• Florida Gun Shop Now “Muslim Free Zone"
    51 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Snarbolax;48270772]I can guess he's probably going to be going out of business soon enough.[/QUOTE] I'm not so sure, a lot of people will probably visit the business solely because of this. I recall a gunstore banning Muslims before and getting all kinds of loons driving from afar to give the store their business.
[QUOTE=gufu;48272994]A minority is still part of something. Can't "No True Scotsman" someone away from your main group, I am afraid.[/QUOTE] What? I don't think you understand what the no true scotsman fallacy is. The entire point of the fallacy is that a person makes a universal argument (like: "No Christian would do X"), someone points out a Christian who does X, and then the person dismisses the argument by saying that they aren't a true Christian. So they don't apply. I've done the exact opposite. I've argued that they aren't true Christians because they don't follow the theology and doctrine within Christianity, which is a legitimate form of argumentation.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48273053] I've done the exact opposite. I've argued that they aren't true Christians because they don't follow the theology and doctrine within Christianity, which is a legitimate form of argumentation.[/QUOTE] It's a form of it, still, since you claim they are not Christians, because they don't follow certain specifics of the religion. However, same idea can be claimed by, for example, catholic, against protestant. And besides a number, how exactly are they not Christian?
[QUOTE=sgman91;48273053]What? I don't think you understand what the no true scotsman fallacy is. The entire point of the fallacy is that a person makes a universal argument (like: "No Christian would do X"), someone points out a Christian who does X, and then the person dismisses the argument by saying that they aren't a true Christian. So they don't apply. I've done the exact opposite. I've argued that they aren't true Christians because they don't follow the theology and doctrine within Christianity, which is a legitimate form of argumentation.[/QUOTE] They do follow the theology though. They just interpret it differently than christians whose morals disagree with them. It's a matter of feelings that people hold that interpret the scripture a certain way. You can say a lot of the wbc beliefs about homosexuality are wrong based off jesus's alleviations of the old law, but that's a copout if you are really trying to argue that god sees nothing wrong with homosexuality. People's morals in the 21st century are reinterpreting the bible to fit their beliefs.
[QUOTE=gufu;48273144]It's a form of it, still, since you claim they are not Christians, because they don't follow certain specifics of the religion. However, same idea can be claimed by, for example, catholic, against protestant. And besides a number, how exactly are they not Christian?[/QUOTE] No, saying that a person shouldn't be considered part of a group for actual reasons has nothing to do with the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I'm sure you can find tons on the WBC with Google since basically all Christians everywhere are opposed to them. I would rather no take this thread that far off topic. [editline]22nd July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ltp0wer;48273196]They do follow the theology though. They just interpret it differently than christians whose morals disagree with them. It's a matter of feelings that people hold that interpret the scripture a certain way. You can say a lot of the wbc beliefs about homosexuality are wrong based off jesus's alleviations of the old law, but that's a copout if you are really trying to argue that god sees nothing wrong with homosexuality. People's morals in the 21st century are reinterpreting the bible to fit their beliefs.[/QUOTE] The beliefs of modern day protestants are almost the same as those of extremely early Christians. If you would like to do actual research instead of regurgitating atheist talking points, I would challenge you to read Justin Martyr, the Apology of Aristides, Ignatius, etc. and see how remarkably similar Christian theology is today as it was back then.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48273201]No, saying that a person shouldn't be considered part of a group for actual reasons has nothing to do with the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I'm sure you can find tons on the WBC with Google since basically all Christians everywhere are opposed to them. I would rather no take this thread that far off topic.[/QUOTE] That's like saying Hitler wasn't Catholic, because he caused the Holocaust. That's not how religious membership works. Anyone can claim to be any religion, and no one can stop them, no matter how deviant they may be from some of the practices.
Being a gun selling business in Florida, he's not losing any customers. He'll gain them, if anything.
