The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

The thread is just anti Christian bigotry on parade. Trying to discuss it only makes it worse.

Don't expect anything more. One of the reasons I spend less and less time around here.

I see the moaners are out in force now in this thread.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Notice the fallacy uses Scotsman and not countless other labels. Because the fallacy instantly falls apart for any group where there is nuance.

It's sad just how little you understand what a no true scotsman fallacy is.

The thread is just anti Christian bigotry on parade. Trying to discuss it only makes it worse.

Now, when you climb up onto the play the victim cross, do you all take turns? Were you able to crowdfund multiple ones? Or does Bob have a special seat he lets others sit on? Do you fight over who has it worse? How do you rationalize having all the privilege and power in the world yet want to be treated like you're the most oppressed?

 

[unofan]

Notice the fallacy uses Scotsman and not countless other labels. Because the fallacy instantly falls apart for any group where there is nuance.

That's not how it works, proving again your grasp of logic isn't as solid as you seem to believe it is. The fallacy uses Scotsman because it was coined by a Brit.

Marx was German. Regardless of what he did, he was German. Scotsman work.

What if Marx insisted that he was a Nazi? Nothing about Marx showed he was a Nazi...including the fact he wrote the Communist Manifesto. But you would claim under Scotsman that Marx is a Nazi only because he said so. What if a person claims they are a 'good person' but continuously hoses people over. You would demand a bad person must be good because they claim to be. Scotsman doesn't apply here, never has, never will.

Except we're talking about events that have far more evidence than a mere claim. You have disputed things like the Crusades or the Inquisition being attributable to Christians because they aren't Christ-like acts. You dispute that owning slaves in this country was done by Christians. Which could be logically defensible, except you then attribute every good thing done by a Christian to their faith. So the Crusades were not Christian (even though they were done by Christians), but hospitals are Christian (because Christians founded them). If you don't see the logical disconnect there or how that is a crystal clear example of the no true Scotsman fallacy, then you really shouldn't be trying to claim you have logic on your side.

Your ideological bent will mean this point will continue to be ignored.

Yes, my 12 years of Catholic education, including 3 years of law school at a Jesuit university, and having gone to church probably a 1000 times in my life clearly makes me the one who is ignoring things based on an ideological bend...

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Except we're talking about events that have far more evidence than a mere claim. You have disputed things like the Crusades or the Inquisition being attributable to Christians because they aren't Christ-like acts. You dispute that owning slaves in this country was done by Christians. Which could be logically defensible, except you then attribute every good thing done by a Christian to their faith. So the Crusades were not Christian (even though they were done by Christians), but hospitals are Christian (because Christians founded them). If you don't see the logical disconnect there or how that is a crystal clear example of the no true Scotsman fallacy, then you really shouldn't be trying to claim you have logic on your side.

I have never argued that these individuals, regardless of label, are not responsible...but rather that Christianity is not responsible. There is no connection between the Jesus doctrine and the actions discussed. Regardless of posters' desires, the Scotsman fallacy doesn't implicate Scotland itself. A logic ploy does not force a causal relationship, but facts could. Find a Jesus (i.e., God) position strong enough to justify these actions despite the golden rule.

 

[burd]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

.
The thread is just anti Christian bigotry on parade. Trying to discuss it only makes it worse.

I completely disagree--this has been a very interesting thread. Anyone who posts opinions here should expect to defend them. Statements that are so broad or generalized that they can be neither defended nor attacked are frustrating to all of us, but those statements are just our individual confirmation bias raising its ugly but powerful head. There's still very good stuff here.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I completely disagree--this has been a very interesting thread. Anyone who posts opinions here should expect to defend them. Statements that are so broad or generalized that they can be neither defended nor attacked are frustrating to all of us, but those statements are just our individual confirmation bias raising its ugly but powerful head. There's still very good stuff here.

You disagree because you don't seem to mind anti-Christian bigotry. There can be good discussions, but it's a steep uphill climb to do so.

 

[burd]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

You disagree because you don't seem to mind anti-Christian bigotry. There can be good discussions, but it's a steep uphill climb to do so.

