Mystery
New member
Good riddance, you perv.
10 things I'm right about, whether you agree or not.
- Thread starter Mystery
- Start date
Evoken
New member
1-Nobody is saved while on earth. If you die in a state of grace you are saved, if not, you are damned.
2-No, when you die your eternal destiny is set.
Evo
We can have confidance and assurance from the Spirit and the Word based on God's faithfulness. If we come to Him on His terms, we can know we are saved (I Jn. 5:11-13 present tense, now eternal life). We should emphasize the security of the believer to those who believe, even if they struggle. God's grace is sufficient. We should not give false assurance to those who deny Christ and His finished work, even if they once believed in the distant past. Funny how the OSAS people will not question someone's salvation for years, even Christian leadership, but if they die far from Christ, they will say they were never really saved?!
Issues of reciprocal love relationships and reconciliation between personal beings are NOT parallel to cause-effect laws with cars and bells.
I am pleased you have found a new whipping post who is dumber than I am:king:
Evoken
New member
Yep, no true scotsman fallacy.
BillH: Answer the boy, then quit wasting your time banging your head against his wall (speaking from experience, though I do not take my own advice).
Are you Roman Catholic?
Mystery
New member
Of course he is, he agrees with you.
Mystery
New member
I have already fully proved the "no true scotsman fallacy" to be a fallacy. It's meaningless.
Evoken
New member
I answered your questions to BillH, is there anything else troubling your mind?
By the way, do you know Pacino claims to be a Catholic?
Evo
I am not Catholic, as you know, except in our Christology, like you. I am Protestant evangelical and find many things about RC to be tradition, not truth.
I suppose you cut his tongue out so you must answer for him?
Mystery
New member
"No True Scotsman"
Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.
The truth of a proposition depends on its adequacy to its object ("Is the drawing a true likeness of Antony Flew?"). The truth of an object depends on its adequacy to its concept ("Is the figure drawn on the paper a true triangle?"). Problems arise when the definition of the concept has no generally accepted form, for example when it is vague or contested.
"A true Scotsman" (a concept) is not on the same level as "a true triangle" (a concept) never mind "the true Antony Flew" (a concrete existing object). The formal similarity, "true X", and the corresponding feeling that the concepts should be on the same level, in some sense must be on the same level (even perhaps all exist as objects), motivates the fallacy. It is a short step from that feeling to treating one's own definition of a "true Scotsman" (who else's?) as having the same objectivity as that of a geometrical figure or an existing individual, and then attempting to make the world agree.
Using the context of culture, individuals of any particular religion, for example, may tend to employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.
Some elements or actions are clearly contradictory to the subject, and therefore aren't fallacies. The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian": Eating meat, by definition, disqualifies a (present-tense) categorization among vegetarians, and the further value judgement between a "true vegetarian" and the implied "false vegetarian" cannot likewise be categorized as a fallacy, given the clear disjunction.
In order for the "No True Scotsman fallacy" to apply, there has to first be the assumption that there is no such thing as an objectively defined "Christian", which is clearly not the case, except in the minds of those who do not know what a Christian is. Simply because a majority of people fail to define what is a "Christian" does not negate that there is an absolute object that exists.
Christianity has nothing to do with what someone does or does not do, but what they are. It is a distinct immovable identity that cannot be altered by opinion.
It is just as easy to define a "true" Christian as it is to define one that is not.
When somone claims that there are "former Christians", then they deny the objective reality of the identity of a Christian.
Thx, mystery, for the R-rated, neg rep. It would be more helpful to interact with my ideas instead of the death threats and ad hominem attacks.
You are welcome for not posting it publicly to humiliate you.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Can TOL Admin read the reps shared amongst members?
I just received a very wicked one from Mystery, too.
If he openly posted what he rep'd I would think he would be banned. :banned:
Nang
Mystery
New member
You big :baby:
You brought my wife into the discussion, which is inappropriate. You got what you deserve, and if I am banned for it, so be it. If we were face to face, I'd say it again. If we were in public, I'd say it publicaly. You are only slightly less of one that Rosie O'Donnell, but you're gaining on her.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
You brought my husband into the discussion first, in case you have forgotten.
Same to you, fella. But you cannot take what you dish out, can you? :baby:
So the Admins can and do read the reps? I hope so. I hope they compare them, too, from person to person.
Not if my husband were face to face with you, you wouldn't.
No doubt. You are an unrepentant, habitual sinner, who has been verbally abusing me in public on TOL for weeks . . .even after saying you wanted to begin anew in dialogue with me and promised you would edit previous insults (which you never did).
You deserve to be permanently banned, IMO . . .if not for the integrity of TOL, but for Christ's name sake.
Nang
Mystery
New member
You know what, you are right. I did, without even realizing it. I was so focused on you being the subject, that it did not dawn on me that I mentioned him. I was just thinking about you having something else you could nag at.
The husband comment sounds innocent enough.
HappyCetacean
New member
This post is a perfect example of why my motto is true.