21-year-old girl killed for "flaunting national tradition"

[Dual867PowerMac]

Is it a shock that the The Religion of Peace is at the center of this?

Actually, she committed the high crime of wearing a miniskirt. So, to teach her a lesson, her father paid the killers the equivalent of $4,140 to teach her a lesson.

They kidnapped her, drove her to the outskirts of town, and shot her in the head twice.

Poor girl. :( http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b94/BengalsManiac/crossrc.gif

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25331142-12377,00.html

[nortman]

Sad.

I wonder what the growth of conservatives in the Russian Orthodox religion has to do with it. It looks like an honor killing among Muslims. I wonder why the story's author found it necessary to mention Russian Orthodoxy.

[Sketch]

religious faith makes these kinds of acts possible. Sure, stoning prostitutes isn't done much any more by Jewish people, but the texts remain. There are not too many thinking christians running around trying to get demons to leave a loved ones body, yet the scriptures clearly support the idea. And no reasonable Jewish or Christian person of today thinks much about witches, let alone killing them - but if you look for it you will find that "The Good Book" is clear on the matter.

Sure Honor killings are absurd, abhorrent and completely inhumane. What is the difference between Muslims who take their religious texts to heart and feel justified in this kind of horror, and members of the other major religions that no longer read their scriptures literally (at least when it gets really ugly)?

The answer is - about 600 years. The fact of the matter is that the morality of western civilization has surpassed the morality of the dusty old scriptures.

[BillyBobUSA]

religious faith makes these kinds of acts possible.

So what faith made it possible for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Lenin to slaughter the people that they did?

Atheism.


There are not too many thinking christians running around trying to get demons to leave a loved ones body, yet the scriptures clearly support the idea.

The largest Christian church on this planet still does excorcisms.

Your ignorance on this subject is laughable.


And no reasonable Jewish or Christian person of today thinks much about witches, let alone killing them - but if you look for it you will find that "The Good Book" is clear on the matter.

Again, you are ignorant.

There are still witches and some of them sacrifice animals and/or people in ritual killings.


Sure Honor killings are absurd, abhorrent and completely inhumane. What is the difference between Muslims who take their religious texts to heart and feel justified in this kind of horror, and members of the other major religions that no longer read their scriptures literally (at least when it gets really ugly)?

The answer is - about 600 years. The fact of the matter is that the morality of western civilization has surpassed the morality of the dusty old scriptures.

Not by a long shot, we have regressed into a degenerate culture of hedonism and death.

For every one girl killed by her Christian parents for wearing a miniskirt there are tens of thousands of young girls killed by being strung out on drugs or from sexually transmitted diseases.

But you ahve no problem with all that I guess, as long s you get to rant and bash Christianity.

[Sketch]

So what faith made it possible for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Lenin to slaughter the people that they did?

Atheism.




The largest Christian church on this planet still does excorcisms.

Your ignorance on this subject is laughable.




Again, you are ignorant.

There are still witches and some of them sacrifice animals and/or people in ritual killings.




Not by a long shot, we have regressed into a degenerate culture of hedonism and death.

For every one girl killed by her Christian parents for wearing a miniskirt there are tens of thousands of young girls killed by being strung out on drugs or from sexually transmitted diseases.

But you ahve no problem with all that I guess, as long s you get to rant and bash Christianity.

Billybob - I'd love to get into this with you, it's like wrestling with my five year old nephew, I enjoy it, he has fun, but in the end we both know he doesn't stand a chance.

But alas, this is exactly the kind of thread that you need to avoid if you've been booted from the RF, and I personally would like to see you come back there.

[Dual867PowerMac]

Sad.

I wonder what the growth of conservatives in the Russian Orthodox religion has to do with it. It looks like an honor killing among Muslims. I wonder why the story's author found it necessary to mention Russian Orthodoxy.
The writer said there's been "...a revival of conservative religious tradition since the fall of the Soviet Union both within its Russian Orthodox and large Muslim communities."

If anything, it seems to me that the writer is criticizing conservative religious movements in general, not conservatism within a specific faith.

[Marleysdaddy]

There are still witches and some of them sacrifice animals and/or people in ritual killings.


Can you provide some evidence of modern day witches participating in human sacrifice? If by witches, you are referring to Wiccans, I must admit I've never heard of Wiccans currently engaged in ritualistic killing of other humans.

[BillyBobUSA]

Billybob - I'd love to get into this with you, it's like wrestling with my five year old nephew, I enjoy it, he has fun, but in the end we both know he doesn't stand a chance.

:lol:

Dont throw out your elbow patting yourself on the back for winning a debate *before* it happens, if it ever does.

[Sketch]

:lol:

Dont throw out your elbow patting yourself on the back for winning a debate *before* it happens, if it ever does.




I dont think that is likely.

There seems to be a consensus to keep me out of there among the older participants and it seems the Mod in question is respecting their wishes.

I mean it - I want to see you back in the RF. and just for that reason, I will not debate any religious topic with you. I was banned for the first time in 5 years not long ago, so I understand what it's like. Do yourself a favor and walk away from threads like this - especially if you like these forums.

[Marleysdaddy]

There seems to be a consensus to keep me out of there among the older participants and it seems the Mod in question is respecting their wishes.

I don't believe that is how it works on these forums. The decision regarding whether or not to rescind your suspension from the RF rests SOLELY with FireWatch.

[RayMan]

i don't believe that is how it works on these forums. The decision regarding whether or not to rescind your suspension from the rf rests solely with firewatch.

+1

[Dual867PowerMac]

There seems to be a consensus to keep me out of there among the older participants and it seems the Mod in question is respecting their wishes.
I know conspiracies. I don't think there is one in this case. I would say that if you promise to respect others' views and faiths and debate the topics, then you might be allowed back and won't have further problems.

[BillyBobUSA]

Can you provide some evidence of modern day witches participating in human sacrifice? If by witches, you are referring to Wiccans, I must admit I've never heard of Wiccans currently engaged in ritualistic killing of other humans.

Santeria practitioners of the black "side" of it (Santa Muerte) are what I am refering to, not Wiccans. The latter strike me as mostly kids playing pretend to suit their fantasy, not much else.

http://www.geocities.com/quietlyinsane5a/adolfo.html


On April 30, Guillermo Calzada and six members of his household vanished under mysterious circumstances. They were reported missing on May 1, and police noted melted candles and other evidence of a strange religious ceremony at Calzada's office. Six more days elapsed before officers began fishing mutilated remains from the Zumpagno River. Seven corpses were recovered in the course of a week, all bearing signs of sadistic torture - fingers, toes and ears removed, hearts and sex organs excised, part of the spine ripped from one body, and two other bodies missing their brains.

The vanished parts, as it turned out, had gone to feed Constanzo's cauldron of blood, building up his strength for greater conquests yet to come.