Give me a couple of examples of anti-Christian bigotry and I'll tell you whether I mind it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Give me a couple of examples of anti-Christian bigotry and I'll tell you whether I mind it.

If I have to point it out to you, given how long you've been around here, that says enough.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Lynah, you're blaming Christians for the SCOTUS deciding that IGWT is slam dunk Constitutional...and that's logical?

You're the one who brought up In God We Trust, and I still have no idea why. I could not care less whether that phrase appears on our money and I have never argued that it should be unconstitutional in this thread or elsewhere, so I have no idea where you're going with this.

Now, if some over-zealous zealot wants to look at IGWT on our money and say, "See!!!! We're a Christian Nation! Therefore, we the majority get to deny rights to people who are doing things that we define to be unChristian - NO GAY MARRIAGE FOR YOU! And no abortion for YOU! And no teaching evolution in science class for any of YOU!" well then *that* I certainly, clearly, and logically have a problem with.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Give me a couple of examples of anti-Christian bigotry and I'll tell you whether I mind it.

I'm not going to go so far as to say there are anti-Christian bigots on this board. I simply don't know any of you and it's hard for me to judge based upon posts that may or may not be inflammatory to make a point.

I'll also admit I am not a particularly religious person. I rarely attend church, and never because it was my idea.

All that said, there have certainly been a number of instances in this thread where phrases like "religious nut", "magic" or "book of spells" have been used to refer to practicing Christians, their beliefs and the Bible, and I can see how that might be interpreted as anti-Christian bigotry by those more sensitive than I to the issue.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

The theocons use the rest of the religious community as human shields. They push their theocratic agenda and whenever they get push back they run and hide behind the general religious community and claim all believers are being attacked.

But of course that's BS. Nobody cares about your totems; we only care when you start cramming them down our throats.

 

[burd]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I'm not going to go so far as to say there are anti-Christian bigots on this board. I simply don't know any of you and it's hard for me to judge based upon posts that may or may not be inflammatory to make a point.

I'll also admit I am not a particularly religious person. I rarely attend church, and never because it was my idea.

All that said, there have certainly been a number of instances in this thread where phrases like "religious nut", "magic" or "book of spells" have been used to refer to practicing Christians, their beliefs and the Bible, and I can see how that might be interpreted as anti-Christian bigotry by those more sensitive than I to the issue.

True enough, Hovey, but one might wonder whether being called a religious nut is better or worse than being called a bigot. Neither are useful to a discussion, but neither would bother me personally.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

True enough, Hovey, but one might wonder whether being called a religious nut is better or worse than being called a bigot. Neither are useful to a discussion, but neither would bother me personally.

I agree. I suspect a sizable number of posters on this board viewed as anti-religion have a pretty substantial association with one church or another in their background, so I don't worry too much about the group taking up pitchforks against Bob and the rest.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Yes, my 12 years of Catholic education, including 3 years of law school at a Jesuit university, and having gone to church probably a 1000 times in my life clearly makes me the one who is ignoring things based on an ideological bend...

For the record, I also grew up extremely active in my church (Methodist) in Tennessee. Active, in the sense that I was at church 5x every week throughout middle and high school - service and Sunday school on Sunday morning, youth group and choir practice Sunday evenings, Bible study on Tuesday, Fellowship supper on Wednesdays, and working with our "local missions" program (which I also did as a full-time summer job in high school) delivering firewood and repairing houses for needy families on Saturdays (we met at church, so I'm counting it). I had a blast and don't regret a single minute of it - I just stopped believing there was an invisible man behind the curtain many years ago. The church IS the curtain, and it's a very nice one. Just don't expect anything more.