[QUOTE=gufu;48273226]That's not how religious membership works.[/QUOTE] Who are you to make that claim? That isn't how most religions define their own membership. Generally, there are specific things that you need to believe/do to correctly be referred to as part of a religion. Christianity very specificly defines it's members both by what they say AND what they do. The Bible clearly excludes those who claim belief, but act in a way inconsistent with that belief.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48273245]Who are you to make that claim? That isn't how most religions define their own membership. Generally, there are specific things that you need to believe/do to correctly be referred to as part of a religion. Christianity very specificly defines it's members both by what they say AND what they do. The Bible clearly excludes those who claim belief, but act in a way inconsistent with that belief.[/QUOTE] Alright, let's make this interesting then. Which specific churches are then considered "True Christian Churches". Since the line is so obvious, you should have easy time specifying them.
[QUOTE=gufu;48273272]Alright, let's make this interesting then. Which specific churches are then considered "True Christian Churches". Since the line is so obvious, you should have easy time specifying them.[/QUOTE] That's not really relevant and would take the thread way off topic. Honestly, this whole thing is off topic. I think I've made my basic point clearly enough. Go ahead and have the last word. I won't respond on this line anymore.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48273288]That's not really relevant and would take the thread way off topic. Honestly, this whole thing is off topic. I think I've made my basic point clearly enough. Go ahead and have the last word. I won't respond on this line anymore.[/QUOTE] This is a topic that contains discussion pertaining to religion. This discussion is entirely relevant. You still can't make an actual point as always, claiming that you made your point clear enough (hint: You never do). And see you next thread where you'll be protecting another member of a very specific population.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48273201]No, saying that a person shouldn't be considered part of a group for actual reasons has nothing to do with the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I'm sure you can find tons on the WBC with Google since basically all Christians everywhere are opposed to them. I would rather no take this thread that far off topic. [editline]22nd July 2015[/editline] The beliefs of modern day protestants are almost the same as those of extremely early Christians. If you would like to do actual research instead of regurgitating atheist talking points, I would challenge you to read Justin Martyr, the Apology of Aristides, Ignatius, etc. and see how remarkably similar Christian theology is today as it was back then.[/QUOTE] Not that I agree with you but if I did, saying modern day protestants are the same as early Christianity should be an insult to modern protestants. Either way, it's all bullshit interpretations that fit whatever reality the people at the time desired. Why don't you tell me how similar they are instead of telling me what to believe. It all seems like bullshit to me.
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;48273306]Not that I agree with you but if I did, saying modern day protestants are the same as early Christianity should be an insult to modern protestants. Either way, it's all bullshit interpretations that fit whatever reality the people at the time desired. Why don't you tell me how similar they are instead of telling me what to believe. It all seems like bullshit to me.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to go through every doctrine of Christianity and compare it to early Christian writings. If you're actually interested, then go put in the footwork and do some research yourself. I gave you multiple names to look up.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48273364]I'm not going to go through every doctrine of Christianity and compare it to early Christian writings. If you're actually interested, then go put in the footwork and do some research yourself. I gave you multiple names to look up.[/QUOTE] If you make claims, you gotta back them up, you know.
I want everyone to know, I was a lot like sgman91. Just because people are christian doesn't mean they are incapable of change. Facepunch helped me with my Christianity a lot, I hope everyone has their moment of clarity, but seriously fp helped me. Thank you so much.. I owe a lot to the people that were posting in GD around 09. Thank you so much, honestly. [editline]22nd July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48273364]I'm not going to go through every doctrine of Christianity and compare it to early Christian writings. If you're actually interested, then go put in the footwork and do some research yourself. I gave you multiple names to look up.[/QUOTE] The burden is on you though.