In July 1987, Salvador Garcia introduced Constanzo to another drug-running family, this one led by brothers Elio and Ovidio Hernandez. At the end of that month, in Matamoros, Constanzo also met 22-year-old Sara Aldrete, a Mexican national with resident alien status in the United States, where she attended college in Brownsville, Texas. Adolfo charmed Sara with his line of patter, noting with arch significance that her birthday - September 6 - was the same as his mother's. Sara was dating Brownsville drug smuggler Gilberto Sosa at the time, but she soon wound up in Constanzo's bed, Adolfo scuttling the old relationship with an anonymous call to Sosa, revealing Sara's infidelity. With nowhere else to turn, Sara plunged full-time into Constanzo's world, emerging as the madrina - godmother or "head witch" - of his cult, adding her own twists to the torture of sacrificial victims.

Constanzo's rituals became more elaborate and sadistic after he moved his headquarters to a plot of desert called Rancho Santa Elena, 20 miles from Matamoros. There, on May 28, 1988, drug dealer Hector de la Fuente and farmer Moises Castillo were executed by gunfire, but the sacrifice was a disappointment to Constanzo. Back in Mexico City, he directed his drones to dismember a transvestite, Ramon Esquivel, and dump the grisly remains on a public street corner. His luck was holding, and Constanzo narrowly escaped when Houston police raided a drug house in June 1988, seizing numerous items of occult paraphernalia and the city's largest-ever shipment of cocaine.
On August 12, Ovidio Hernandez and his two-year-old son were kidnapped by rival narcotics dealers, the family turning to Constanzo for help. That night, another human sacrifice was staged at Rancho Santa Elena, and the hostages were released unharmed on August 13, Adolfo claiming full credit for their safe return. His star was rising, and Constanzo barely noticed when disciple Florentino Ventura committed suicide in Mexico City on September 17, taking his wife and a friend with him in the same burst of gunfire.

In November 1988, Constanzo sacrificed disciple Jorge Gomez, accused of snorting cocaine in direct violation of el padrino's ban on drug use. A month later, Adolfo's ties to the Hernandez family were cemented with the initiation of Ovidio Hernandez as a full-fledged cultist, complete with ritual bloodletting and prayers to the nganga.

Human sacrifice can also have its practical side, as when competing smuggler Ezequiel Luna was tortured to death at Rancho Santa Elena on February 14, 1989; two other dealers, Ruben Garza and Ernesto Diaz, wandered into the ceremony uninvited and were promptly added to the sacrifice. Conversely, Adolfo sometimes demanded a sacrifice without rhyme or reason. When he called for fresh meat on February 25, Ovidio Hernandez gladly joined the hunting party, picking off his own 14-year-old cousin, Jose Garcia, in the heat of the moment.

On March 13, 1989, Constanzo sacrificed yet another victims at the ranch, but he was gravely disappointed when his prey did not scream and plead for mercy in the approve style. Disgruntled, he ordered an Anglo for the next ritual, and his minions went on the hunt, abducting 21-year-old Mark Kilroy outside a Matamoros saloon. The sacrifice went well enough, followed two weeks later by the butchery of Sara Aldrete's old boyfriend, Gilberto Sosa, but Kilroy's disappearance marked the beginning of the end of Constanzo's homicidal cult.

A popular premed student from Texas, Mark Kilroy was not some peasant, transvestite, or small-time pusher who could disappear without a trace or an investigation into his fate. With family members and Texas politicians turning up the heat, the search for Kilroy rapidly assumed the trapping of an international incident, but in the end of Constanzo's own disciple would destroy him.

By March 1989, Mexican authorities were busy with one of their periodic antidrug campaigns, erecting roadblocks on a whim and sweeping the border district for unwary smugglers. On April 1, Victor Sauceda, an ex-cop turned gangster, was sacrificed at the ranch, and the "spirit message" Constanzo received was optimistic enough for his troops to move a half-ton of marijuana across the border seven nights later.

And then, the magic started to unravel.

http://www.red-alerts.com/homeland-security/possible-human-sacrifice-by-narco-cultists-in-mexico/


MEXICO CITY - The heads of 11 decapitated bodies discovered in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula last week may have been burned in a ritual, investigators said.
Police said they found an altar to the skeletal figure of the “Santa Muerte,” an unofficial patron saint of death, in the home of two men arrested in connection with the slayings, while several scorched spots were discovered in a nearby clearing.
Police suspect the heads were burned in the clearing, according to a statement from the Public Safety Department. The department did not say what evidence it had to support that theory. Public Safety officials declined to give further details Monday, citing an ongoing investigation.
Decapitations have become more frequent in battles between Mexico’s powerful drug cartels. The 11 corpses appeared to be the largest group of beheadings since gunmen tossed five human heads into a bar two years ago.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte)

On March 24, 2009 Mexican authorities dismantled 30 capillas dedicated to Santa Muerte in Nuevo Laredo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuevo_Laredo) and Tijuana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tijuana) in response to their strong association with drug trafficking and at the request of local residents.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte#cite_note-2) José Manuel Valenzuela Arce, a researcher at the Colegio de la Frontera Norte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colef), a Tijuana-based think tank commented, "Destroying these chapels is not going to do anything to diminish crime... someone who's going to commit a crime could just as easily go to a Catholic church as a Santa Muerte shrine, or go nowhere at all.”

In March of 2009, David Romo Guillen, leader of the Saint Death organization reportedly called for a “holy war” against the Catholic Church after the Mexican Army destroyed some of its places of worship which were suspected to be criminal hideouts, especially in the northern part of the country, including one shrine to Santa Muerte in Tijuana, Mexico's drug trafficking, prostitution and murder capital. As a result of the call to the Crusade, Father Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Mexico City, has issued a warning about the “terrorist” nature of the call for a “holy war” against the Catholic Church by the leader of followers of Santa Muerte. Since then, small groups of Santa Muerte followers have come out of the Tepito slum in full force, parading effigies of skeletons in tunics around Mexico City neighborhoods.

[notluzn]

It won't be long now. Is everyone Deaf?

[BillBrown]

Is it a shock that the The Religion of Peace is at the center of this?

Actually, she committed the high crime of wearing a miniskirt. So, to teach her a lesson, her father paid the killers the equivalent of $4,140 to teach her a lesson.

They kidnapped her, drove her to the outskirts of town, and shot her in the head twice.

Poor girl. :( http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b94/BengalsManiac/crossrc.gif

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25331142-12377,00.html

The Religion of Peace marches on.
That poor girl has probably found the only peace she's ever known.

[BillyBobUSA]

deleted

[BillyBobUSA]

deleted

[Dual867PowerMac]

The Religion of Peace marches on.
According to a film I saw, the religion of peace thing is only going to be true when all the infidels are dead and Islam rules the world. Then there will be peace.

