That argument seems to presuppose no one can prove factually anything they claim. Again, to me, that is illogical and wrong. To me, the " no true Scotsman" argument is sophistry, not logic. ( Colossians 2:8)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY
- Thread starter Monk Of Reason
- Start date
Marisa
Well-Known Member
False. It shows that you cannot deny kinship with one simply because you don't approve of their actions. For example, you can't say I'm not a true human because you don't like my conviction that gays deserve the same basic rights that you demand for yourself.
Anyone interested in learning more about the passage beginning at John 7:53 can simply Google it. I think the Internet is wonderful, don't you?
False. It shows that you cannot deny kinship with one simply because you don't approve of their actions. For example, you can't say I'm not a true human because you don't like my conviction that gays deserve the same basic rights that you demand for yourself.
Being homosexual does not mean you are not human. And true Christianity is not defined by what any human approves. The standard is set by Jesus Christ. A person either meets that standard or not. I believe the Bible teaches that those those who do what Jesus commands are true Christians, and those who do not, are not true Christians. (2 Peter 2:1-3) Jesus say he would disown many who claimed to be Christian. He further illustrated that obedience to his sayings is of utmost importance if we desire his approval. (Matthew 7:21-27)
Marisa
Well-Known Member
And if you classify as "spurious" those things jesus says "don't" which you nonetheless do, then you get to keep the delusion that you are the "true" christian. At my most generous, you're two-faced argument is uncompelling. But feel free to keep prosletyzing to me anyway. I know that six comments ahead, you're going to contradict yourself again, then call the evidence of that contradiction "spurious".
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Just because it is illogical to you doesn't mean it is. You want to accuse others of not being a Christian for x reasons, but you are judging, something Christ told people they are not supposed to do (but, conveniently, you dismiss that as "spurious.") You'll gladly throw out Christians are supposed to obey Christ, but one of those instructions that you yourself fail to live up, one that would prevent you from being a "true" Christian, you dismiss it. Your conclusion does not even logically follow the premesis. ("True" Christians must obey....this particular verse that I fail to live up to is spurious...I am a "True" Christian. "True" Christians must obey...those Christians do not live up to the verses I apply to them...they are not "True" Christians. Do you not see where the major logical holes are?)
The argument isn't about factually proving things people claim they are, but showing how the idea of "no true whatever" is circular, and that when it's drawn out to the end, there is no one left who can be defined as that "true whatever."
OneThatGotAway
Servant of Yahweh God Almighty
OneThatGotAway said: ↑
I'm way ahead of you: I have already critically analyze the matter of the "Sins of the Father" and found it to be morally acceptable depending on the context of the sin.
I hope it does; especially compares to the world's so-called morality (or lack thereof in some societies). I accept that all the sons of Aedam are born in sin because of the sin of their the first father, Aedam. That being said, all of mankind would have committed the same sin had they had the chance. In fact, today, people commit sinful acts that would affect the generations to come. And they know this before they do it; yet they STILL do it! That speaks volume to their morality in things that they can control. On the other hand, I accept the fact that children should not pay for the "sins of their fathers"
"Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation]." -- Exodus 34:7 KJV
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." -- (Deuteronomy 24:16 KJV)
"Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18:19-20 KJV)
For example, if a man murders another man, his son should not have to die for his father's action. Yet after his father's execution, the sins of the boy's father has affected boy's life. In what way? Now the boy is fatherless. The boy is in poverty because the father was the sole breadwinner of the family. The boy carries the shame that his father was a murderer. They boy has been forced to moved from a wealthy high society to a low-income ghetto or orphanage. And so on.
I'm way ahead of you: I have already critically analyze the matter of the "Sins of the Father" and found it to be morally acceptable depending on the context of the sin.
