7 ms·

The brother doing the harrasing was very anti-christian. Attacking and defaming another human being violates the foundation of the Christian Faith which states

by zaphar 15y ago

The brother doing the harrasing was very anti-christian. Attacking and defaming another human being violates the foundation of the Christian Faith which states that all people are deserving of respect, love, and unconditional forgiveness. Mounting a compaign of hate against another is the polar opposite of "What Jesus Would Do" to borrow from a popularized religious phrase. If you thought I was referring to articles author I apologize as that's not what I was meaning to say.

potatolicious 15y ago
This is a little bit of a No True Scotsman fallacy, no? The problem I see with religion (Christianity in particular, but thats mostly due to where I live rather than the religion itself) is that everyone has their version of what a "real Christian" does. The problem is that the Bible is not very internally consistent. At some points it tells us to love everyone regardless. At others it tells us certain people deserve to die. As far as I can tell, there is no objective definition of what being a "true Christian" entails. Every consistent guide to life via some religion is just going to be cherry-picked from the grander whole of the religion's beliefs and texts. While I'm inclined to agree that unconditional forgiveness and following WWJD is probably the better Christian (well, one I'd like to share this Earth with), keep in mind the crazies also believe they're standing on solid scriptural ground. This generalizes to just about every religion, for what it's worth...
- lotharbot 15y ago
  Crazies often believe they're standing on solid scientific ground. Yet it's not "No True Scotsman" [0] to point out that their "science" explicitly contradicts solidly tested science, violates scientific principles, and is total garbage. The same can be said regarding various religions. While there is room to disagree over the scope of certain commands, or whether certain statements are figurative, or how exactly to reconcile difficult statements [1], there are certain well-attested fundamental principles within most religions which are agreed upon by diverse sects. It is not a fallacy to point out that someone claiming religion X violates its core tenets and therefore is not legitimately practicing that religion. [0] what makes NTS a fallacy is that irrelevant criteria are being used to exclude an entity from a group they actually belong to. It is not NTS to point out that James Doohan was a Canadian of English/Irish descent, and not actually a Scotsman. [1] in texts I've read from many religions, oft-criticized statements would be better described as "difficult to reconcile" than actually inconsistent or contradictory. The example you give is not even particularly difficult to make sense of; in the Bible, everyone deserves death, yet Yahweh shows love and offers forgiveness to all, so asking His followers to do the same is not at all surprising.
  - sixcorners 15y ago
    Whether we should or should not kill, much less harass, other humans is not one of the fundamentals that is agreed upon by many diverse sects of Christianity. Everyone does not deserve death. That is just as absurd as the thing it is trying to rationalise.
    - lotharbot 15y ago
      I am aware of disagreement between Christian sects on matters of killing as a part of warfare and killing in self defense. Every sect I am aware of agrees that you should not kill someone simply because they anger, disappoint, or "dishonor" you. Likewise, I am aware of disagreement between sects on how far one should go to avoid giving offense, but I am not aware of any sect that considers the sort of threats given in the parent article to be acceptable behavior. US law often cites the "reasonable person" standard (for example, if a reasonable person would feel threatened). The same standard can be applied here -- a "reasonable person" can disagree as to what the Bible teaches about killing as a part of warfare, but I do not see any way a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the Bible as a whole could conclude that this guy's behavior is acceptable. Note that one need not be a Christian to assess this. One need only be a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the source material.
      - sixcorners 15y ago
        How do Christians in Uganda or Christians of old stack up in all this? Isn't the premise of Faith itself unreasonable? Also, do you consider WBC to be unreasonable? What about parents who disown children who are gay or convert to a different faith? Are they unreasonable and do that not because of their own faith? You are right that very recent, popular, western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?
        lotharbot 15y ago
        > "Isn't the premise of Faith itself unreasonable?" It's only in the past hundred years or so (with the rise of Christian Fundamentalism in the 1920s) that "faith" has been used to mean "the opposite of reason" or "believing something without evidence". In ancient religious writings (particularly Christian and Jewish) and in most of religious history, "faith" means acting upon something you know from experience to be true, particularly in the face of adversity. Far from being unreasonable, it can be thought of as the triumph of reason and experience over temporary emotion. This also matches with the ordinary meaning of "faith" when used to describe something other than religion. > "western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?" I would say the opposite -- most of the "hostile" versions of Christianity were/are such because of influences outside of scripture (for example, it became militant after being adopted as a state religion), and most of the shift away from hostility came about as a result of return to scripture (note the significant pacifist movements of the early 1500s, as the printing press was putting Bibles into peoples' hands.) > "do you consider WBC to be unreasonable?" Everybody considers WBC to be unreasonable. More to the point, as I said in the parent, crazies think they're standing on solid ground, whether scientific or religious. The question is not "do they do this because of their faith", but "do they do this because of a reasonable understanding of Christian scripture?" Neither WBC, nor the Ugandan LRA, nor parents who disown children, have reasonable basis in scripture.