It's disturbing that Muslims give respect to a prophet who personally killed 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza. This is in the Qu'ran.

[Marleysdaddy]

But as to my specific case, the Mods are handling it how they see fit, and it seems that the consensus of the older particpants in the RF carrys alot of weight with them.


It may seem that way to you, but I can assure you, that is not the case. I've only been posting here for a year, and my opinion carries NO weight with the moderators, especially FireWatch (he has given me two time-outs from the RF in the year I've been here)

Your position also ignores the fact that I already accepted your apology, and hence, have no reason to ask FW to continue your ban. I think some of the other 'older participants' you mention have also expressed their wish that you return to the RF.

In fact, your continued insistence that FireWatch is, in essence, bowing to the wishes of some of the members of the RF is an accusation towards the way these boards are moderated, and could be interpreted as Contempt of Moderator.

The best way to hasten your return to the RF is to take Dual867PowerMac's advice, and to avoid statements like
The latter strike me as mostly kids playing pretend to suit their fantasy
as that would likely not fly in the RF.

[Marleysdaddy]

I know it rests solely with Firewatch, but you dont think that he takes into consideration the opinions of the particpants he is familiar with?


No -in fact, I am quite confident he isn't doing that, and not only because NO ONE is expressing the opinion that you shouldn't be readmitted.

[BillyBobUSA]

It won't be long now. Is everyone Deaf?

Could you explain this comment?

I dont get it.

[BillyBobUSA]

No -in fact, I am quite confident he isn't doing that, and not only because NO ONE is expressing the opinion that you shouldn't be readmitted.

I dont want to discuss that here any further.

[notluzn]

The Religion of Peace marches on.
That poor girl has probably found the only peace she's ever known.
You mean her brain pieces. People are ignorant to the real world so they turn a blind eye until it's one of there kin in the mix. Then it only matters for a minute and then they forget and it happens again.

[jelake]

21 year old medical student murdered by her own father. Disgusting what religious extremism can do in these modern days.

[BillyBobUSA]

21 year old medical student murdered by her own father. Disgusting what religious extremism can do in these modern days.

Just as disgusting as the broad over-generalities that can be spat out by antireligious zealots like the one you just barfed out.

[nortman]

The writer said there's been "...a revival of conservative religious tradition since the fall of the Soviet Union both within its Russian Orthodox and large Muslim communities."

If anything, it seems to me that the writer is criticizing conservative religious movements in general, not conservatism within a specific faith.I still don't see what the purpose of mentioning the growth of a conservative movement in the Russian Orthodox faith has anything to do with this episode that he has to mention it. It appears as if he is trying to accomplish several things. Draw a comparison between conservativechristianity and radical islam. Tell everyone how wonderful things were under communist rle and how it is getting worse now that the Stalinists are gone. Tell everyone reading the story that things that are "conservative" are evil. But, then, I have really no love for those hypocritical jerks tht call themselves reporters and try to convince everyone that they are unbiased.

[BillyBobUSA]

I still don't see what the purpose of mentioning the growth of a conservative movement in the Russian Orthodox faith has anything to do with this episode that he has to mention it. It appears as if he is trying to accomplish several things. Draw a comparison between conservativechristianity and radical islam. Tell everyone how wonderful things were under communist rle and how it is getting worse now that the Stalinists are gone. Tell everyone reading the story that things that are "conservative" are evil. But, then, I have really no love for those hypocritical jerks tht call themselves reporters and try to convince everyone that they are unbiased.

That is because the whole world is covered in Christian terrorist activities and slain victims.

/sarcasm

The author is apparently trying to invoke the same ole equivalence doctrine that the libruls used to invoke in regard to the Soviet union, ie we are just as bad as they are when one views the world with just the right squint.

[Marleysdaddy]

I still don't see what the purpose of mentioning the growth of a conservative movement in the Russian Orthodox faith has anything to do with this episode that he has to mention it. It appears as if he is trying to accomplish several things. Draw a comparison between conservativechristianity and radical islam. Tell everyone how wonderful things were under communist rle and how it is getting worse now that the Stalinists are gone. Tell everyone reading the story that things that are "conservative" are evil. But, then, I have really no love for those hypocritical jerks tht call themselves reporters and try to convince everyone that they are unbiased.

I didn't get that feeling from the article at all. I thought the author implied that honor killings tended to be practiced by the more conservative Muslims, and that since the fall of the USSR, religious conservatism (in general) has been on the increase in the former Soviet states.

[JudasGoat]

religeon of peace...

[Sketch]

This is a complex problem the solution of which lies in multiple approaches.

Religious terrorists (today this means Muslim terrorists) need to be dealt with swiftly and lethally. This is a short term solution that does not eliminate the trouble, it just maintains a certain level of protection and is without question necessary.

The long term solution lies in the reconsidering religious faith as not such a good thing.

When it comes to religious faith, it seems to me that the most fundamental believers are actually more consistent: the holy books say it’s so, therefore it is. (Note: I did not claim that their arguments are good, just more consistent than the moderate believer). From the fundamentalist perspective a “mercy Killing” is perfectly logical because in the end these people are doing what their god commands and nothing is more important than that. If one were a fundamentalist Christian in the dark ages, it was perfectly logical to torture an accused witch because in the end you were saving their eternal soul from permanent and everlasting torment. The moderate believers tend to pick and choose which dogma’s to accept and which ones to leave aside.

It’s fair to say that at this point in time, the danger posed by the various fundamentalist religious believers is not equal, and there really is no contest – fundamentalist Muslims pose the greatest danger. Sure there are extreme flavors of other religions that pose danger -the Texas LDS sect comes to mind, as does the occasional story of some family who chooses to pray for a sick child in sted of taking that child to a doctor and the child dies, but these kinds of threats are limited in their scope.

I think in the end fundamentalist believers need to come to the understanding that what they believe is not true, and this is not going to happen until the moderate believers come to that conclusion first. People will always go to war with one another, but the more causes we eliminate the better off we will all be. How can we convince someone that there are NOT 72 virgins awaiting them in the afterlife if they martyr themselves, while at the same time holding the belief that when we die we will live in fantastic mansions and have brunch with our god and his son? How can we dispute that Muhamed flew on his horse, when we believe that a woman gave birth to a son without having sex first, or that our god recovered from murder?

[mtdim]

This is a complex problem the solution of which lies in multiple approaches.

Religious terrorists (today this means Muslim terrorists) need to be dealt with swiftly and lethally. This is a short term solution that does not eliminate the trouble, it just maintains a certain level of protection and is without question necessary.

The long term solution lies in the reconsidering religious faith as not such a good thing.