I hope it does; especially compares to the world's so-called morality (or lack thereof in some societies). I accept that all the sons of Aedam are born in sin because of the sin of their the first father, Aedam. That being said, all of mankind would have committed the same sin had they had the chance. In fact, today, people commit sinful acts that would affect the generations to come. And they know this before they do it; yet they STILL do it! That speaks volume to their morality in things that they can control. On the other hand, I accept the fact that children should not pay for the "sins of their fathers"
"Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation]." -- Exodus 34:7 KJV
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." -- (Deuteronomy 24:16 KJV)
"Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18:19-20 KJV)
For example, if a man murders another man, his son should not have to die for his father's action. Yet after his father's execution, the sins of the boy's father has affected boy's life. In what way? Now the boy is fatherless. The boy is in poverty because the father was the sole breadwinner of the family. The boy carries the shame that his father was a murderer. They boy has been forced to moved from a wealthy high society to a low-income ghetto or orphanage. And so on.
OneThatGotAway
Servant of Yahweh God Almighty
OneThatGotAway said: ↑
I think you already know what the God of the Holy Bible says.
And as you know by now, you don't speak for everybody. Over a billion of Jews, Christians, and Muslims cares about what God has to say.
How many people care about what you have to say?
I think you already know what the God of the Holy Bible says.
And as you know by now, you don't speak for everybody. Over a billion of Jews, Christians, and Muslims cares about what God has to say.
How many people care about what you have to say?
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
A bunch of people used to think the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. Galileo was put on house arrest for daring to say otherwise.
But just because a bunch of people cared about the Earth being flat and the centrist ideas of a geocentric model doesn't mean they were correct.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
Yes, they do; however precious few of them comparatively speaking are demonizing homosexuality.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
Well, at least we don't hold children accountable for the transgressions of their parents and grandparents. So I guess we're still better at morality the god you present.
You know, I always find it interesting to contemplate the parallels between the myth of Prometheus and the myth of Adam and Eve. Prometheus was honored and exalted by men and despised by the gods. Precious few people run around praising A&E for bringing knowledge to mankind, nope that crap is vile.
OneThatGotAway
Servant of Yahweh God Almighty
OneThatGotAway said: "Who says that the information was incomplete? In my opinion, what was recorded in the Holy Bible was enough information for Jews and Christians to read and determine why Yahweh God Almighty punished Sodom and Omarrah for their sexual sins."
Where in the Holy Bible did God "rewarded" Lute for sinning against his daughters? You have the rewards and punishment mixed up. Here is the layout:
1. God punished Sodom and Omarah severely because their sexual sins was pandemic and corrupted all flesh against men, women, children, infants, and animals.
2. Lute's sexual sin was not like that of Sodom and Omarah; his sin was not pandemic, he and his family was righteous in that category and was thus rewarded.
3. Lute offered his daughter to the homosexuals in order to spared the angels from gang anal rape; his suggestion did not have God's approval, thus was not carried out.
4. Lute and his two daughters escaped the destruction of Sodom and Omarah without looking back; this particular reward was for not committing these kinds of acts.
5. God worked with the rest of Lute's rehabilitation and sins, including his tendency to offer his daughters to a gang of homosexuals; these events are not recorded.
6. God deals with all of our sins in their proper time; most of his works are not recorded, only the ones pertinent to 7,000 global redemption of mankind toward paradise.
Where in the Holy Bible did God "rewarded" Lute for sinning against his daughters? You have the rewards and punishment mixed up. Here is the layout:
1. God punished Sodom and Omarah severely because their sexual sins was pandemic and corrupted all flesh against men, women, children, infants, and animals.
2. Lute's sexual sin was not like that of Sodom and Omarah; his sin was not pandemic, he and his family was righteous in that category and was thus rewarded.
3. Lute offered his daughter to the homosexuals in order to spared the angels from gang anal rape; his suggestion did not have God's approval, thus was not carried out.
4. Lute and his two daughters escaped the destruction of Sodom and Omarah without looking back; this particular reward was for not committing these kinds of acts.
5. God worked with the rest of Lute's rehabilitation and sins, including his tendency to offer his daughters to a gang of homosexuals; these events are not recorded.
