Examples of non-Christian Moral systems.

Hi Schraff, here are some definitions of "christian" from the dictionary. Is that an objective enough source for you?Unlike a scotsman, "no true christian" holds wait because unlike the ridiculously over-simplified scotsman fallacy, the teachings of Christ are clear cut and offer no alternatives. I won't bore you with my preaching, but the list of do's and don'ts is extensive.How about; "No true scotsman would be born in England and live in England" - I feel that statement is more relevant to this situation we argue about regularly. You see, if Christ says "love your enemy", and the definition says, "following the religion based on Jesus' teachings", and he also says "woe unto them who are rich, for they have had their reward", plus; " the greatest of you shall be the least of you", then trying to gain power/wealth/atrocities, is I suppose; failing to be CHRISTian. The true scotsman statement that is relevant to this situation in reality, is very much my own one; "No true scotsman would be born in England and live in England".You see, Hangdawg fails to see the relation, between himself and such other people. And you yourself insist that we should go burn a witch with our talk, ...by regularly associating us with such people. Is it our fault that people who you would call christian, have failed to be christian?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-05-2004 07:07 PM

Did you miss this definition Dan?These are not my definitions remember, they are the dictionary's.To be "Christlike" is to live like he did and obey his teachings.One may believe he is a scotsman, living in England and being born in England. But professing scotsmanism, won't make him a scotsman.One might also visit England but that won't make him an englishman. Having been born in Scotland, and lived there for most of his life.

The problem here is, that we both think of christian as a different thing. Now quite clearly, I have atleast shown that sugar in one's porridge is in no way as problematic and/or similar to the "true christian" argument. Even Dan said there are many definitions in the dictionary...for christian, whereas the scotsman fallacy only has one definition to play with. Now just to clear things up, I only picked the dictionary as to have an objective source. There is no hole in this logic Jar, atleast. I would urge you to see this truth. Well, loving ones enemy and neighbour is the christian moral code, and is good. And I am sure you have tried it yourself. Whereas, you think the moral code would be whatever a man says, whom is professing christianity. You see, to you - the christian history would be one of bloodshed. But to me, what you are talking about is the history of man. If someone told me to read up on the history of Christianity, I would probably not find that history easily...it would be stuff like...the history of "Mother Theresa" type people, or even CHRISTlike people. Atleast see the logic.Even when I choose an objective source and show how this isn't a fallacy, the wisdom is rejected. You see, if a scotsman visits england and was born in scotland, and lives in scotland, then obviously he is one who might have sinned (english visit) - yet returned to Scotland (christian way). Whereas, if someone lives in England(sin), and was born there....and they claim scotsmanship,(christian way) --> then they are infact english.

Ahh. You mis-represent me..clever boy. But I will now interpret the sentence that you complain of; Interpretation; Why would someone proclaim sin? I talk of pople who proclaim christianity remember. You see, in this example it's just a backslidden christian.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-06-2004 01:41 PM

So what exactly do you want from me? What definition of christian would satisfy you? I tell you what, if you can make it so that the definition is someone violent and sinful, and everyone agrees, including the dictionary, THEN and only then will I be wrong.But for now, it remains an "out" in debate. It's so annoying and lame when your side says "this is the scotsman fallacy".You have to fault the general consensus amongst objective sources like a blinkin dictionary, concerning the definition. THINK about it, MY position is like saying; No true footballer would only play tennis." The key is the definition Dan. So the scotsman fallacy only annoys me cos it's so darn irrelevant.IF you can provide a definition od christian better than the dictionary then do so? What, are you saying their definitions are faulty, or is it more logical to say that the person failing the definition is at fault? it's like you're saying that there is no proper definition of footballer, so infact the tennis player is a footballer.I suppose like Jar, you might think a nazi axe murderer claims to be christian so he is? Yes??....If you do then you are failing to take ANY rational definition into acount.The truth is you just want to blame evil acts on christianity. But you have no logical basis in doing so. Every definition of christian given, has never supported atrocities/bloodshed.So why should christianity = murderers/crusades, if the definition mentions the opposite of that person's actions? Tell me now, where is the real failure? Is it the failure of the crusader to be christian? Or have you got a brand new definition of christian for me?Example; Dan says; "a christian is a cake-eater, and that is all"Then, in a hundred years, people are eating sprouts and someone else is saying; "look at all those christians, they eat sprouts ONLY".Where is the fault? Has a christian now became a sprout eater? Or, have they failed your definition?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-06-2004 08:21 PM