by zaphar 15y ago

potatolicious 15y ago

This is a little bit of a No True Scotsman fallacy, no? The problem I see with religion (Christianity in particular, but thats mostly due to where I live rather than the religion itself) is that everyone has their version of what a "real Christian" does. The problem is that the Bible is not very internally consistent. At some points it tells us to love everyone regardless. At others it tells us certain people deserve to die. As far as I can tell, there is no objective definition of what being a "true Christian" entails. Every consistent guide to life via some religion is just going to be cherry-picked from the grander whole of the religion's beliefs and texts. While I'm inclined to agree that unconditional forgiveness and following WWJD is probably the better Christian (well, one I'd like to share this Earth with), keep in mind the crazies also believe they're standing on solid scriptural ground. This generalizes to just about every religion, for what it's worth...

lotharbot 15y ago
Crazies often believe they're standing on solid scientific ground. Yet it's not "No True Scotsman" [0] to point out that their "science" explicitly contradicts solidly tested science, violates scientific principles, and is total garbage. The same can be said regarding various religions. While there is room to disagree over the scope of certain commands, or whether certain statements are figurative, or how exactly to reconcile difficult statements [1], there are certain well-attested fundamental principles within most religions which are agreed upon by diverse sects. It is not a fallacy to point out that someone claiming religion X violates its core tenets and therefore is not legitimately practicing that religion. [0] what makes NTS a fallacy is that irrelevant criteria are being used to exclude an entity from a group they actually belong to. It is not NTS to point out that James Doohan was a Canadian of English/Irish descent, and not actually a Scotsman. [1] in texts I've read from many religions, oft-criticized statements would be better described as "difficult to reconcile" than actually inconsistent or contradictory. The example you give is not even particularly difficult to make sense of; in the Bible, everyone deserves death, yet Yahweh shows love and offers forgiveness to all, so asking His followers to do the same is not at all surprising.
- sixcorners 15y ago
  Whether we should or should not kill, much less harass, other humans is not one of the fundamentals that is agreed upon by many diverse sects of Christianity. Everyone does not deserve death. That is just as absurd as the thing it is trying to rationalise.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    I am aware of disagreement between Christian sects on matters of killing as a part of warfare and killing in self defense. Every sect I am aware of agrees that you should not kill someone simply because they anger, disappoint, or "dishonor" you. Likewise, I am aware of disagreement between sects on how far one should go to avoid giving offense, but I am not aware of any sect that considers the sort of threats given in the parent article to be acceptable behavior. US law often cites the "reasonable person" standard (for example, if a reasonable person would feel threatened). The same standard can be applied here -- a "reasonable person" can disagree as to what the Bible teaches about killing as a part of warfare, but I do not see any way a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the Bible as a whole could conclude that this guy's behavior is acceptable. Note that one need not be a Christian to assess this. One need only be a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the source material.
    - sixcorners 15y ago
      How do Christians in Uganda or Christians of old stack up in all this? Isn't the premise of Faith itself unreasonable? Also, do you consider WBC to be unreasonable? What about parents who disown children who are gay or convert to a different faith? Are they unreasonable and do that not because of their own faith? You are right that very recent, popular, western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?
      - lotharbot 15y ago
        > "Isn't the premise of Faith itself unreasonable?" It's only in the past hundred years or so (with the rise of Christian Fundamentalism in the 1920s) that "faith" has been used to mean "the opposite of reason" or "believing something without evidence". In ancient religious writings (particularly Christian and Jewish) and in most of religious history, "faith" means acting upon something you know from experience to be true, particularly in the face of adversity. Far from being unreasonable, it can be thought of as the triumph of reason and experience over temporary emotion. This also matches with the ordinary meaning of "faith" when used to describe something other than religion. > "western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?" I would say the opposite -- most of the "hostile" versions of Christianity were/are such because of influences outside of scripture (for example, it became militant after being adopted as a state religion), and most of the shift away from hostility came about as a result of return to scripture (note the significant pacifist movements of the early 1500s, as the printing press was putting Bibles into peoples' hands.) > "do you consider WBC to be unreasonable?" Everybody considers WBC to be unreasonable. More to the point, as I said in the parent, crazies think they're standing on solid ground, whether scientific or religious. The question is not "do they do this because of their faith", but "do they do this because of a reasonable understanding of Christian scripture?" Neither WBC, nor the Ugandan LRA, nor parents who disown children, have reasonable basis in scripture.