When it comes to religious faith, it seems to me that the most fundamental believers are actually more consistent: the holy books say it’s so, therefore it is. (Note: I did not claim that their arguments are good, just more consistent than the moderate believer). From the fundamentalist perspective a “mercy Killing” is perfectly logical because in the end these people are doing what their god commands and nothing is more important than that. If one were a fundamentalist Christian in the dark ages, it was perfectly logical to torture an accused witch because in the end you were saving their eternal soul from permanent and everlasting torment. The moderate believers tend to pick and choose which dogma’s to accept and which ones to leave aside.

It’s fair to say that at this point in time, the danger posed by the various fundamentalist religious believers is not equal, and there really is no contest – fundamentalist Muslims pose the greatest danger. Sure there are extreme flavors of other religions that pose danger -the Texas LDS sect comes to mind, as does the occasional story of some family who chooses to pray for a sick child in sted of taking that child to a doctor and the child dies, but these kinds of threats are limited in their scope.

I think in the end fundamentalist believers need to come to the understanding that what they believe is not true, and this is not going to happen until the moderate believers come to that conclusion first. People will always go to war with one another, but the more causes we eliminate the better off we will all be. How can we convince someone that there are NOT 72 virgins awaiting them in the afterlife if they martyr themselves, while at the same time holding the belief that when we die we will live in fantastic mansions and have brunch with our god and his son? How can we dispute that Muhamed flew on his horse, when we believe that a woman gave birth to a son without having sex first, or that our god recovered from murder?

Some really good points here. How can we really condemn these acts of "martyrdom" when we constantly make it clear that it is acceptable to believe things on the basis of scripture? As long as we treat faith as a virtue, we are just asking for these kinds of tragedies to happen.

[Sketch]

Some really good points here. How can we really condemn these acts of "martyrdom" when we constantly make it clear that it is acceptable to believe things on the basis of scripture? As long as we treat faith as a virtue, we are just asking for these kinds of tragedies to happen.

If I had your gift for brevity i'd save lots of time.

[mtdim]

If I had your gift for brevity i'd save lots of time.

I call it, more appropriately I think, a gift for laziness. :lol:

[BillyBobUSA]

This is a complex problem the solution of which lies in multiple approaches.

Religious terrorists (today this means Muslim terrorists) need to be dealt with swiftly and lethally. This is a short term solution that does not eliminate the trouble, it just maintains a certain level of protection and is without question necessary.

The long term solution lies in the reconsidering religious faith as not such a good thing.

When it comes to religious faith, it seems to me that the most fundamental believers are actually more consistent: the holy books say it’s so, therefore it is. (Note: I did not claim that their arguments are good, just more consistent than the moderate believer). From the fundamentalist perspective a “mercy Killing” is perfectly logical because in the end these people are doing what their god commands and nothing is more important than that. If one were a fundamentalist Christian in the dark ages, it was perfectly logical to torture an accused witch because in the end you were saving their eternal soul from permanent and everlasting torment. The moderate believers tend to pick and choose which dogma’s to accept and which ones to leave aside.

It’s fair to say that at this point in time, the danger posed by the various fundamentalist religious believers is not equal, and there really is no contest – fundamentalist Muslims pose the greatest danger. Sure there are extreme flavors of other religions that pose danger -the Texas LDS sect comes to mind, as does the occasional story of some family who chooses to pray for a sick child in sted of taking that child to a doctor and the child dies, but these kinds of threats are limited in their scope.

Good so far....

I think in the end fundamentalist believers need to come to the understanding that what they believe is not true,


And who the hell are you to determine what people need to believe and think?

That is arrogance beyond description.

and this is not going to happen until the moderate believers come to that conclusion first. People will always go to war with one another, but the more causes we eliminate the better off we will all be.

So start with your own causes; give them up and shut up about them all and show us how to 'eliminate causes' properly.

How about it?


How can we convince someone that there are NOT 72 virgins awaiting them in the afterlife if they martyr themselves, while at the same time holding the belief that when we die we will live in fantastic mansions and have brunch with our god and his son?

We doint have to convince the Muslims of any such thing and you cannot do it anyway.

Muslims will not give up their faith so easily as main stream Protestants do.


How can we dispute that Muhamed flew on his horse, when we believe that a woman gave birth to a son without having sex first, or that our god recovered from murder?

We do not need to.

[BillyBobUSA]

How can we really condemn these acts of "martyrdom" when we constantly make it clear that it is acceptable to believe things on the basis of scripture?

Whose scripture? Most Muslim Quran scholars DO in fact condemn this kind of thing.


As long as we treat faith as a virtue, we are just asking for these kinds of tragedies to happen.

No, we are not.

We will have more tragedies if we let the secularists run rough shod all over people of faith who need to restrain them lest their Stalinistic impulses get the better of them.

[timerollin]

"The fact of the matter is that the morality of western civilization has surpassed the morality of the dusty old scriptures."

Sketch, I call it Spiritual Growth.

[mtdim]

Whose scripture? Most Muslim Quran scholars DO in fact condemn this kind of thing.

Any scripture. Generally, it is considered a virtue to be pious, and this is true regardless of which religion you're talking about. The fact that most Quran scholars condemn this kind of thing is not important; there is theological reasoning behind how women are treated in Islamic countries, and whether or not you consider this theological reasoning to be sound is not really relevant. As long as something as subjective as holy book interpretation is considered a valid means of discovering truth and God's will, these types of tragedy will continue to happen. After all, anything can be "moral" if it is God's will, and who are you (or moderate Muslim scholars) to say that the Fundamentalist interpretation of the Quran is wrong?

ETA:

The Muslim scholars condemn the particular interpretation, but not the idea of getting truth and world view from the Quran.

I find it ironic how many say that Atheism leads to an "anything goes" view of morality; Atheistic morality is constrained by reason. It seems to me that religion is what has the potential to create an "anything goes" morality; whatever God says goes, whether it's genocide, infanticide, rape, or anything else. This type of morality is only limited by what man can write in a holy book and convince others is the word of God.


No, we are not.

We will have more tragedies if we let the secularists run rough shod all over people of faith who need to restrain them lest their Stalinistic impulses get the better of them.

Stalinism is certainly Atheistic, but I can't see how Atheism is at all Stalinistic.

[Sketch]

Billy, Since you insist on posting in threads with that center around religion, despite your ban from the RF, I will ask you a simple question:

Would it be morally wrong for an Orthodox Jew to stone his wife to death after finding her in bed with another man?

[BillyBobUSA]

"The fact of the matter is that the morality of western civilization has surpassed the morality of the dusty old scriptures."

Sketch, I call it Spiritual Growth.

And most of the rest of us call that 'modern arrogance'.

[BillyBobUSA]

Billy, Since you insist on posting in threads with that center around religion, despite your ban from the RF, I will ask you a simple question:

Would it be morally wrong for an Orthodox Jew to stone his wife to death after finding her in bed with another man?

