"We just want Jews to be perfected."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

There are Christian sects (Universalism being the main one) that believe that good works can spare you from damnation and the faith in Jesus isn't absolutely required.

That doesn't in any way weaken Premise 1. Christians don't convert others only because their souls are in danger of eternal damnation; it's also a good to spread the truth, and help people do good works with faith in Jesus.

Errr... riiiight. I'm sure most Christians try to convert others because they believe their souls are in danger. 'Spreading the truth' doesn't lead to things like Inquisitions.

[Kuciwalker]

Who is advocating inquisitions?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Pelagius, an early church scholar, believed you became righteous by good works and following Jesus' life, not by believing in his divinity. Until Augustine, this type of believe was not considered heterodoxy to the Roman Catholic church.

If you restrict the acceptable Christians to only those who believe this, you're really saying: "Christians are okay, but ONLY if they are really just humanists who occasionally make noises about God, but never admit he should have any influence on our wordly decisions."

Yeeeahh... because all Christians who believe God should have some influence (you did say "ANY influence" after all) on our wordly decisions think we should convert everyone.

Let's make it easy on you. Personally, I think the Christians that activally want to convert everyone and think that if they don't, the non-converted are going to Hell, are not ok for our liberal society. If you think that makes me "non-tolerant" to Christians, that's silly... I'm not tolerant to some Christians if anything, who read their Bible in a certain way, which is not shared by all Christians.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Rather than making her point that she was "ambushed"... this just makes her incredibly more scary. The ideal country being one where everyone is a Christian is just nuts and on par with some of the crazy Muslim fundies she likes to rail against.

Actually I have no problem with the idea that Muslims want to convert all of us to their religion. It's the method of killing and terrorizing us to do so that I have a problem with.

[Arrian]

Question: Why is calling a religion dumb bigotry? I've seen this general tendency to respond to criticism of belief by calling it bigotry*.

Yet one chooses one's beliefs, or should. I mean, I've no doubt lots of people were "born" Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. and never thought about it but that's pretty obviously bad and worthy of ridicule in its own right.

If I say communism is wrong and mock a commie for his/her beliefs, I'm not called a bigot, and rightfully so. I may be wrong, or a jerk, but that's another matter.

If I say that Christianity (or a particular sect, or a particular Christian belief) is stupid and mock a Christian for his/her beliefs, I'm a bigot? I don't ****ing think so.

-Arrian

* - Kuci's comment is different b/c he sets it up as "Christians are acceptable..." Disagreeing with that essentially makes you a fan of Goodthink (or whatever it was called in 1984).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeeeahh... because all Christians who believe God should have some influence (you did say "ANY influence" after all) on our wordly decisions think we should convert everyone.

If Christianity is not universal, then it should have little or no effect on our worldly decisions. If Christianity is universal, then everyone should be Christian. You're going to need a very nuanced, special sect of Christianity to take the first case (non-universal Christianity) and still give it significant implications for non-Christians' behavior.

Let's make it easy on you. Personally, I think the Christians that activally want to convert everyone and think that if they don't, the non-converted are going to Hell, are not ok for our liberal society.

The latter part was not implied by Coulter's statement, nor any part of my argument.

[Lorizael]

Kuci: Premise 1 requires a universally acceptable source from which we can derive the tenets common to the various Christian religions.

You have dismissed the sources brought up so far, so what do you believe this source is? Challenging your first premise is nearly impossible without identifying an origin for these common tenets you describe.

Disclaimer: You cannot simply say The Bible is the source, because that document, taken as a whole, is open to far too much interpretation to be useful here.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
* - Kuci's comment is different b/c he sets it up as "Christians are acceptable..." Disagreeing with that essentially makes you a fan of Goodthink (or whatever it was called in 1984).

I think Christianity is silly. But, I think it's absurd (particularly in our society) to label Christians as bad people.

[Arrian]

Conclusion 1: from Premise 2 and Premise 3: Christians who believe the logical conclusions of the tenets of Christianity are acceptable in society, or at the very least preferable to Christians who don't believe the logical conclusions of their own axioms.

Actually, I much prefer the Christians who don't believe the logical conclusions of their own axioms. The ones who do are bothersome.

Conclusion 2: from Conclusion 1 and Premise 1: Christians who believe that everyone would be best off as Christians are acceptable in society, or at the very least preferable to Christians who don't believe that everyone would best off as Christians.

Again, I much prefer the second group.

And yet I agree hypocrisy is bad. How can this BE?



-Arrian

[Shrapnel12]

big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uh-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Though I hold the same opinions as you do towards communism Arrian, as you can see, we are bigots for criticizing communism. Don't take it personally though. I'm learning more an more how words are used to make people look bad. I'm personally tired of labels. Calling people racist, sexist, bigots. Using words like torture and indoctrination. It sensationalization because the offenders can't think of a decent arguement for their point of view.

[Arrian]

I would argue, therefore, that there are two possibilities:

1) The dictionary definition for bigotry is outmoded.

2) We should be called bigots by the commies, and commies called bigots by the evil capitalist conservatives, and so on and so forth. Basically, everyone's a bigot. Yay!

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

"Stubborn and complete intolerance" would seem to preclude anyone who reasons that communism is wrong but could change their opinion if presented with evidence. I don't see anything wrong that definition.

[Arrian]

Merriam-Webster definition:

bigot



Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Thank you Lorizael, for a response that actually speaks to the argument

Originally posted by Lorizael
Kuci: Premise 1 requires a universally acceptable source from which we can derive the tenets common to the various Christian religions.

It's fairly simple: look at any Christian* denomination of any significance (i.e. I'm not going to care about 3 guys in a basement somewhere), find the core truths most or all of them accept, and that is your set of common tenets. Things like the divinity of Christ (I believe a very small minority of Christians* actually deny this)

* in this place, and this place only, I use Christian to mean "groups that label themselves as Christian." I will make it very clear if I reuse this meaning. Elsewhere, Christian means "groups that share all the common tenets previously identified (e.g. NOT people who reject the divinity of Jesus)". The justification is that I'm not going to accept any argument which can conclude that a huge proportion of our society is unacceptable. So you can't pick some tiny sect and say "THESE ones are good, so I'm not anti-Christian, I'm only anti- some Christians".

You have dismissed the sources brought up so far, so what do you believe this source is? Challenging your first premise is nearly impossible without identifying an origin for these common tenets you describe.

See above. If Imran (or anyone) can demonstrate either that a significant proportion of Christians do not believe in tenets sufficient to derive Coulter's conclusion, or that an interpretation of the gospels that is accepted by a significant proportion of Christians logically concludes that Christianity is not universal, I will accept that Premise 1 is false.

Disclaimer: You cannot simply say The Bible is the source, because that document, taken as a whole, is open to far too much interpretation to be useful here.

I have dealt with this disclaimer appropriately, I think

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Lorizael
"Stubborn and complete intolerance" would seem to preclude anyone who reasons that communism is wrong but could change their opinion if presented with evidence. I don't see anything wrong that definition.

There is some wiggle room in there, sure. I could argue that my rejection of Christianity is not due to "stubborn and complete intolerance" but rather a reasoned examination of the evidence/arguments, and of course my own experiences.

I still think that definition matches up poorly with how "bigot" is used today.

-Arrian