why do we call it "Newton's calculus" when Liebniz developed it simultaneously and we actually use Liebniz's notation over Newton's? Because sometimes what is important is the popularity of a presentation rather than the timeliness of it. Just because you're first doesn't mean you're the most well-known example.

quote:

---

I get used to seeing bad examples come from RRhain,

---

(*chuckle*)You did notice that I provided you with a link to a formal description of the fallacy, yes? You notice that the reference calls it the "no 'true' Scotsman" fallacy, yes?Here are some links to the fallacy, starting with the first one I gave you: No 'True' Scotsman from The Atheism Web
No 'True' Scotsman from Wikipedia
No 'True' Scotsman from Nationmaster.comYou will find that all of these references use the same example:One person says, "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porrige."
Another person counters, "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
The first person then counters, "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."It would seem, then, that the reason it is called the "no 'true' Scotsman" fallacy is because a fairly famous example of the fallacy used a Scotsman in the scenario.

quote:

---

i.e. pelting with life preservers.

---

Do you not understand the difference between a label and an analogy?We call it the "no 'true' Scotsman" fallacy simply because that happens to be the phraseology that we have inherited.My example to you was an attempt to get you to describe your feelings regarding the specific scenario. If one person tries to "save" somebody who does not feel he is in need of "saving," what does that make the person doing the "saving"? Wouldn't we agree that it is the responsibility of the "saver" to find out if his actions are desired or even necessary?The point was to show you that if you agree that a person who keeps pelting someone in the pool doing laps with life preservers is being rude and offensive, then it should also be the case that you agree that someone who deliberately preaches to a captive audience, exploiting their suffering by putting strings on the assisitance, is also being rude and offensive.In the former case, it assumes that the person on the edge of the pool knows more about what the person in the pool needs than the person in the pool. The person on the side of the pool is substituting his judgement for the person in the pool.The latter case is identical: It assumes that the people doing the proselytizing know more about what the people being preached to need than the people being preached to. The preachers are substituting their judgement for the captive audience.You may not like the analogy, but petulance is not an argument.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

messenjaH responds to me:

quote:

---

So you are implying there are absolutely no fakes?

---

Not at all.However, "I disagree" is not an argument. They may, indeed, not be Christians, but the example of exploitation against those in need is not sufficient to claim they are not Christians. They do believe in Christ and they do believe they are following Christ's message and they can give plenty of Biblical evidence to justify their actions.So who are you to tell them that they're not?You need to come up with a better argument than, "I would never do that and I'm a Christian and I know what a 'real' Christian would do and a 'real' Christian would never do that."

quote:

---

quote:

---

Who are you to tell anybody that they're not a "true" Christian?

---

​

I'm noone to judge but you can't judge a group from one person.

---

But that's precisely what you're doing. You're judging (they're not "real" Christians) and you are judging a group (Christians) from one person (yourself).

quote:

---

quote:

---

These people are Christians, messenjaH. And they are exploiting the suffering of others in order to proselytize.

---

​

Again, some obviously do, noones perfect.

---

But who are you to say that what they are doing is unchristianly? Have you considered the possibility that the problem, from the point of view of Christianity, isn't that they're doing something wrong by exploiting the suffering but that you're doing something wrong by not doing so? One of the things the Bible tells us is to go out into the world and preach the good word and not to take no for an answer. The Bible also talks about shutting up about your religion so as not to be tempted by doing things for the glory of man, but who are you to say that one commandment takes precedence over the other?

quote:

---

Christians should not be doing what you are claiming they do judging from the teachings of Christ.

---

Says who? You?You're Christ now? You are the perfect arbiter of Christ's message?Have you considered the possibility that what you are doing contradicts the teachings of Christ?

quote:

---

Again, I have to call into question what you claim about what the intent of these christians are and what in fact they are doing.

---

Don't take my word for it. Take theirs. That's why you have been provided with direct examples of Christian groups knowingly using their "missionary" activities as wedges to preach the gospel.Who are you to tell them they aren't Christians?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

messenjaH responds to Asgara:

quote:

---

Refer to message 37

---

Refer to Message 38.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

sry------------------
-chris[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-28-2003][This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-29-2003]

sry
------------------
-chris[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-29-2003]

sry
------------------
-chris[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-28-2003][This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-29-2003]

sry------------------
-chris[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-29-2003]

sry[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-29-2003]

messenJah, You don't think that the promise of eternal torture isn't a tincy wincy bit of a threat?Mark

mJ - Why are you posting 4 messages to answer the same message? Get your thoughts together, and post them as such.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Rhrain replies to me:

quote:

---

So who are you to tell them that they're not?

---

I'm not saying they aren't! Again, noone is perfect.

quote:

---

However, "I disagree" is not an argument. They may, indeed, not be Christians, but the example of exploitation against those in need is not sufficient to claim they are not Christians. They do believe in Christ and they do believe they are following Christ's message and they can give plenty of Biblical evidence to justify their actions.

---

There is a difference between teaching and exploiting, something you obviously don't understand.

quote:

---

But that's precisely what you're doing. You're judging (they're not "real" Christians) and you are judging a group (Christians) from one person (yourself).

---

Your judging christianity as a WHOLE from ONE GROUP of christian missionaries.
I'm not only deciding from myself but from countless other christians that operate in love

quote:

---

Says who? You?
You're Christ now? You are the perfect arbiter of Christ's message?
Have you considered the possibility that what you are doing contradicts the teachings of Christ?