Would you agree that it should return to a more simpler form?Like;One who is a follower and believer of Christ and his teachings, and who obeys his Commandments.Would you agree that the definition used in the dictionary, "Christlike", is infact not a useful term, concerning wicked behaviour? For example, if you started beating me up and raping me, would I say, "Schraff is very Christlike"???You see, if I was using the scotsman fallacy, then I would be using an argument which is irrelevant to the definition. BUT, a wicked and evil person, though he might claim belief in Christ, is infact a failure of the list of dictionary definitions, which is extensive, because just claiming Christ isn't enough. Why? Because Christ said many would claim to believe in him and he would say "I never knew you". SO, a wicked person in my view, is not a true christian, because to be wicked is anti-Christ. Is that reasonable Schraff? Surely a christian would adhere to what Christ says about this? I read this carefully, yet the predicate of "wickedness and atrocious actions" IS contradictory of the definitions of christian. I know you're intelligent enough to see that.Now if someone said, "no true christian would tie his shoes so tightly" then obviously that's the scotsman fallacy. Unless you used this scripture; "I am not worthy to unloose his shoes" ^{Added info}This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-07-2004 02:33 PM

A christian like person.

Yet she is told to repent of her sins, so after the painful experience, if she henceforth sinned no more, and did not partake in wickedness/atrocities, and become peaceful and good (as most people's definition would incorporate), and believing - with faith, THEN she would be christian.Even satan acknowledges Jesus as Christ, yet he isn't a christian. And even Christ said many will claim to know him and believe, and yet he will say, "I never knew you".Besides this; Isn't it common sense, that a person who follows Christ or is Christlike, will obviously try to do as Christ says? Geez..I'm amazed you will miss this stuff, in preference of wanting it to be your own way.As for the dictionary, a chair can quite obviously mean different things, whereas this list of definitions for christian - is more of a list of attributions concerning the same thing. A christian is to be a list of attributes, it is I suppose, a culmination of qualities.
I mean, obviously we all know what we are talking about, if we say, "Jar is a christian".

It's not the dictionary that has screwed up. You see, this is quite simply common sense. Because we all know that a believer in Christ would also follow his teachings. So we don't need the dictionary for this common sense. Also, CHRIST himself says it's not enough. If we call him master, why then do we do not as he says......Deary me, Dan never did read the NT it seems.The definitions for christian are all given to decribe "christian" as one thing; that thing nevertheless is described through a criteria. Whereas "chair" could mean two different things. The list of definitions are required, yet in some cases a word might mean two things.For example; yellow is a colour. But if I say to you, "you're yellow" - Do I mean you have jaundice? Or do I mean you are a chicken?Yet, if a word such as lion is defined as "big cat" does that mean my pet which is a big cat, is a lion? By your logic it does. If a lion is described as a "brave man" does that mean that a brave man is the same thing as a big cat? Or are they two different things?Now christian? If one is a believer in Christ, then is he described as a believer in Christ, or a christian? Surely the former is more accurate.But nevertheless, if you had read my posts, you would see that I provided the dictionaries definitions as an objective source only. NOT as my own definition(s) of christian. And then Schraff said it's not acceptable, so I offered my own one, because you had jaundice when I asked you to give me a definition. And I see you weren't willing to take my little test.So listen, even if the dictionary had them as seperate things, that means a christian is five different things. Yet WE KNOW that a christian is a word used for one thing, unlike lion.So wickedness/atrocities are still not accurate definitions of christian, and they most definitely contradict what a christian is, even if someone did believe in Christ, by common sense, they would do as Christ said do, otherwise, why would they believe? Atheists don't believe in Christ Dan, because of what he says.You're obsessed with the dictionary, but it's no big deal. It was an objective source for Schraff. Shall I make another definition, with attributes in one sentence?

