Posted on 10/02/2014 7:54:42 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Some people - and quite a few atheists - have made hay over Obama's comments, primary among them being Obama's comment that "No religion condones the killing of innocents."
Inherent within Obama's statement is that no TRUE Muslim would ever kill innocent people, be they men, women or children. As such, this would fall within the parameters of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
The only problem with this is that it leaves Christians open to the charge that true Christians have (for example) bombed abortion clinics, takes away from Christians the ability to say that "No true Christian would ever bomb an abortion clinic" and thus shows why atheists are taking aim at Obama's comments: this ens up cutting with a double edge and leaves BOTH Christians and Muslims open to attack: True Muslims and True Christians would then in the eys of atheists be able to do wrong and still be Muslims and Christians while doing it.
I have taken Islam to task many times, but here I am concerned for Christianity and Christians in this and not Islam and Muslims...
LOL right back at ya
Consider Nimrod. And the theory that the bloodline was reintroduced through one of Noah’s son’s wives.
It is axiomatic that I have been talking about people being inside the building at the time of the bombing or do I have to spell it out for you?
How about this: If a Muslim terrorist bombs a building and no one is in it, is that terrorism? If a Muslim bombs an abortion clinic and people are inside and killed, is that murder?
Was Bill Ayers a terrorist?
BTW, can you please tell me which Christians have “failed the standard” but are still saved and which ones who are backslidden or have never been saved in the first place - depending upon what you believe?
A person can say - that person has done enough x, y and z sins, so they are not of the Lord. Another can say, they have failed the standard but they are still of the Lord.
In the end, while I can tell that I am saved, and you can tell for yourself that you are saved, I cannot look into your heart or you into mine, and thus I cannot know if you are saved —— and vice-versa. I can believe that it sure looks like like you are or are not saved (according to a scriptural) but ultimately neither I nor you can tell with absolute certainty for someone else.
I had no idea that No True Scotsman was Obama’s idiotic idea, or that NTS was some author’s trap.
Hmmm. Interesting. :)
So No True Scotsman only works for one and not the other?
Like I said, atheists using NTS cuts both ways...
Yeah, right. Man-up, dude! You assumed I'm ignorant. That may be true, but it's presumptuous of you to conclude it.
By the way, I have never questioned God.
But that isn't to say that just because a country passes a law that says “go forth and kill” does not mean that those going forth with that law (which says it is ok) doesn't necessarily make it ok.
spelling things out to the letter of the law prevents assumptions, which is no way to run a legal department...
there was no mention of people being inside a building... therefore, axiomatic or not, say what you mean, because words do mean things... and they do mean things.
who defines terrorist? who defines murder? if i carry a gun and defeat oppressors with it, am i a terrorist or freedom fighter?
to thine own self be true.
teeman
You raise a good point.
Why then did He tell Peter later on to put away his sword?
I will take your hmmmm and raise you another hmmm. :)
Good post!
All I can say is I am glad that i was not in their (the Hebrew’s) shoes. And neither will I pass judgement against them, either.
It is hard to comprehend what occured and why God said what He did, but in the end, I can know that the young ones (who were not of the age of accountability) made it to heaven. I’ll concentrate on the last part and leave the rest alone.
Nimrod was a slave trader, the son of Cush. There is no mention that he was offspring of the “sons of God”.
But why would God make the mistake of letting the bloodline of the people He intended to eradicate or imprison slip through?
Lines 3 and 4 the initial thread speaks of Muslims killing innocent people.
Lines 5 and 6 speak of Christians bombing abortion clinics. After that, the thread speaks of how atheists can take both and use NTS against both. Murder was being dealt with in both sections (whether you realized it or not) otherwise atheists couldn't use both.
Easy to figure out... And you shouldn't need it all to be spelled out for you, unless you think that NTS does not apply to Christians and are trying to be evasive...
I have no earthly idea. But there are those theologians who hold to the idea that the Nephilim bloodline existed past the Flood and there are those who do not.
They both make very good points.
As an aside, Nimrod was a good bit more than a slave trader. The word used to describe Nimrod in Gen 10 as a mighty man was the same used to describe the Nephilim in Gen 6 (gibbowr). The only usage of that word in Genesis is in Gen 6 and Gen 10, to describe the Nephilim (used once) and to describe Nimrod (used 3 times).
I’ll vote for the candidate seeking office, Rat or Rino, who dares to warn against the danger of Islam and who makes it part of his platform.
None of the congress critters dare to mention the increasing danger that the Muslim community poses to our country — these guys and gals live in their own world only seeking re-election.
Nothing else seems to matter to them.
I assumed nothing. I simply don’t expect many people to understand that. After 70 years on this planet all of that as a Christian I have some experience in that regard.
Thanks for the reply! I don’t disagree. Mine was a hasty post and I should have clarified better. I was just thinking that, men, women, children and their animals were all to be killed - but there were no innocents if God declares them guilty. There has really only been one innocent person and he was crucified.
The word (gibbowr) is used over 100 times in the Old Testament to describe God and different men in different situations.
It is a masculine adjective.
None of my examples included "law of the country".
>>does not mean that those going forth with that law (which says it is ok) doesn't necessarily make it ok.<<
What about a country that passes a law that says it's OK to kill babies? Who should defend those lives and by what means? Jesus said " go and buy a sword" for defense of their lives. Who defends the lives of babies in the womb and by what means?
The time for the defense of His life had ended as He understood that it was His time to die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.