I am not discussing religion so much as stating axioms related to cultural issues.

And I will not answer anything specifically religious in nature as it would apparently be a violation of the TOS.

[BillyBobUSA]

Any scripture. Generally, it is considered a virtue to be pious, and this is true regardless of which religion you're talking about. The fact that most Quran scholars condemn this kind of thing is not important; there is theological reasoning behind how women are treated in Islamic countries, and whether or not you consider this theological reasoning to be sound is not really relevant. As long as something as subjective as holy book interpretation is considered a valid means of discovering truth and God's will, these types of tragedy will continue to happen. After all, anything can be "moral" if it is God's will, and who are you (or moderate Muslim scholars) to say that the Fundamentalist interpretation of the Quran is wrong?

I dont say it is wrong; the consensus among Muslim scholars is that it is wrong.


The Muslim scholars condemn the particular interpretation, but not the idea of getting truth and world view from the Quran.

I find it ironic how many say that Atheism leads to an "anything goes" view of morality; Atheistic morality is constrained by reason. It seems to me that religion is what has the potential to create an "anything goes" morality; whatever God says goes, whether it's genocide, infanticide, rape, or anything else. This type of morality is only limited by what man can write in a holy book and convince others is the word of God.

That is absurd.

You are obviously grotesquely ignorant of how the canons of the Scripture were assembled.


Stalinism is certainly Atheistic, but I can't see how Atheism is at all Stalinistic.

Well that is because Stalinism is Atheism in power while most of what we see about atheism is atheism trying to attain power.

[Sketch]

I dont say it is wrong; the consensus among Muslim scholars is that it is wrong.




That is absurd.

You are obviously grotesquely ignorant of how the canons of the Scripture were assembled.




Well that is because Stalinism is Atheism in power while most of what we see about atheism is atheism trying to attain power.

Stalin was both a genocidal ****head and an atheist.

Pot was a genocidal ****head and an atheist.

Hitler was a genocidal ****head and a professed believer in god.

[TheFallGuy]

The writer said there's been "...a revival of conservative religious tradition since the fall of the Soviet Union both within its Russian Orthodox and large Muslim communities."

If anything, it seems to me that the writer is criticizing conservative religious movements in general, not conservatism within a specific faith.

The author is trying, very weakly, to tie a heinous act against a young woman to another religion. It was a vapid, transparent act of trying to tie two religions together and thus equate the barbaric act committed by members of one religion to the rise in Russian Orthodoxy.

If the author had half a brain cell, he would have produced facts to back up his statements without trying to tie them together in such an insipid manner.

...Russia has experienced a revival of conservative religious tradition since the fall of the Soviet Union both within its Russian Orthodox and large Muslim communities....
This statement has got to be nominated to the Captain Obvious Awards. Duh. Under Communism, people were forced into one belief system--atheism. Lenin and then Stalin wanted converts to their religion, atheism combined with communism. After the fall of communism, there has been a rise in all faiths throughout the former Soviet Union. The author of that lackluster article shows how deplorable and lazy reporters have become.

[TheFallGuy]

This is a complex problem the solution of which lies in multiple approaches.

Religious terrorists (today this means Muslim terrorists) need to be dealt with swiftly and lethally. This is a short term solution that does not eliminate the trouble, it just maintains a certain level of protection and is without question necessary.

The long term solution lies in the reconsidering religious faith as not such a good thing.

When it comes to religious faith, it seems to me that the most fundamental believers are actually more consistent: the holy books say it’s so, therefore it is. (Note: I did not claim that their arguments are good, just more consistent than the moderate believer). From the fundamentalist perspective a “mercy Killing” is perfectly logical because in the end these people are doing what their god commands and nothing is more important than that. If one were a fundamentalist Christian in the dark ages, it was perfectly logical to torture an accused witch because in the end you were saving their eternal soul from permanent and everlasting torment. The moderate believers tend to pick and choose which dogma’s to accept and which ones to leave aside.

It’s fair to say that at this point in time, the danger posed by the various fundamentalist religious believers is not equal, and there really is no contest – fundamentalist Muslims pose the greatest danger. Sure there are extreme flavors of other religions that pose danger -the Texas LDS sect comes to mind, as does the occasional story of some family who chooses to pray for a sick child in sted of taking that child to a doctor and the child dies, but these kinds of threats are limited in their scope.

I think in the end fundamentalist believers need to come to the understanding that what they believe is not true, and this is not going to happen until the moderate believers come to that conclusion first. People will always go to war with one another, but the more causes we eliminate the better off we will all be. How can we convince someone that there are NOT 72 virgins awaiting them in the afterlife if they martyr themselves, while at the same time holding the belief that when we die we will live in fantastic mansions and have brunch with our god and his son? How can we dispute that Muhamed flew on his horse, when we believe that a woman gave birth to a son without having sex first, or that our god recovered from murder?

Translation: I will decide what you can and cannot believe. Freedom of choice? You don't need it. Whatever is not plausible in my eyes is not worthy of discussion. I will deem what is worthy of believing.

[toeknee]

His daughter had a coward for a father that couldnt shoot himself in the head,
I dont think she is unhappy to be dead :snooty:

[BillyBobUSA]

Stalin was both a genocidal ****head and an atheist.

Pot was a genocidal ****head and an atheist.

Hitler was a genocidal ****head and a professed believer in god.


Please, stop pretending to believe Hitlers fake politically-driven proffessions of personal faith as anything reflecting on Christianity.

It is well known he had no respect for God and did not ever take Gods Will into account for anything he ever did.

[Marleysdaddy]

Please, stop pretending to believe Hitlers fake politically-driven proffessions [sic] of personal faith as anything reflecting on Christianity.


1) What did Sketch write that gave you the idea that he thought Hitler's professions of faith reflected on Christianity?

2) I think Hitler made a profession of personal faith long before his entrance into politics.

[mtdim]

I dont say it is wrong; the consensus among Muslim scholars is that it is wrong.

And as I said, that isn't relevant. There are always going to be countless interpretations of any holy book. Because we legitimize the shaping of worldview based on biblical interpretation, we can always expect that certain holy books or certain interpretations of holy books will lead people to do terrible things.

Suppose there was a religion who's holy book said, explicitly and unambiguously, to kill all non-believers. Would followers of this religion be wrong to do so? Why is it wrong for them to get their morality from their holy book, but right for you to do it?


That is absurd.

You are obviously grotesquely ignorant of how the canons of the Scripture were assembled.

I'm talking about religion in general, not any particular one. The general rule is that you can get people to do whatever you can convince them is the word of God. One particular holy book I know of has been able to convince many people that they should oppose the teaching of evolutionary biology, that homosexuality is an abomination, and that slavery is OK.


Well that is because Stalinism is Atheism in power while most of what we see about atheism is atheism trying to attain power.