[QUOTE=JerryK;48271352]yo can we not pretend like muslims are somehow genetically more prone to terrorism than other humans thanks [/QUOTE][QUOTE=JerryK;48271378]everytime there's a story about muslims being discriminated against or really just about muslims in general there's always people saying something along the lines of what you said, as if muslims need to be catered to and will suddenly go blow themselves up because someone dumb did something dumb i know you mean well truly, but it doesn't help the situation, if anything it aggravates it by setting muslims into their group that seemingly need to be viewed in a different light[/QUOTE]Except for the past, oh, thirty? years the vast majority of violent religious extremism has been perpetuated by Muslims. Stop pretending like it doesn't exist because, there are socioeconomic, religious, and political reasons for today's Islamic terrorism that can be traced back to the 1960's. I could explain all of it in great detail, but I've already done that several times and I don't feel like combing over the Qur'an again to explain why things are the way they are. [QUOTE=gufu;48273272]Alright, let's make this interesting then. Which specific churches are then considered "True Christian Churches". Since the line is so obvious, you should have easy time specifying them.[/QUOTE] Let me introduce you to a simple word that completely absolves your argument: heresy See, religions [i]do[/i] actually define who's a part of them and who's not, and the outcasts are usually considered cults and usually ostracized because they're outcasts for a reason. Technically Mormons are Christians by strict definition of "oh they recognize Jesus" but going by that definition Muslims are Christians too, though Jesus to them is a bit different. (the theology is different, Jesus isn't God in human format but instead he's a prophet like Mohammed) A large share of Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christian, and up until very fucking recently have churches actually officially recognized Mormons as fellow Christians, but only for the protestant denominations. See, the older flavors of Christianity consider Mormons to be cultists or out-right heretics and I doubt Mormons will ever fully be accepted by them. You might be wondering why this is, and it's actually kind of a complex answer. Mormons automatically have the whole "well Joe Smith was probably a crazy con artist" thing and then there's the polygamy issue, but on the strictly theological level Joseph Smith conflicts with the plan laid out in the Bible. Jesus is the [i]last[/i] prophet and he's the son of God, he showed up to be the sacrificial lamb to wash our sins away and basically make the concept of original sin null and void and the silly fucking rules of the Old Testament are also defunct. Basically this means that from that point on God's plan was in motion and it's basically gonna play out like it says in the Bible, and nowhere does it say some guy finds some fucking gold tablets and talks to angels and has adventures out in the American wilderness. Plus there's another problem, since he's now a prophet that [i]directly[/i] fucks with the whole Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost thing that's a big deal in Christianity. This rubs a lot of Christians the wrong way because of commandment #1: don't worship false idols and worship no god before me, etc etc. That's not the only way this can happen though. See, you wouldn't call a Baptist a Catholic because they have one striking difference: the Vatican. Baptists, like all protestant denominations, do not recognize the Pope as basically the general manager of the world and he's the guy you go to so you don't bother the boss. This goes back to the very root of protestantism in that people used to pray [i]only[/i] at church and it was a daily affair, and honestly people got real sick and tired of the priests, cardinals, and bishops having all this power and charging them spiritual rent all the damn time. I'm paraphrasing a lot here, but the end of the story is people started taking their faith into their own hands and it ended in a [u]lot[/u] of religious violence that still goes on today. Basically the deal is you absolutely cannot be Catholic if you don't recognize the whole system Catholicism has going, it isn't a "eh, whatever you feel like" religion. I would explain the whole Shia vs Sunni thing, but I don't feel like spending a couple hours on it. Essentially it's kind of like the Catholic vs Protestant thing, but it's a bit different in that Muslims place [i]huge[/i] emphasis on Mohammed and his example. (sunnah) You know how nobody can depict Mohammed and Muslims get ripshit pissed about it? That's because he said at one point to never draw him because he didn't want to get in the way of people properly worshiping Allah. So essentially the whole sunnah thing has turned Mohammed into this big deal which seems contrary to what he wanted. This is where Sunni Islam comes from, by the way, and there's a [i]reason[/i] why the craziest of the crazies are Sunni extremists because the whole thing is wrapped up in holding Mohammed up as an example for all Muslims to follow. Hadiths are basically accounts of everything Mohammed said or did and these form the basis of sharia law, so as you might expect stuff from 500 AD doesn't fucking mesh with progressive, Western culture [i]at all.[/i] Funny thing though, all the scientific and mathematical advances that were accomplished in the Middle East would not have been possible under the absolute strict rule of today's extremists. It's extra hilarious (and extra sad) if you realize that a lot of them can be traced back to Islam itself, a lot of the scholars were ultra religious.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48274591] Let me introduce you to a simple word that completely absolves your argument: heresy [/QUOTE] See, while I thank you for the history lesson we all know about, religions change, and what's considered heresy tends to be downgraded over time. Just like Protestan version of Christianity was considered heresy at one point of time, much less the same word being put against any deviation in dogma, no matter how minor (Jebus is actually god/just son) or major (an entirely different religion).
[QUOTE=usaokay;48270860][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhSxkwKgVTo[/media][/QUOTE] Crash was a really good movie. So many intense scenes, and an amazing cast.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.