6. God deals with all of our sins in their proper time; most of his works are not recorded, only the ones pertinent to 7,000 global redemption of mankind toward paradise.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
Rewarded. As in not killed. Which is what happened to everyone else.
OneThatGotAway
Servant of Yahweh God Almighty
BilliardsBall said: "And today we do not have additional information on the other acts of God regarding those two cities. However, God's character has been vetted through other recorded historical events that would justify his unwritten detailed actions. For example, it is written that Yahweh is omnipotent and there would not be enough books on earth to contain all of the works he did to one single man or any life form."
His genocide and infanticide obviously contained and eliminated the pandemic diseases brought on by those countries who had subjected their men, women, children, and infants into these disease as a results of their homosexuality, incest, and bestiality. These containment fell right into his divine plan; I understand it's logic to preserve the rest of mankind. No need to speak certain things into existence if it will violate one's divine plan; that would be illogical and destructive. The fact that people says nothing of the men and women that forces diseases on infants and burn children alive speaks to their character. It is as though they would prefer the pandemic and anarchy to become global for all of mankind to share and endure.
His genocide and infanticide obviously contained and eliminated the pandemic diseases brought on by those countries who had subjected their men, women, children, and infants into these disease as a results of their homosexuality, incest, and bestiality. These containment fell right into his divine plan; I understand it's logic to preserve the rest of mankind. No need to speak certain things into existence if it will violate one's divine plan; that would be illogical and destructive. The fact that people says nothing of the men and women that forces diseases on infants and burn children alive speaks to their character. It is as though they would prefer the pandemic and anarchy to become global for all of mankind to share and endure.
Last edited:
Being God, he need not have created those diseases.
OneThatGotAway
Servant of Yahweh God Almighty
BilliardsBall said: "We put our trust in many people without knowing everything about them."
Apparently, not the same way God does because they lack omnipotence and all-knowledge. Without these two essential skills every grand scheme of man usually ends in failure and passing the buck. They tend to allow diseases and poverty to fester into global atrocities and then resort to protecting the ones with the rich by economically destroying poor for their resources. When the United States wanted to solve her economic problems, they dropped two nuclear bombs on innocent Japanese men, women, and children. Yahweh would have went a different way; because the war between the United States and Japan wasn't pandemic like Sodom and Omarah.
Apparently, not the same way God does because they lack omnipotence and all-knowledge. Without these two essential skills every grand scheme of man usually ends in failure and passing the buck. They tend to allow diseases and poverty to fester into global atrocities and then resort to protecting the ones with the rich by economically destroying poor for their resources. When the United States wanted to solve her economic problems, they dropped two nuclear bombs on innocent Japanese men, women, and children. Yahweh would have went a different way; because the war between the United States and Japan wasn't pandemic like Sodom and Omarah.
I think your argument is based on the premise there is no absolute truth. I find that unconvincing. Once we are convinced the Bible is true, and accurately reflects the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, then we have a basis for knowing right from wrong, good from bad, and true from false. Jesus himself said to the Jews who had believed him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth." (John 8:31,32) I believe true Christianity can be identified and false "Christians" exposed, by comparing their teachings and practices against those of the Christ. In fact, Jesus instructed us to do this very thing. (Matthew 7:15-20) The "no true Scotsman" fallacy would prevent one from doing so.
Is there any Christian who absolutely follows all of Christ's teachings?
Good question. Do you think there are? No one can perfectly do what is righteous, but we can do as the Bible urges; "In fact, to this course you were called, because even Christ suffered for you, leaving a model for you to follow his steps closely. He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2:21,22) And I believe true Christians do not practice sin. "Everyone remaining in union with him does not practice sin; no one who practices sin has either seen him or come to know him." (1 John 3:6) Thus, as a united brotherhood, true Christians do follow the Christ and all his teachings, IMO.
So anybody who practices sin is not truly a Christian? That's a big cutdown on numbers.
I think everybody who calls themselves Christian is Christian, personally.