You seem to be under the impression that atheism entails something other than a lack of belief in any gods. Could you tell me exactly what that is? If I knew it meant anything other than not believing in God, I might choose to call myself something else.

[Sketch]

Translation: I will decide what you can and cannot believe. Freedom of choice? You don't need it. Whatever is not plausible in my eyes is not worthy of discussion. I will deem what is worthy of believing.

Is that what you took away from my post? I had better work on my writing a little more.

What is wrong with applying reason to belief? Where is the harm to come from that?

There is something to be said for reason, and something more to be said for “GOOD REASON”, ideas that have been critically analyzed, approached thoughtfully, are logical and have been tested. Imagine how one’s life could be improved if for just a month, all the beliefs a person had and acted upon were founded in good reason.

[Sketch]

Please, stop pretending to believe Hitlers fake politically-driven proffessions of personal faith as anything reflecting on Christianity.

It is well known he had no respect for God and did not ever take Gods Will into account for anything he ever did.

Not a true Scotsman ey?

[Marleysdaddy]

Not a true Scotsman ey?

I'll never understand why some people commit the fallacy of composition, and then use 'No True Scotsman' to allow for an exception/exit, when they could just as easily avoid the fallacy of composition in the first place.

[TheFallGuy]

Is that what you took away from my post? I had better work on my writing a little more.
Clearly.
What is wrong with applying reason to belief? Where is the harm to come from that?
There is no harm in approaching beliefs with reason, in fact many religions ask you to approach their belief systems with reason. Many ask you to look internally and look externally to see how that belief may affect you and your soul.
There is something to be said for reason, and something more to be said for “GOOD REASON”, ideas that have been critically analyzed, approached thoughtfully, are logical and have been tested. Imagine how one’s life could be improved if for just a month, all the beliefs a person had and acted upon were founded in good reason.
In truth, many religions are based on "GOOD REASON" with ideas that have been critically analyzed, approached thoughtfully, prayerfully, and have been tested over a long period of time. Many people apply this in practice.

From your first post in this thread, your first statement, actually:
religious faith makes these kinds of acts possible.
You set the stage for denigrating all religions, based on a statement founded in ignorance. Religious faith does NOT make these kinds of acts possible. Quite the contrary, religious faith calls for a higher standard of living, rising above barbarism. Something even a little basic research will prove to you.

Your approach was the complete denigration of ALL beliefs and was made on the premise that none were based on reason. Your solution was to dictate what others should believe--tyranny. That is the path of Mao, of Lenin and Stalin.

[AutoRacer55]

Just as disgusting as the broad over-generalities that can be spat out by antireligious zealots like the one you just barfed out.

There's a reason he said extremists. The most fringe elements of any faith are more likely to act than other more moderate elements.

[Sketch]

Clearly.

There is no harm in approaching beliefs with reason, in fact many religions ask you to approach their belief systems with reason. Many ask you to look internally and look externally to see how that belief may affect you and your soul.

In truth, many religions are based on "GOOD REASON" with ideas that have been critically analyzed, approached thoughtfully, prayerfully, and have been tested over a long period of time. Many people apply this in practice.

From your first post in this thread, your first statement, actually:

You set the stage for denigrating all religions, based on a statement founded in ignorance. Religious faith does NOT make these kinds of acts possible. Quite the contrary, religious faith calls for a higher standard of living, rising above barbarism. Something even a little basic research will prove to you.

Your approach was the complete denigration of ALL beliefs and was made on the premise that none were based on reason. Your solution was to dictate what others should believe--tyranny. That is the path of Mao, of Lenin and Stalin.I am sorry my friend, but religious faith REQUIRES the suspension of critical thought (this is not to say that people with religious faith cannot think critically). If you can demonstrate to me that a person can sincerely believe in any of the following while at the same time using critical reasoning, I will get baptized.

A talking snake.
A talking, and burning, bush.
A man flying up into the heavens – in a chariot.
A man flying over the desert on a horse.
Someone touching a deceased person and having that person come back to life.
A dead man coming back to life, after having been dead for longer than two days – and then flying.

Reliegious faith does make these heinous acts possible. If one’s faith tells them that they should “not suffer a witch to live” and they think that their daughters best friend is a witch, it’s perfectly reasonable (given the premise that A- witches are real, and B-that god wants them to be killed) to burn the kid in the back yard.

People – the real believers – do what their gods tell them to do, and sometimes that means they kill other people. How can you argue that a “mercy killing” is wrong if you think the highest “right thing to do” is to listen to god; and that is precisely what these people are doing?

[James Juno]

I'll never understand why some people commit the fallacy of composition, and then use 'No True Scotsman' to allow for an exception/exit, when they could just as easily avoid the fallacy of composition in the first place.

Because to do so means giving up a classic defense mechanism, however fallacious it might be.

[Sketch]

I'll never understand why some people commit the fallacy of composition, and then use 'No True Scotsman' to allow for an exception/exit, when they could just as easily avoid the fallacy of composition in the first place.

I think it happens when an emotionally founded belief is masked as an intellectually held one.

[5thIDSoldier]

The writer said there's been "...a revival of conservative religious tradition since the fall of the Soviet Union both within its Russian Orthodox and large Muslim communities."

If anything, it seems to me that the writer is criticizing conservative religious movements in general, not conservatism within a specific faith.

I also thnk the rise of the muslim faith in the former Soviet southern republics bordering Iran and Turkey have had something to do with it.

[TheFallGuy]

I am sorry my friend, but religious faith REQUIRES the suspension of critical thought (this is not to say that people with religious faith cannot think critically).
:))

If you say so.
If you can demonstrate to me that a person can sincerely believe in any of the following while at the same time using critical reasoning, I will get baptized.
I'm not here to convert you. You've already set your heart and your faith in a godless realm. Why should I explain any of those to you? You clearly do not want to know. Your heart is already set, so why should I try and communicate this with you?


Let me approach it another way:

Can you explain the affects of acupuncture? How does it work? Yet, you can only use Western Medical/Scientific thought processes to explain this.

Have you ever heard of chi (qi)? Explain how that works--use only western philosophy and scientific processes.

C'mon, use your critical thought processes.

[Marleysdaddy]

Because to do so means giving up a classic defense mechanism, however fallacious it might be.

But a defense against whom?

Here's the scenario:

Jack says "Bob is a Christian, and Bob did a bad thing."

Jim commits the fallacy of composition and interprets Jack's statement of condemnation regarding Bob as a condemnation of all Christians, or stranger yet, Christianity in general.

So then, Jim uses 'No True Scotsman' and claims that Bob isn't a real Christian.

I could understand this as a defense mechanism if Jack were the one who claimed that Bob's action was representative of all Christians, or Christianity in general...but he's not. It appears that Jim, presumably a Christian himself, is defending where no defense is needed.