I say; You then say; So you agree that the one word can be defined in many ways, yet at no time does christian mean more than one thing? Isn't that my point? Exactly, which is what I'm saying, yet - as you point out, they are two different things. Whereas you cannot show such an example for the word "christian". I'm not sure you're understanding what I mean by this. I ask honestly though, are you reading quickly or something? Yes Dan, which is my point! Because a brave man(2) and a carnivorous animal(1) are two different things, SO LION CAN be a word used for two different things. We can call it lion 1(carnivorous animal) - And lion 2(brave man), and obviously - the numbers one and two represent the different meanings. But christian???? How could you confuse it? Please tell me. So obviously we are defining two different meanings for the word lion in a brave man and a carnivorous animal. So you've just proved that lion can mean two different things! You do know that was my point - right? Just incase you don't, here's what I said; So, I mean - you seem to have a desire to disagree about what we seem to in actual fact, well....agree about. (I'm confused). Maybe you were trying to show some kind of scotsman type situation with the lion and brave bloke, but that's not even what I suggested. You see, this constant comedy is infact not a true representation of my postings. I'm all for a bit of fun but WHAT!!!!! Is that supposed to refute me??? Wiz, bang, smoke, confusion.....Must be an American thing.Okay... Now I'll try to please you Dan; So, I guess if you've corrected me then you even still have the following problems;Now. Since these two incorporate his teachings, and his teachings are peaceful, it only takes a child to see that "wickedness/atrocities" is a contradictive predicate to the definition. Furthermore, your logic boat has left the island; Red = fatal flaw. Yet fatal flaw doesn't always = red.You have failed logically. If a christian(a) is one who professes belief in Jesus Christ(b), then that does NOT mean one who professes belief in Jesus Christ(b) is neccesarily a christian(a). B doesn't equal A, yet A = B. So you are infact arguing the converse.To give you an example of your flawed logic, if a human(a), is defined as a person(b), does that mean the word person must always mean/be a human?
Why ofcourse not, person might mean "Physique and general appearance". So you can now see that one who professes belief in Christ, is not necessarily a christian, yet a christian is a believer in Christ.Now just so you don't think I'm making this up, here's another example I made back in May; logic it's called, we use it occasionally. So you see, I can be sarcastic, but it don't prove anything acting a wise ass, yet logic sure does.Now then, here's my chance to make a strawman Dan, like you did when you claimed I perceive, "common sense overrides the dictionary". Infact my position is that I don't need a dictionary to have common sense. But you, (cough, cough)....well,ahem..common sense is independent of the diccy, is that clear enough? So hey - enjoy your dic, if it gives you common sense.Surely you don't think logic is wrong and you are right? I suggest you argue with Mr Spock concerning this.Infact here's a test for you Dan. And if you don't answer, don't expect either a post to you, in retort.....Wise cracks are insufficient, in comparison to this post. Is two minutes a period of time?Yes or No answers please. If you don't give an answer, then no reply from me.^{PS --> I require a full and proper answer to this post. Any more sarcasm, and I won't respond.}This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-09-2004 08:48 AM

I feel I will respond to your post, because, despite the comedy, it is atleast a good post, worthy of the one I made. No. The point I am making is that infact the dictionary has a list of attributes, though they are all definitions with differences, the word "christian"....well,....ahem...still means ONE thing. Do we mean different things by christian Dan? If I say, "I am christian", - is it the same as me saying, "I am yellow"? I put it as lion 1 and lion 2 so that you could get what I am actually arguing Dan.You have to realize, I don't need the dictionary to "think" that a word like "christian" has one meaning, with many definitions,- obviously attributes, whereas a word like "lion" or "fine" might have more than one meaning. If I am wrong, SIMPLY SHOW ME the different examples of christian. Show me how everyone gets confused when I say, "I am a christian"!!! No no naughty boy...we are dealing with the word christian. So, can I use that logic when suggesting a creationist is indeed a scientist? Thanks !..., So let's look at it again; Why doesn't it give another definition instead of putting "or"? Obviously they are putting definitions in the same sentence eh!Obviously there is a need for a list of attributions within one sentence, or even in a list. Geez!! Then why is the religion based on his teachings. Common sense has left you, if you think christians don't listen and do what Christ says. So I disagree. No. You miss the bit of thought that comes after the "converse part" of my post. My WHOLE POINT is that it is incorporating MORE than just one who professes belief in Jesus Christ as it's definition of Christian - therefore making the converse essential to the point I am making.So it is NOT saying b=a. You are!!!! It is not saying that all who professes belief in Jesus Christ are christians OR!!! It would NOT incorporate those other definitions and/or incorporation of more explanations in ONE SENTENCE. You were right the first time when you said; UNLESS that was the ONLY definition/attribute noted. I hope you see what I mean because you came close to understanding how I am thinking there.If I define lion as "carnivorous animal that doesn't mean I am saying that all carnivorous animals, are lions. UNLESS that is the only definition given. Here's what I mean, ho hum;The earth is a planet would you agree?, yet all planets are not earth. Unless "planet" is described only as earth. SO earth can be defined as a planet but we must not use the converse and assume that the definition of earth means that all planets are also earth.In response to my question; "Is two minutes a period of time?"You answered; Now here is a seperate question; Is a period of time two minutes? Not necessarily!!!!If "period of time" is described as two minutes only then I promise to eat my socks. I'm only applying the same logic to anything I come across. like with christian and earth. So am I fair. Infact, I feel that my logic shows that I would more accurately describe you as coming closer to christian than a murderer would. And infact, I even admitted how impressive the "good works" of atheist are, in another thread. So hey, I prefer to spend etternity with a sarcastic goon rather than an axe murderer? Am I really in need of puppets because of my position?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-09-2004 10:57 AM

Dan, I promise that I did not go back in time and create this post,here but could I request that you read it? It's not very long, and notice the date I made the post. I know you feel I am just "making" my own definition or abusing the dictionaries ones, but hopefully you can see from the link that my own definition was far greater than anyone elses in the history of man. Ahahahahaha! ROFL. So tell me Dan, if I am not a catholic or a protestant, yet I am christian just HOW is catholic/protestant important to the word christian? Can we use me as my example, cos I really am neither! So, if I say to you I am "christian", I guess there is a bg struggle in your mind and you get all confused as to what I am. Then why doesn't it say "one who professes belief in Jesus Christ" as it's only definition.Also, you disregard my logic by saying it's not appilicable, and have not even addressed/refuted an ounce of it. You have to show me that I am wrong about earth being a planet.Also, you said yes to two minutes being a period of time, yet surely you can see that not all periods of time are two minutes. Should I abandon this logic cos you say I am at odds with the english language? And just how am I at odds, I've used the dictionary correctly, and it notes a number of definitions for the one group we call "christian".You failed to address the earth and planet example, and so I guess I should stick to logic then.I now require that you prove that a period of time is always two minutes.However, you can realize your error and note that you infact said that all who profess a belief in Christ are christian. Therefore, by your own logic, I should conclude that all periods of time are two minutes. Wow. I've always wanted to be a scientist. Thanks! I thought it would never be that an evo would admitt this! What a victory. roflmao. Listen. If you think someone who says "I am christian" and goes and kills someone/rapes etc, IS a genuine christian rather than taking the piss out of real christians by saying he is, then that's up to you. Meanwhile I'll say he's a fake and stick to logic, and what I said in that link. I see you think the definition comes first (a). So I guess dictionaries aren't useful by your logic. You have to define christian remember, you have to say a christian is......a - But I don't need to remember, as I would be asking what (a) is, which seems to be ruled out by your comments."Learn how to use a dictionary" is none - answer, to the in-depth logic I have shown. If the best you can do is insult me, then that speaks volumes about your ego, but doesn't suffice as a refutation.It's all very well to keep acting a goon and trying to make me look silly. But I find a truly intelligent person, needs not endeavour such egotistical nonsense. I hope your pride's intact, as long as you realize, that "learn how to do this, or I'll get my puppets out" doesn't even begin to touch the tip of my iceburg. Are you saying that my definition, is not at all similar to the dictionaries? Maybe you should read that link. This is all evasive posting from you Dan. You concentrate on making out I'm failing to comprehend the english language and can't use a dictionary, without infact saying anything that proves your point.If you think acting a comedian will somehow remove my logic then hec, keep laughing.....but I think that you're just trying to make me look bad/silly. That in itself will only prove your intentions. And all this despite my comments of how an atheist might even be more christian. I must ask why you attack me so?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-09-2004 11:56 AM

No Dan, "you're an idiot" won't remove or refute logic itself. Nor will it get me heated, like you have become. It's okay to become heated because you are frustrated cos you can't refute this. I understand that. You agian fail to understand. I am not saying there is one definition, I am saying there is one meaning, with a few definitions or attributions. There's a difference. I have shown it. Just the SAME as the earth is a planet, but a planet is not necessarily an earth. Even if you say there are two types of christian, the dictionary doesn't include protestant or catholic as a definition of christian, like it included "brave man" for lion. So they are meaningless to the word christian. A catholic is a catholic, and a protestant is a protestant.If a christian is one who professes belief in Christ ONLY, then I will agree that one who professes belief in Christ is ALWAYS a christian. In the same way, I will agree that all planets are earth, if earth is described as simply, "a planet" ONLY.So then, logically; "one" definition OF many will not fully describe a christian. One who believes in Christ, or says he does, might not be a christian because christian ALSO is defined as one who follows his teachings. Obviously my own definition is more clear about that truth. But all I'm saying is that all of the definitions are required.Also, I DID notice you switched it from "one" to "all" and now what, it isn't "all"? Yet YOU said; So I'm glad you can see that one who professes it, might well not be it, and that the logic is sound. I agree that it may well be a simple process to say b = a. Because it might fit a given situation, LIKE IF a christian was described only as a professor. Lol. No. Read carefully, I said you are trying to make me look silly.I fI have ignored anything please give an in-depth explanation.I think you are saying that one is described as a person who professes belief in Christ. It's very easy to say, "but surely that's silly, just look how simple b equaling a looks". But logic proves that the converse is true.If a description of christian is given as a person who professes belief........, then you would automatically think that surely then, that one who professes such and such, is a christian. BUT! the contra-positive is infact, "No believing in Christ = no christian". So what we are doing, is breaking down a situation that might appear simple.AHAHAHAHAHAThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-09-2004 01:51 PM

Yes, I think I agree with that.The only thing I would suggest though, is that we don't rule out the converse completely because;"Similarly, a person who believes in Christ is a Christian."Yet even satan believes in Christ, so is he a christian? No!!So I think that those other definitions are needed.However, it is a good point you made; YES!...so obviously the person has changed but not the definition of christian. So I think those accusing us of this "scotsman fallacy" are not fully observing what we are saying, and therefore, I think we are not using this fallacy. Because, I think it's fair to say that those who believe in Christ would naturally do as he says do, and THEN they might earn the title "christian". Would you agree, you being a christian, (the horses mouth)- that adhering to what Christ says is always a part of being christian?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-09-2004 02:23 PM

So we've established that adhering to Christ's words is always a part of being christian. And believing in Christ is INDEED always a part of being christian. (^{Afterall, I admitted the contra-positive would be; NO belief in Christ = no christian}) So I feel by saying those things that I have now tried to half agree with Dan.Yet, one who adheres to his words, may not necessarily be one. For example, I think Loudmouth says he follows his teachings somewhat, yet he is not a christian.In the same way with the satan example. One may believe in him, but not follow what he says. Though I still think most who "profess" to believe in him, and murder etc..are just liars.This means that it must take both A"adhering" and B"believing" to be a Christian.A + B = CA = C, not necessarilyB = C, not necessarily. A + B seem to make C.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-10-2004 03:20 PM