Christians, churches, and Christianity in general *do* do many great things for society - today. Historically, not so much, but you do have to judge the church in 1200AD against what people would have been doing to each other in 1200AD without the church - people were pretty nasty to each other in general during that period, so the Church wasn't really that much worse. That fits in with my view that a religion is *more* a product of it's culture than the other way around. If Christianity were the driver, then cultural values wouldn't change very much, because the tenets of Christianity are (supposedly) fixed. Instead, what we see is that Christianity morphs right along with society - as slavery, misogyny, racism, etc become unacceptable to society, they magically become unacceptable to the church as well. Funny how that works. 100 years from now, dissing on homosexuality will be regarded by the church exactly as the prohibition on eating shellfish is seen today - a cultural artifact from another people in another time. Culture molds the church much more than the church molds culture.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Culture molds the church much more than the church molds culture.

That's all I was trying to say way back when this whole fight started. I was taking exception to somebody's ignorant assertion of Christianity as the Mighty Whitey of human civilization.

Had I been able to phrase it as succinctly as your sentence the debate would have gone better, or at least faster.

People mistake the importance of an idea for them with the importance of the idea for everyone. This is exacerbated by religion's claim to primacy of meaning -- otherwise sensible people will still project their own belief system outwards because to locate it within its actual limited scope is "not playing by the rules" of the doctrine. I mean, if you believe there's one God and His son is Jesus and he came over to our place for a play date, then that must be the central fact of human history. If on the other hand you recognize that human beings have concocted hundreds of thousands of mutually-contradictory religions that fall into patterns that reflect human psychological needs and limitations, the claims of any randomly-chosen faith start to look like at most functional mechanisms to preserve local social order and identity, with the faith over the next hill exactly as valid or invalid, depending on how you want to view it.

Religion works exactly like art -- powerful enough to completely enchant one's life and even transform a local group's social situation. The difference is no art says "I'm the only valid art -- burn all the others."

 

[unofan]

I have never argued that these individuals, regardless of label, are not responsible...but rather that Christianity is not responsible. There is no connection between the Jesus doctrine and the actions discussed. Regardless of posters' desires, the Scotsman fallacy doesn't implicate Scotland itself. A logic ploy does not force a causal relationship, but facts could. Find a Jesus (i.e., God) position strong enough to justify these actions despite the golden rule.

Of course the Scotsman fallacy doesn't implicate Scotland. It implicates the person using the fallacy.

I'm not saying the Church sucks, I'm saying your argument sucks because it's based on a logical fallacy.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Of course the Scotsman fallacy doesn't implicate Scotland. It implicates the person using the fallacy.

I'm not saying the Church sucks, I'm saying your argument sucks because it's based on a logical fallacy.

The fallacy doesn't implicate Scotland nor Christianity. Period. Nobody has addressed (or evidently can address) its lack of applicability...so I'm done with that. Therefore unless someone brings actual 'facts' (you remember those?) in terms of Jesus passages to back their position, there's nothing to discuss there either.

True enough, Hovey, but one might wonder whether being called a religious nut is better or worse than being called a bigot. Neither are useful to a discussion, but neither would bother me personally.

Nut and worse descriptions are derogatory terms that have been applied here to all Christians for months/years. Bigotry is being applied now for posters who by a strict definition have displayed a behavior by posting continuous 'intolerant' and derogatory blanket comments towards Christians. You can't see a difference?

 

[unofan]

The fallacy doesn't implicate Scotland nor Christianity. Period. Nobody has addressed (or evidently can address) its lack of applicability...so I'm done with that. Therefore unless someone brings actual 'facts' (you remember those?) in terms of Jesus passages to back their position, there's nothing to discuss there either.

So you're compounding no true scotsman with moving the goalposts, and yet you still claim you are the one making the logical argument. Again, I don't think "logic" means what you think it means.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

The difference is no art says "I'm the only valid art -- burn all the others."

Show me where anyone here (or anything remotely considered mainstream Christianity) is advocating such. As usual you have to serially exaggerate to try to make your points. Your continual boogeyman garbage is just that.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

The fallacy doesn't implicate Scotland nor Christianity. Period. Nobody has addressed (or evidently can address) its lack of applicability...so I'm done with that. Therefore unless someone brings actual 'facts' (you remember those?) in terms of Jesus passages to back their position, there's nothing to discuss there either.

Let me help you out there

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I

As an extra plus, note the inevitability of the Godwin which you happened to mention a few posts back.