Why I have a problem with Islam

[ohmygoodness]

ohmy, I respectfully disagree with you that it is illogical to say "true" Christians. One is either a committed Christian or one is not.

I believe what you are referring to, however, is the fact that it is a common belief these days that someone who believes in Jesus is automatically saved, and therefore somehow exempt from following his teachings.

And that, my friend, is what I take issue with and why I call it illogical. I also assert that it can be dangerous because that belief/attitude often leads to irresponsibility and laziness in many cases.

We are to not only believe in Jesus, but live his teachings. That is what makes a /true/ Christian.

But see, the thing is, this isn't my opinion. It's a rule of logic. I don't know how else to explain it.

[Mira]

Look. I appreciate your interest in and your need to focus on the rule of logic. But like mooms said: "logic/definition (isn't) practical in the real world (rather than philosophical realm) because there are those who claim to be whatever they are but they stray from the "true" religious teachings."

I don't think I would be making a value judgment by stating that in this conversation you are more interested in setting forth and discussing the rule of logic than the subject of Christianity. As a person more interested in spirit, I don't care about whether "true Christian" is logical or illogical. What I care about is whether someone who calls themselves a Christian is thinking and behaving like one, and following the precepts and teachings of Christianity.

The Wikipedia blurb is almost unintelligible to the untrained, average reader. Obviously, I'm not a logician. And I don't think I need to be in this instance.

I still stand by my belief that "true Christian" is not a logical fallacy. That is because I am considering the phrase colloquially rather than logically (rule of logic). And that is how I have experienced most people approaching the issue.

If you wanna continue splitting hairs about the rule of logic, go right ahead, but I think we've lost almost everyone on this board!

[ohmygoodness]

It is still a logical fallacy though. Haha.

It's just I debate these things all the time, and just religion is inherently philosophical so I just throw out these arguments because I know I can rely on them and I have a bad habit of assuming everybody else on the board is as into debating as I am, which has clearly turned out to be a mistake and I've rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Unintentionally, of course but it happens I guess.

[Mira]

It is still a logical fallacy though. Haha.

See what I mean?! You're a debater, and a logician. You're not really interested in the subject, you're only interested in the process.

Debating religion is a waste of time. It is subjective because it can't be proven. Each person has a unique subjective experience with their religious experience.

A gossip board is not a place where people come to debate heady issues they're not trained in and not interested in. One of my professors belongs to a board where he/she can do that. I've learned to enter into each fray in its own context, while remembering who I am.

It's just I debate these things all the time, and just religion is inherently philosophical so I just throw out these arguments because I know I can rely on them and I have a bad habit of assuming everybody else on the board is as into debating as I am, which has clearly turned out to be a mistake and I've rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Unintentionally, of course but it happens I guess.

Oh, I think you know full well what you're doing. It's not unintentional at all. You thinking types love to get people's goats. (Thinking people also want to believe that feeling people manipulate others with their emotions.) Where you would really get your strokes is if you were to enter into a debate in your own league and win that one. Debating here is a no-brainer. You know you're probably going to win, so why bother?

True Christianity, my ass.

Suck an egg.

Oh and in case you're wondering: my powder's dry and my pulse is normal.

[ohmygoodness]

I don't debate to be right. I debate to learn. I don't understand why people always get so mad at me. I'm seriously not trying to insult anybody. I'm a Political Science major! This is just what I do! Argh.

I'm getting so discouraged with here, because every time I enter a discussion, people get mad at me for it. I rarely ever post anymore, because people just assume I'm doing it to agitate them and be some sort of militant, but I'm not. I do it because I think a lot of the people who post here are smart, and I feel like I have the opportunity to throw out my arguments and see if anybody can find anything wrong with them so I can fix that.

I apologize if I offended anybody again. I really don't mean to. People don't get offended by me really on my other boards, so I don't know what I do differently here to cause all the hostility. I really do like all of you.

[Lobelia]

We get mad because you show absolutely no respect for anybody else's point of view. You just repeat yourself over & over, like you are the ultimate authority on whatever topic. Guess what? You're not. Don't flatter yourself that people get mad at you because you're so "logical" cuz that ain't it. Grimmlok & I argue all the time, but at least he offers something real to the debate along with some humor. You could learn from that.

You keep repeating the same schlock that you "didn't make up the rules" but your "rule" is ridiculous. All you've done is pasted something from wikipedia which is crazy, because it's not exactly considered the pillar of accuracy.

Look "christian" up on dictionary.com. You'll see several definitions. The 7th one is along your line of thinking, but these are the top 4:

1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

There is no rule that says that if you believe in the existence of something, it means you ascribe to that line of thinking.

Jews believe in Jesus. Does that make them Christians? Please use your outstanding logic to 'splain that to me.

I kind of get ohmy's point. It seems weird to say true vs fake Chrisitans...it might be more appropirate to say Chrisitian or non-Christian based on belief in the religion, simply speaking...

But I don't think that logic/definition is practical in the real world (rather than philosophical realm) because there are those who claim to be whatever they are but they stray from the "true" religious teachings.

Mooms, I could go around for the next 10 years and swear to people that I'm a movie star. I could really put on a show, telling people what a great movie star I am, & I could demand all the perks. It doesn't mean that I'm REALLY a movie star.

[Mira]

I have to say I'm with Lobes here, ohmy. I do accept your apology because it seems genuine to me.

I, like Lobes and probably others, don't like it when you just keep repeating yourself without explaining more clearly. I don't know much about the nuts and bolts of logic and it's frustrating when someone comes on and just keeps repeating. If you could explain why it's a logical fallacy then I think people would be a lot more accommodating and get your points more easily - as well as being more open to just paying attention in the first place. And if you could somehow explain yourself more clearly instead of simply repeating and repeating and saying you can't explain it, people wouldn't react so strongly.

I don't have to remind you that this isn't a college classroom, it's a gossip site! There are forums for each field of interest. I love this kind of stuff and show up here because it's one of the best sites out there - if not the best - to have fun, blow off steam, get good pointers, make online friends, help people, be helped, etc.etc.etc.

It doesn't mean I'm not interested in deep topics and more exacting discussions, I just don't come here to do that, although it's nice that there are occasionally these types of threads on gossiprocks.

I agree with lobes it's not that we dislike the fact that you're so logical, it's the fact that you keep repeating without explaining. I tried to go out on the net last night and learn some nuts and bolts about logic because you weren't explaining it. I thought if I understood what you were talking about I could get past your repeating.

Frankly I was bored to tears because I wasn't in the mood and it was dense. Even if I were in the mood, it would be tedious for me. That's why I'm no longer a philosophy major or a political science major, though I once was many years ago. I accept that certain people like that type of thing but it would drive me frickin' crazy.

[Lobelia]

there are christian people whom i have conversed with who believe homosexuality is a choice and a sin.
so they actually believe some people choose to be gay, and are sinning by making this choice.
they learn this garbage in church.
how can one have a rational discussion with people who believe such nonsense?
i feel helpless in front of them.
i just don't know what the hell to say.

they will never come out of this brainwashing to understand that people are born gay, and born straight, and sexual orientation is a pre-determined matter.
when i try to explain this they say they will pray for me for being misled, and they will pray for the gay sinners they know too.
this is unfortunately the kind of religious persons i have talked to.
and i am just really not wanting to be around such ignorance, life is too short.

I'm sure you've had this experience, because I've had it too. Just understand that there are plenty of Christian who do not believe this way. You just don't know it, because these aren't the ones who get in people's faces.

I don't care what any asshole up at a pulpit says, Jesus did not condemn homosexuals. I think it's the biggest non-issue, yet it's caused infinite heartache & bloodshed. Everybody needs to just mind their own sexual business.

[Mira]

Yeah. Here's a relevant event:

"Then they reminded Jesus that (the offense) was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law.

Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences that they departed." (John 8:7)

That is what we are called to do: mind our own beeswax PERIOD (not just about sex), and stop judging others. God alone is the judge. I always remind these holier-than-thou Christians that they are committing blasphemy when they make themselves into God by judging others. (By the way I am not implying by utilizing this passage that homosexuality is a sin.)

There's also the verse about looking at the log in one's own eye instead of others (Matthew 7:3).

Holy crap I'm quoting the Bible!! I have to run out for a meeting now (thank God!)

[dragonlady]

Someone here mentioned that the Koran explicitly tells people to kill homosexuals. Well this is from the Bible:



Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

For more Bible verses, including the New Testament, after Jesus:
http://www.evangelical.us/homosexual...le-quotes.html

The Koran basically is the same ideas as the Bible, so one isn't inherently more barbaric than the other. Besides, why did God destroy Sodom? Because of sodomy, among other things. So even if Jesus tells Christians to mind their own business, the whole idea is that according to both texts, pretty basic to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it is still advocating punishment of homosexuals. Even if a Christian doesn't do the punishing, it seems that God or whatever you call him will brutally punish it. So now, how does that inherently make the Koran the most "awful" religious text?

Christian oppression of women:
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums...pic.php?t=3006

My purpose here isn't to decide who's a sinner or evil or whatever. I'm atheist. I really don't care. You just can't go and denounce one religion without looking critically at the others who say the same thing. It's a shame that so many people are so ready to denounce Islam as backwards, evil, and awful without doing any real comparative research.

[Mira]

Thank you for posting that dragonlady. I couldn't agree more, yet I really don't want to get into a discussion about it with anyone. I don't have the time and energy necessary to do it justice at this point in my life. Not many of us do, and it's just not worth it. I've done it on another board, and that's about as far as I'm willing to go with it. I reserve the right to change my mind, however, just in case I ever do have the time and/or get in the mood.

edit to add: after reading Lobe's post below, I want to clarify that I mean I couldn't agree more with the first part of the last sentence. But like I said, I really am not up for discussing it at this time.

[Lobelia]

As I've stated repeatedly, the Old Testament doesn't apply to what I'm talking about, specifically Christianity.

As for the New Testament verse you cited, well, that's arguable but
1) Jesus didn't say it, which is what I've been saying all along. Paul said it. Paul was kind of an ass, but hey.

2) It's one of many translations. The NIV bible has a decidedly conservative slant to it, and other translations don't translate that verse that way, & the meaning is quite different.

As far as what you're saying,

You just can't go and denounce one religion without looking critically at the others who say the same thing.

Why can't we? I mean, is it illegal? No free choice in that? I'm nitpicking here, but come on.

and

It's a shame that so many people are so ready to denounce Islam as backwards, evil, and awful without doing any real comparative research.

Sojita started this thread & gave his reasons for thinking the way he did. He has since modified his opinion somewhat. But if memory serves, without going back & checking the original post, I think he DID do some comparison.

And you're advocating "research" here, yet you're bringing in Old Testament verses to beat up Christianity with. Doesn't fly.

[ohmygoodness]

Disagreeing with your guys' opinion doesn't automatically mean direspect, but Lobelia and I have had this discussion before.

I know it's a celebrity gossip site, but this /is/ the politics section and I think debate comes inherently with politics. So it shouldn't be out of place to assume that people are going to disagree and debate here.

The reason why it's a No True Scotsman fallacy is because it's not an explicit and inherent need for one to be Christian that they accept homosexuals. There are several different definitions of Christian, and any ones are applicable. Nobody is the definitive ruler on who is or is not Christian besides Jesus himself, and he's not really around to tell people such. Your actor example Lobelia doesn't work, because for one to be an actor it is explicitly needed for one to have acted. It's not an explicit need for one to accept homosexuals for one to be Christian.

[Mira]

Oh come on. I get your point but it's splitting hairs. Most people don't think like scholars and/or students when they approach religion. This is getting utterly ridiculous. YOU may understand what you're trying to say, but most people don't, and they don't care that they don't. I don't care because it's not about that for me. sigh.

If you want to go on thinking that people care about this splitting of hairs, and being exactly fucking right, be my guest.

I can guess which side you'd be on: letter of the Law. I'm more about the spirit of the Law. I'm after meaning. You're after logic.

Meaning has more meaning. Logic is more empty. IMO.

[Lobelia]

My words are getting twisted around by a logical person Go figure

I never said it was inherent for Christians to accept homosexuals. Ever. I said that Jesus did not condemn them, and that many Christians do accept homosexuality. I said that many people claiming to be Christian are not accurately representing that religion. My actor scenario does work, thankyewverylittle, because it makes the point that people can say they are something but it doesn't make it so.

I'll concede one point to ya - there are several different definitions of being a Christian.

However, yours is wrong.