That is what confuses me.

[Marleysdaddy]

Can you explain the affects of acupuncture? How does it work? Yet, you can only use Western Medical/Scientific thought processes to explain this.

Have you ever heard of chi (qi)? Explain how that works--use only western philosophy and scientific processes.

C'mon, use your critical thought processes.

There are natural, physiological explanations for those phenomena that are more parsimonious than asserting that some unobservable, supernatural force is at work (and this is coming from someone who occasionally "suspends critical thought"...sorry Sketch ;))

[TheFallGuy]

There are natural, physiological explanations for those phenomena that are more parsimonious than asserting that some unobservable, supernatural force is at work (and this is coming from someone who occasionally "suspends critical thought"...sorry Sketch ;))

Define them exactly--that is the Western Philosophy Scientific critical-thinking method.

Why would a needle in my foot cure insomnia or have an affect on my bowels?

Whoever said they were supernatural?

[Sketch]

:))

If you say so.

I'm not here to convert you. You've already set your heart and your faith in a godless realm. Why should I explain any of those to you? You clearly do not want to know. Your heart is already set, so why should I try and communicate this with you?

Because you said that religious faith can coexist with critical thought. It’s not about conversion; it’s about discussing a point. Critical thinking hinges on logic and evidence, religious faith requires belief without either.


Let me approach it another way:

Can you explain the affects of acupuncture? How does it work? Yet, you can only use Western Medical/Scientific thought processes to explain this.

First things first – the question is – does it work. That largely depends on what the claim is. If the claim is that acupuncture alleviates pain, then there is reasonable evidence that it does. If the claim is that acupuncture cures cancer, then there is no good reason to believe.

How does it “work”? Well, given the fact that practitioners use different “meridians” to “treat” similar maladies it’s a rather an unsubstantiated claim that there are “energy blockages” causing whatever effects we are talking about. Again, to really deal with this we need to deal with specific claims.

As far as pain relief, the best explanation of it’s demonstrated efficacy seems to be the release of endorphins.

Have you ever heard of chi (qi)? Explain how that works--use only western philosophy and scientific processes.

C'mon, use your critical thought processes.[/QUOTE]

There is no reason to believe that chi is real. I have seen “chi-knockouts” and there is no reason to believe they are anything more than the power of suggestion (this because non-believers seem to be impervious to attack). Every other account of the wonders of chi that I have come across boil down to anecdotal accounts that are no more reliable than Joe Schmoe’s story about being probed by aliens. If you know of anyone who can prove the existence of chi you should tell them about James Randi, who will cut them a check for $1,000,000 if they can demonstrate it.

[Sketch]

Why would a needle in my foot cure insomnia or have an affect on my bowels?


The more immediate question is: why do you think sticking a needle in your foot has an effect on these things?

I can see how an experience of a cure of this type could lead one to believe that acupuncture can cure insomnia, and it would be reasonable to investigate that claim – but this is not “proof” by even the most liberal standards.

If someone told you they cured their insomnia by painting their nails green and their “proof” for the claim was that they were able to sleep right after they painted their nails? Correlation does not mean causation.

Would you ask “why is it plausible that painting ones nails green could have an effect on poor sleep”?

Would you ask: “what if this effect came about because of the power of suggestion, or a placebo effect”?

How could we test this? After all if painting ones nails green really does cure insomnia, then that would be worthwhile even if we don’t understand how it works.

We could do a trial, try and duplicate the effect – see if it’s worthy of more study. We could do a double blind test to rule out as many other factors that we can.

You see, I believe that acupuncture works for a limited number of things – same with chiropractic – but we can actually apply critical thinking to show that it does.

[TheFallGuy]

Because you said that religious faith can coexist with critical thought. It’s not about conversion; it’s about discussing a point. Critical thinking hinges on logic and evidence, religious faith requires belief without either.
And you make a base assumption that faith does not hinge on logic and evidence. You only have your own superstitious ways to support your viewpoint devoid of fact or logic to back up your viewpoint.--See? It cuts both ways. If you truly believe that religious faith requires belief without logic and evidence, you truly have missed out on a lot of great religious things. You've only cut yourself short.

You were the one who made it about conversion with your lame ass "If you can prove these to me, I'll be baptized." Which in itself is a demonstration of entitlement mentality. Give it to me without putting forth my own effort. Sheer laziness on your part.
First things first – the question is – does it work. That largely depends on what the claim is. If the claim is that acupuncture alleviates pain, then there is reasonable evidence that it does. If the claim is that acupuncture cures cancer, then there is no good reason to believe.
Why? What supportive, conclusive argument do you have that acupuncture can't cure cancer? Back this up with facts, you know, logic and evidence and critical thinking. You've just provided one speculative, unfounded, unsubstantiated anecdote.
How does it “work”? Well, given the fact that practitioners use different “meridians” to “treat” similar maladies it’s a rather an unsubstantiated claim that there are “energy blockages” causing whatever effects we are talking about. Again, to really deal with this we need to deal with specific claims.
So, provide them. Explain in western terminology. What are these "meridians" and "energies" you speak of? There must be some specific scientific cause for these phenomena.
As far as pain relief, the best explanation of it’s demonstrated efficacy seems to be the release of endorphins.
Prove it. Scientifically. A needle in a toe releases endorphins to relieve bowel troubles?

[Marleysdaddy]

Define them exactly--that is the Western Philosophy Scientific critical-thinking method.
No, the "Western Philosophy Scientific critical-thinking method" is to construct a naturalistic hypothesis which is supported by the phenomenal evidence.
Why would a needle in my foot cure insomnia or have an affect on my bowels?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture#Scientific_theories_and_mechanisms_of_ action

Whoever said they were supernatural?
Anything that is natural is potentially measurable.
Anything that is not natural, is supernatural.

If you didn't mean to imply that acupuncture or chi worked by some non-natural mechanism, I apologize.

[Marleysdaddy]

And you make a base assumption that faith does not hinge on logic and evidence.

According to the Biblical definition (and any other I've ever read) faith is belief in things for which there is no evidence, so I'm not sure that is an assumption.

[Marleysdaddy]

Prove it. Scientifically.

Those two things don't make sense together. Science can not provide certainty...proofs can. Hence, science can not "prove" anything.

[Sketch]

And you make a base assumption that faith does not hinge on logic and evidence. You only have your own superstitious ways to support your viewpoint devoid of fact or logic to back up your viewpoint.--See? It cuts both ways. If you truly believe that religious faith requires belief without logic and evidence, you truly have missed out on a lot of great religious things. You've only cut yourself short.