---

Their is a difference between "I'm Christ" and "judging from the teachings of Christ". Christ used love and never forced anyone to believe anything.

quote:

---

Have you considered the possibility that the problem, from the point of view of Christianity, isn't that they're doing something wrong by exploiting the suffering but that you're doing something wrong by not doing so? One of the things the Bible tells us is to go out into the world and preach the good word and not to take no for an answer. The Bible also talks about shutting up about your religion so as not to be tempted by doing things for the glory of man, but who are you to say that one commandment takes precedence over the other?

---

That's the beauty of it, you must go out and preach and keep trying to save souls but you must know when it's time to retreat and to lay off for awhile. It's not doing what JW's do persay but it is something in between.PEACE BE WITH YOU------------------
-chris

messenjaH responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So who are you to tell them that they're not?

---

​

I'm not saying they aren't!

---

Yes, you [I][B]ARE![/i][/b]My god, how many times do I have to show you your own posts before you remember your own words? Message 29Message 26Message 19And in this one, you even added sneer quotes: Message 16So yes, messenjaH, you are saying they aren't Christians.

quote:

---

There is a difference between teaching and exploiting, something you obviously don't understand.

---

Incorrect. I understand it all too well.Teaching is something done without any expectations of return except mastery of the subject being taught.When you teach reading, you will need some sort of literature eventually since demonstration of mastery of the language requires the ability to decode phrases that one has never seen before and comprehend the meaning of the composed text.But you don't go into teaching reading with the subterfuge that the only literature you will provide is one with an agenda, hoping that the students will come to believe the agenda contained in the text.When one uses one thing as a wedge to introduce another, that is exploitation.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But that's precisely what you're doing. You're judging (they're not "real" Christians) and you are judging a group (Christians) from one person (yourself).

---

​

Your judging christianity as a WHOLE from ONE GROUP of christian missionaries.

---

One group? ONE GROUP?I hereby claim my statement from is proven: Until I show you every single individual that does this, you simply won't believe it ever happens, will you? I need to drag you out into the hinterlands and show you the actual lessons, show you the missionaries who are doing it, show you the methods by which they exploit the people before you even consider the possibility, will you?Did you know, for example, that the missionaries of Jews for Jesus commonly claim to be Jewish...and that they're lying about it? The leadership of Jews for Jesus is predominantly gentile. When JfJ descended upon Toronto a couple years ago, there was a response from a group called Jews for Judaism which contacted various Christian groups to get their reaction to this attempt at mass conversion. Only one responded with criticism of Jews for Jesus, Dr. Charles McVety, President of Canada Christian College: But let's not take outsiders words for it. Why not look at what Jews for Jesus actually says? Andrew Barron, the Canadian director of Jews for Jesus: Do you not see the deception involved? They are Christians trying to pass themselves off as Jews in order to convert Jews into Christianity. And they use the biggest lie of all to do it: That it is "Jewish" to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.But that isn't the only group. Here's Life Outreach International and their outlook on evangelism: "Crusade"? They actually go on "crusades"?!And here's how they go about it: Notice how it's just slipped in there...reading, medicine, food, AIDS...and god.And let's not overlook this interesting passage...I have not cut anything out. The text below is exactly as presented: Hmmm...seems like LIFE is trying to make it appear that the people who have "died because of human rights violations in Sudan" were killed because they were Christian. Why else make a point of the terrible conditions in Sudan right after saying that Christians have been targeted?The reality is quite different. While it is true that Christians have been targeted in the Sudan, the vast majority of those who have died in the Sudan due to human rights violations have not been Christian. By deliberately being vague, they make people think that the human rights violations in the Sudan have to do with freedom of worship rather than the warlords dominating society.And that doesn't even get into the methods used in India to evangelize. I leave it to you to see the disgusting tactics used in Africa.How many more do you need, messenjaH? Do I need to show you the work of such groups as the Christian Broadcasting Network and Trinity Broadcasting Network (CBN and TBN...both probably on your cable/satellite lineup)? CBN, as you'll recall, supports the 700 Club, run by Pat Robertson. Do I need to show you his actions, too?This attitude that it's only some fringe group of Christians that go around exploiting others in an attempt to convert them to Christianity is extremely naive.

quote:

---

Their is a difference between "I'm Christ" and "judging from the teachings of Christ".

---

I know.But you're forgetting that the Christians who exploit the suffering of others have just as many "teachings of Christ" to justify themselves as you do.Who are you to tell them that they're wrong? They're only following Christ's teachings, so what makes you the final arbiter? Are you Christ?

quote:

---

Christ used love and never forced anyone to believe anything.

---

(*chuckle*)Explain that to the fig tree that dared to be barren out of season. Jesus made it wither.And as others have said, threats of hell are hardly loving and non-forceful.For the umpteenth time, are you saying that unless someone holds a literal gun to your head, there is no coercion?My god, messenjaH, you even used Pascal's Wager, yourself. Message 37, in this thread even, you related how your friend at camp dismayed the counselor by refusing to accept Jesus...and how the counselor "had great reason to be" dismayed.That's coercion, messenjaH: Accept Jesus or something bad will happen.No, it's not a gun, but are you really saying that the only way to coerce somebody is to threaten with a gun?

quote:

---

That's the beauty of it, you must go out and preach and keep trying to save souls but you must know when it's time to retreat and to lay off for awhile.

---

But the first part isn't beautiful. It's disgusting.Preaching to those who didn't ask to be preached to is perverted and evil.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

double post [This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-29-2003]