My claim that religious faith requires the suspension of critical thought did not go unsupported – Flying horses, talking snakes and so on…

You were the one who made it about conversion with your lame ass "If you can prove these to me, I'll be baptized." Which in itself is a demonstration of entitlement mentality. Give it to me without putting forth my own effort. Sheer laziness on your part. fair enough, my attempt at humor sidetracked the discussion. I don’t want to be baptized.

Why? What supportive, conclusive argument do you have that acupuncture can't cure cancer? Back this up with facts, you know, logic and evidence and critical thinking. You've just provided one speculative, unfounded, unsubstantiated anecdote.

This is where critical thinking might come in handy. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. If you think that acupuncture can cure insomnia, you’ve got to do better than saying “it worked when I did it” – painted green nails as a cure is just as substantiated.

So, provide them. Explain in western terminology. What are these "meridians" and "energies" you speak of? There must be some specific scientific cause for these phenomena. these are the terminologies of the practitioners of some forms of acupuncture, and there is zero scientific evidence that they exist.

Prove it. Scientifically. A needle in a toe releases endorphins to relieve bowel troubles? I never said that, I said that the release of endorphins was the best explanation of the pain relieving effects of acupuncture.

[James Juno]

But a defense against whom?

Here's the scenario:

Jack says "Bob is a Christian, and Bob did a bad thing."

Jim commits the fallacy of composition and interprets Jack's statement of condemnation regarding Bob as a condemnation of all Christians, or stranger yet, Christianity in general.

So then, Jim uses 'No True Scotsman' and claims that Bob isn't a real Christian.

I could understand this as a defense mechanism if Jack were the one who claimed that Bob's action was representative of all Christians, or Christianity in general...but he's not. It appears that Jim, presumably a Christian himself, is defending where no defense is needed.

That is what confuses me.

I see. I suppose the confusion arises then because you are connecting the dots where Jim has failed to do so.

[sgtmac_46]

Can you provide some evidence of modern day witches participating in human sacrifice? If by witches, you are referring to Wiccans, I must admit I've never heard of Wiccans currently engaged in ritualistic killing of other humans.

Only in the movies.

[BillyBobUSA]

There's a reason he said extremists.

Anyone willing to die for their beliefs is an extremist and a true Christian should be willing to die for their faith.

So that is hardly a defense from asserting that all the Abrahamic faiths are potentially violent and need to be suppressed, things he seems to have hinted at at least once on this thread.


The most fringe elements of any faith are more likely to act than other more moderate elements.

True enough, but that does not mean that the actions themselves are wrong, nor that sitting on your keister instead of taking action when you know you shold is right.

[BillyBobUSA]

I also thnk the rise of the muslim faith in the former Soviet southern republics bordering Iran and Turkey have had something to do with it.


That hapened about 11 centuries ago.

[PredFan]

If I told you what I thought of the Religion of Islam, I'd be banned permanently from this forum.

[BillyBobUSA]

Here's the scenario:

Jack says "Bob is a Christian, and Bob did a bad thing."

Jim commits the fallacy of composition and interprets Jack's statement of condemnation regarding Bob as a condemnation of all Christians, or stranger yet, Christianity in general.

So then, Jim uses 'No True Scotsman' and claims that Bob isn't a real Christian.


This is where the 'No True Scottsman' fallacy is often misapplied.

Being a Scotsman is defined by birth, but being a member of a faith is supposed to be defined by a set of values, some core, some not.

If a person claims to be a member of a faith that has a particular set of values, but that person violates those values, then that person is not 'true' to their proclaimed faith.

This can apply to any set of values from veganism to monastic acolytes.

The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy should not be used in reference to people who are supposedly following a defined set of values.

It just doesnt work on issues related to the set of values in question.

[Marleysdaddy]

This is where the 'No True Scottsman' fallacy is often misapplied.

Being a Scotsman is defined by birth, but being a member of a faith is supposed to be defined by a set of values, some core, some not.

If a person claims to be a member of a faith that has a particular set of values, but that person violates those values, then that person is not 'true' to their proclaimed faith.

This can apply to any set of values from veganism to monastic acolytes.

The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy should not be used in reference to people who are supposedly following a defined set of values.

It just doesnt work on issues related to the set of values in question.

If someone claims to be a Christian, and acts in a manner unbecoming of a Christian, claiming that they are not a "true" or "real" Christian is indeed a commission of 'No True Scotsman' - for they may hold the values, but be acting contrary to them.

If someone is a Christian, and acts in a manner unbecoming of a Christian, claiming that their actions aren't Christian is logical.

[DRS]

Is it a shock that the The Religion of Peace is at the center of this?

Actually, she committed the high crime of wearing a miniskirt. So, to teach her a lesson, her father paid the killers the equivalent of $4,140 to teach her a lesson.

They kidnapped her, drove her to the outskirts of town, and shot her in the head twice.

Poor girl. :( http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b94/BengalsManiac/crossrc.gif

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25331142-12377,00.html


I have talked to women who growing up not all that long ago were getting the belt for wearing short skirts and make up in place like WV and OH

[AutoRacer55]

Anyone willing to die for their beliefs is an extremist and a true Christian should be willing to die for their faith.

So that is hardly a defense from asserting that all the Abrahamic faiths are potentially violent and need to be suppressed, things he seems to have hinted at at least once on this thread.

Right, so I'm not a true Christian for not willing to die for my beliefs at this point in time. Gotcha.




True enough, but that does not mean that the actions themselves are wrong, nor that sitting on your keister instead of taking action when you know you shold is right.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you excusing what those animals did to that girl?

[BillyBobUSA]

If someone claims to be a Christian, and acts in a manner unbecoming of a Christian, claiming that they are not a "true" or "real" Christian is indeed a commission of 'No True Scotsman' - for they may hold the values, but be acting contrary to them.

This is true as long as we are speaking only of those things *unbecoming* of a Christian.

This is NOT true if we are talking about supposed Christians doing things that are completely antithetical to what Christianity is, such as denying Christ in public.


If someone is a Christian, and acts in a manner unbecoming of a Christian, claiming that their actions aren't Christian is logical.

This too is true, but I dont understand why you present the point as though it is counter to what I have stated above.

[BillyBobUSA]

Right, so I'm not a true Christian for not willing to die for my beliefs at this point in time. Gotcha.


I cant argue about religion since I am banned from the RF.

So whatever floats your boat is fine by me; I dont have to live with the consequences of *your* misconceptions.


Am I reading this correctly? Are you excusing what those animals did to that girl?

No, I am not and no you did not read it correctly.

:rolleyes:

[RayMan]

I have talked to women who growing up not all that long ago were getting the belt for wearing short skirts and make up in place like WV and OH

Yeah, but we Pentecostals have made some changes for the better in the past couple of decades.

[BillyBobUSA]

Yeah, but we Pentecostals have made some changes for the better in the past couple of decades.


Like belting them for NOT wearing short miniskirts?

:think: