Inquisitors, Christianity, and murder

[Ray Martinez]

Make no mistake this topic is directed primarily at Peter Nyikos, and to a lesser degree Jillery. Concerning Peter, he is basically capricious. One just never knows which side of the bed he will get up on? So in case he gets up on the right side of the bed, defined as responding to messages in a timely manner, not cutting them up beyond recognition, or changing the basic structure of the format, and importing long exchanges from other topics into his messages, all of which contribute to destroying context, I wish to engage him in the subject matter seen in the title.


Because of these posting sins briefly alluded to in the above paragraph, I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.


My true and original position:


Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.


IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ. So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ. For when a person murders another person or persons they are not following Christ. So the secular voices who say the Inquisitors were Christians and murderers are refuted. No where in the New Testament does Christ condone murder.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 2/3/16 1:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Make no mistake this topic is directed primarily at Peter Nyikos, and
> to a lesser degree Jillery. Concerning Peter, he is basically
> capricious. One just never knows which side of the bed he will get up
> on? So in case he gets up on the right side of the bed, defined as
> responding to messages in a timely manner, not cutting them up beyond
> recognition, or changing the basic structure of the format, and
> importing long exchanges from other topics into his messages, all of
> which contribute to destroying context, I wish to engage him in the
> subject matter seen in the title.
>
>
> Because of these posting sins briefly alluded to in the above
> paragraph, I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the
> Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on
> from here in this topic.
>
>
> My true and original position:
>
>
> Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering
> Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a
> false religion populated with hypocrites.
>
>
> IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder
> cannot be following Christ. So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same
> time, be murderers and followers of Christ. For when a person murders
> another person or persons they are not following Christ.

For your "So..." just below to actually make sense you need a further
caveat. You need to stipulate that someone not following Christ cannot
be a Christian, and you need to explain to what degree (or length of
time) that applies.

The last part is important because without it you are free to insist
that Christians never fail to follow Christ (as in commit murder)
because when they do so they cannot be Christian. Surely you can see how
this would amount to an embarrassingly daft, ethical
get-out-of-jail-free card.

So let me ask, when someone who calls himself a Christian commits murder
(or falls away from Christ in some other way),

- is he nevermore a Christian, or,
- is he not a Christian for some set duration, or,
- is he not a Christian until he repents, or,
- is he not a Christian for just the moment of his commission and goes
right back to being a Christian once it's over, or,
- does he retroactively become never-was-a-Christian?

(In case you're wondering...yes, this is yet another example of me
trying to get you to recognize your profligate use of the
No-True-Scotsman fallacy.)

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/3/16 2:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Make no mistake this topic is directed primarily at Peter Nyikos, and to a lesser degree Jillery. Concerning Peter, he is basically capricious. One just never knows which side of the bed he will get up on? So in case he gets up on the right side of the bed, defined as responding to messages in a timely manner, not cutting them up beyond recognition, or changing the basic structure of the format, and importing long exchanges from other topics into his messages, all of which contribute to destroying context, I wish to engage him in the subject matter seen in the title.
>
>
> Because of these posting sins briefly alluded to in the above paragraph, I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.
>
>
> My true and original position:

For the moment, anyway. I'm sure Ray's "true and original" position
will change once someone calls him on his errors.

>
>
> Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians.

Actually, what "secular voices" point out is that the Inquisition
performed acts such as torture and executions in the name of
Christianity. These acts were, at the time considered legal and
endorsed by the Church. These acts, today are seen as morally wrong,
and in contrast to the message of Christ.

> Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.

No, that's not what the "secular voices" are saying. What they are
saying is that the history of Christianity has episodes of people
justifying horrific acts in the name of Christ. Saying that Christians
can't ever commit moral atrocities is falsified by historical examples.

>
>
> IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ.

That ignores the point that people who claim to be following Christ have
committed violent and horrible acts and justified that behavior by
claiming authority from God.

The Inquisition was not committing "murder" because their acts were done
legally, and under the authority of the Church.

What they did was not right, or moral, and is in violation of the spirit
of Christ's teachings. Yet they did what they did while thinking they
were doing God's will.

> So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ.

But they can be people who though they were doing God's will. They
thought their actions were justified, and they undoubtedly felt that God
would forgive them. They believed that God could do no wrong.

> For when a person murders another person or persons they are not following Christ. So the secular voices who say the Inquisitors were Christians and murderers are refuted.

Your "refutation" ignores the fact that what they did was not considered
murder at the time. It was a legal execution, carried out with the full
approval of the Church hierarchy.

> No where in the New Testament does Christ condone murder.

No where in the New Testament does Christ condone your hatred, lying,
and bearing false witness against others. But you claim to be
Christian. Go figure.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

More importantly, considering Ray's position that whatever God does is
moral and righteous, is killing someone on God's direct order something
a Christian can do and still be a Christian?


DJT

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I don't understand your points. Note the fact that I'm blaming my inability to understand.

Why do I need a further caveat? And why do I need said stipulation? And your final points concerning degree or length of time indicate to me that you didn't understand my argument. Again, when an alleged Christian commits murder he or she is not following Christ when the murder is conceived, planned, and carried out.

>
> The last part is important because without it you are free to insist
> that Christians never fail to follow Christ (as in commit murder)
> because when they do so they cannot be Christian. Surely you can see how
> this would amount to an embarrassingly daft, ethical
> get-out-of-jail-free card.

In the New Testament, in the same chapter, the Apostle Peter was commended by Christ for stating correctly as to who He really was. His theology was attributed by Christ to have been imparted to him by the Father. But a few verses later Christ sternly rebukes Peter for inadvertently doing the bidding of Satan in another matter.

So in the former Peter is following Christ unlike in the latter. The point is persons can be following Christ then in the next moment that can be following Satan. When the latter occurs they are not following Christ. When persons perceived as Christians commit acts perceived as murder they are not following Christ. They are, in fact, following Satan.

Concerning your point: We don't know if an alleged Christian goes to heaven or hell if he or she were to die while not following Christ. The only point I'm making is ***when*** a person commits murder they are not following Christ. Peter wasn't following Christ when he embraced Satan. But we know Peter accepted the correction of Christ and continued to follow Him.

>
> So let me ask, when someone who calls himself a Christian commits murder
> (or falls away from Christ in some other way),
>
> - is he nevermore a Christian, or,

As phrased you have a follower of Christ committing murder. The act itself falsifies a claim of following Christ.

> - is he not a Christian for some set duration, or,

Depends if he or she repents then re-commits to Christ, only God knows for sure.

> - is he not a Christian until he repents, or,

Repentance is a must; and beware: repentance in the Catholic Church and Protestant Church do not mean the same thing.

> - is he not a Christian for just the moment of his commission and goes
> right back to being a Christian once it's over, or,

Only God knows. But from the Christian perspective: We assume as true what the person says as long as their known acts do not contradict. So if a person says they are a Christian but they made a horrible decision and committed murder, then profess sorrow and allegiance to Christ, and we see no contradictory behavior, then they were a Christian, then they weren't, then they are.

But I think you're actually alluding to the possibility that a person can commit murder and do so while believing God will forgive them. The Bible says if this is the frame of mind then you're on the thinnest ice possible.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

To presume good to proceed from God in response to premeditated sin is overwhelmingly condemned in Scripture.

Here is a true story: I know of a person who assented to the truth of the Bible but went out and committed several, especially heinous, felonious crimes while in his mid-twenties. This person ruined the life of many people. Decades after the crimes were committed, which this person got away with, this person committed them self to Christ. Feeling a strong desire to preach the Word and help other people, this person did just that. But while preaching the Word and helping others, this person, in a chance encounter, elicited the attention of the police who, after a short time, arrested him for the crimes committed in his mid-twenties. So in a state of repentance, following Christ, this person had to finally take responsibility for the crimes he committed decades earlier. This person plead guilty and was promptly sentenced to life in prison in his early fifties. Yes, Christ forgave him, and placed him in prison to preach His word and help other persons. That's how God chose to handle this situation.

Ray

[A.Carlson]

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:12:07 -0700, Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Good God! The bible is full of examples of killings and even genocide
either directly called for or simply glossed over that would, by most
people's standards, be considered way beyond what should be considered
moral.

Just one example is where Samson, after making a rash bet, ends up
killing 30 people just to steal their clothes to pay off said reckless
bet. Of course the Hebrew god did not lose favor with Samson for
being a mass murderer (he was, after all, killing the *right* sort of
people) but only lost favor with Samson when his hair was eventually
cut - even though said act was committed by someone else!

The admonition "thou shalt not kill" could have been made a bit more
clear as obviously intended with the proviso "unless otherwise told to
do so" for which there are plenty of examples throughout the old
testament in particular (As has been pointed out many times the god of
the bible was a vicious cunt).

It is little wonder that a self-professed Christian, with so much to
pick and choose from, could still do heinous things and still have a
clear conscience especially given that the bible itself states that
the Hebrew god is a jealous god with plenty of passages that reflect
both that jealousy and the intolerance that stems from it. As such,
the inquisition in particular shouldn't really be that surprising. A
little extreme perhaps but hardly without precedence throughout
history.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

Because it contributes nothing to the position on the Inquisitors you
really want to talk about, I've snipped a preamble consisting of a paragraph
and an opening clause to the following paragraph.

> I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.

You are only repeating a small part of the things you said concerning
the Inquisitors and have NOT repudiated.

>
> My true and original position:
>
>
> Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.
>
>
> IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ.

> So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ. For when a person murders another person or persons they are not following Christ. So the secular voices who say the Inquisitors were Christians and murderers are refuted. No where in the New Testament does Christ condone murder.

If that were all you claimed, there would be no serious problem with
what you did, but you also alleged YOURSELF, repeatedly, that the Inquisitors
WERE murderers (and that therefore, they weren't Christians). And you dug
yourself in deeper by posting the following:


1. Their motives and acts, by standards of today, are
rightfully considered premeditated murder or even genocide.

2. Many secular voices assent to the above.

3. The New Testament says they are murderers.

You did NOT say "above and below" in 2. So 3. came with your endorsement.

I've called this to your attention at least twice, and each time
you neither retracted statement 3. nor defended it, and I've given
reasons on the original thread that 3. is not only false but
incongruous with some things the NT does say.

You claim to be a Protestant evangelical, so any time you make an
indefensible claim about the New Testament, you are playing with fire.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Like any history book, the Bible reports wars and mass killings occurred.

> Just one example is where Samson, after making a rash bet, ends up
> killing 30 people just to steal their clothes to pay off said reckless
> bet. Of course the Hebrew god did not lose favor with Samson for
> being a mass murderer (he was, after all, killing the *right* sort of
> people) but only lost favor with Samson when his hair was eventually
> cut - even though said act was committed by someone else!

The Philistines and Israel were in a state of war between one another. The former were an idolatrous nation marked for death by God for their unconscionable practices including throwing their children in fire during religious ceremonies. So it was not a sin to kill these people.

>
> The admonition "thou shalt not kill" could have been made a bit more
> clear as obviously intended with the proviso "unless otherwise told to
> do so" for which there are plenty of examples throughout the old
> testament in particular (As has been pointed out many times the god of
> the bible was a vicious cunt).
>

Fine example of egregious quote mining and ignorance by an Atheist reader. Nothing new here.

Ray


[....]

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 8:30:40 PM UTC-5, A.Carlson wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:12:07 -0700, Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

> >More importantly, considering Ray's position that whatever God does is
> >moral and righteous, is killing someone on God's direct order something
> >a Christian can do and still be a Christian?

For once, even I cannot see what Dana is getting at. Is he, perhaps,
giving Robert Camp some ideas on what to ask Ray next? [Ray has been
boycotting him (Dana) for over half a year and can't be expected
to end the boycott on this thread.]

> Good God! The bible is full of examples of killings and even genocide
> either directly called for or simply glossed over that would, by most
> people's standards, be considered way beyond what should be considered
> moral.
>
> Just one example is where Samson, after making a rash bet, ends up
> killing 30 people just to steal their clothes to pay off said reckless
> bet. Of course the Hebrew god did not lose favor with Samson for
> being a mass murderer (he was, after all, killing the *right* sort of
> people) but only lost favor with Samson when his hair was eventually
> cut - even though said act was committed by someone else!

This use of "lost favor with" is too one dimensional. Jacob certainly
did not lose favor with God just because he cheated Esau out of a
blessing; but he suffered plenty for it later, with Laban doing unto
Jacob as Jacob had done unto Esau. And Samson got his comeuppance too,
as you yourself noted.

> The admonition "thou shalt not kill" could have been made a bit more
> clear as obviously intended with the proviso "unless otherwise told to
> do so" for which there are plenty of examples throughout the old
> testament in particular (As has been pointed out many times the god of
> the bible was a vicious cunt).

The commandment of which you speak uses a much narrower word than the
English "kill". It essentially says, "Don't commit inexcusable homicide."
That includes not only murder but also voluntary and involuntary
manslaughter, and also suicide. On the other hand, legally sanctioned
executions are exempt.

More importantly perhaps, due to the largely anarchial situation before
the days of the Judges, the usual punishment for murder was to give the
relatives of the deceased the legal sanction to avenge the murder.
The book of Numbers, towards the end, has a fascinating description of
how to set up three "cities of refuge," where someone who has accidentally
killed someone through no fault of his own, can flee and be safe
from the vengeance of the relatives.

But note this proviso: he must convince the leaders in the city that
there was no "blow struck in anger" because otherwise he would not
be permitted to stay in the city, nor protected from the wrath of the
avengers.

Peter Nyikos

[Dana Tweedy]

Not quite, Ray. Some of those mass killings, according to the Bible were
ordered by God, or at least that's what was written down.

>
>> Just one example is where Samson, after making a rash bet, ends up
>> killing 30 people just to steal their clothes to pay off said reckless
>> bet. Of course the Hebrew god did not lose favor with Samson for
>> being a mass murderer (he was, after all, killing the *right* sort of
>> people) but only lost favor with Samson when his hair was eventually
>> cut - even though said act was committed by someone else!
>
> The Philistines and Israel were in a state of war between one another. The former were an idolatrous nation marked for death by God for their unconscionable practices including throwing their children in fire during religious ceremonies. So it was not a sin to kill these people.
>

So, in that case, murder was following God, according to you, Ray. The
Inquisitors undoubtedly believed the same thing, that it was not a sin
to kill those they thought were against God.

>>
>> The admonition "thou shalt not kill" could have been made a bit more
>> clear as obviously intended with the proviso "unless otherwise told to
>> do so" for which there are plenty of examples throughout the old
>> testament in particular (As has been pointed out many times the god of
>> the bible was a vicious cunt).
>>
>
> Fine example of egregious quote mining and ignorance by an Atheist reader. Nothing new here.

Where was there any "quote mining" in the above, Ray? Other than tossing
around accusations, do you have any reply?


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Whether or not the story is true, it's still not relevant to the point,
ie that people thinking themselves Christians can do truly horrible acts
while thinking themselves to be following what God wants them to do.

They do this, not because they stop being Christians, but because
they fool themselves into thinking what they want to do is God's will.
You, Ray do the same thing in imagining the lies and hatred you harbor
for other people are justified by being on behalf of God.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/3/16 7:04 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 8:30:40 PM UTC-5, A.Carlson wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:12:07 -0700, Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>> More importantly, considering Ray's position that whatever God does is
>>> moral and righteous, is killing someone on God's direct order something
>>> a Christian can do and still be a Christian?
>
> For once, even I cannot see what Dana is getting at. Is he, perhaps,
> giving Robert Camp some ideas on what to ask Ray next? [Ray has been
> boycotting him (Dana) for over half a year and can't be expected
> to end the boycott on this thread.]

It's actually pretty simple. Ray has claimed that whatever God does is
righteous, because God is more mighty than anything else, and no one can
hold him accountable for his actions. Myself, and others have pointed
out to Ray that such a belief is simply "might makes right", and is not
representative of God's morality.

The Inquisition did it's work in the belief that it was doing God's
will, which, according to Ray's previous claims, would make them
innocent of the crime of murder. They would just be doing what God
wanted, according to their beliefs. I'm trying to show Ray that his
"might makes right" ideas of God are wrong.



DJT

[August Rode]

Ray, how do you know that what the Bible had to say about the
Philistines was true?

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

I'm curious. Suppose someone were to call for the burning of synagogues and the homes of Jews. Could such a person be a Christian while doing so?

[A.Carlson]

How typically self-serving. The bible itself not only "reports" what
you so kindly dismiss as mere "wars" but also specifically demands
wholesale genocide. The Hebrew people are not only part and parcel to
the mass killings but they also go to great lengths to justify it all.

>> Just one example is where Samson, after making a rash bet, ends up
>> killing 30 people just to steal their clothes to pay off said reckless
>> bet. Of course the Hebrew god did not lose favor with Samson for
>> being a mass murderer (he was, after all, killing the *right* sort of
>> people) but only lost favor with Samson when his hair was eventually
>> cut - even though said act was committed by someone else!
>
>The Philistines and Israel were in a state of war between one another.

Yes, someone coveted thy neighbors' houses. Never mind the hypocrisy
though because this was not just sanctioned but in fact voraciously
argued for (upon pain of death) by the Hebrew god (or so at least
those who ended up writing the bible claimed). Funny how things work
out that way when it comes to religion.

>The former were an idolatrous nation marked for death by God for
>their unconscionable practices including throwing their children in
>fire during religious ceremonies.

The jury is still out on the veracity of said claim, at least
concerning specifics like who, exactly may have engaged in such
barbarous behavior or to what degree it was actually practiced with
evidence even for some Israelites engaging in various forms of human
sacrifice.

Regardless, there is a long history among neighboring tribes to accuse
the other of such things, including cannibalism. The ancient writings
emanating from the tribes of Judea are hardly an unbiased source.

>So it was not a sin to kill these people.

Yes, kill the barbarians. They deserve it, every man, woman, and
child - even just for belonging to the wrong tribe.

>> The admonition "thou shalt not kill" could have been made a bit more
>> clear as obviously intended with the proviso "unless otherwise told to
>> do so" for which there are plenty of examples throughout the old
>> testament in particular (As has been pointed out many times the god of
>> the bible was a vicious cunt).
>>
> Fine example of egregious quote mining and ignorance by an Atheist
> reader. Nothing new here.

IOW, you still have no good justification for a blatantly obvious
example of hypocrisy in the bible.

[A.Carlson]

But for cutting his hair, not for killing so many (presumably)
innocent people.

>> The admonition "thou shalt not kill" could have been made a bit more
>> clear as obviously intended with the proviso "unless otherwise told to
>> do so" for which there are plenty of examples throughout the old
>> testament in particular (As has been pointed out many times the god of
>> the bible was a vicious cunt).
>
>The commandment of which you speak uses a much narrower word than the
>English "kill". It essentially says, "Don't commit inexcusable homicide."
>That includes not only murder but also voluntary and involuntary
>manslaughter, and also suicide. On the other hand, legally sanctioned
>executions are exempt.

And throughout the bible you can find a great many justifications for
even trivial offences, including apostasy. Given that the O.P.
directly relates to accusations of apostasy and how a "good Christian"
would never... I believe that the comparison is a fair one.

>More importantly perhaps, due to the largely anarchial situation before
>the days of the Judges, the usual punishment for murder was to give the
>relatives of the deceased the legal sanction to avenge the murder.
>The book of Numbers, towards the end, has a fascinating description of
>how to set up three "cities of refuge," where someone who has accidentally
>killed someone through no fault of his own, can flee and be safe
>from the vengeance of the relatives.

But the killings sanctioned in the Bible concerned issues far more
trivial than blood feuds.

>But note this proviso: he must convince the leaders in the city that
>there was no "blow struck in anger" because otherwise he would not
>be permitted to stay in the city, nor protected from the wrath of the
>avengers.

But what of the adulterer (or even rape victim in some respects)?, The
person who breaks the Sabbath? The person who blasphemes? The person
who eats pork or shrimp?

Some of what is written in the Old Testament makes honor killings of
today look quite quaint.

[Robert Camp]

Because although I'm confident I know the answer, you have not made
clear that following Christ is essentially synonymous with being
Christian. Up to the point in your post where I mentioned this you had
said one could not be a murderer and a follower of Christ. In what
followed, you switched to saying that the Inquisitors were not
Christian. In order to prevent the possibility that there might be a
bait and switch later on, I wanted the equivalence between follower of
Christ and being a Christian to be explicit.

I will assume henceforth that the two mean exactly the same thing.

> And your final points concerning degree or length of time indicate to
> me that you didn't understand my argument. Again, when an alleged
> Christian commits murder he or she is not following Christ when the
> murder is conceived, planned, and carried out.

And I'm trying to determine if you are saying (as I believe you have in
the past) that no Christian (follower of Christ) has ever committed
murder, or if you're saying that any Christian who did so was simply not
acting Christian at the time. The distinction reveals whether you are
employing (once again) a logical fallacy, or just speaking figuratively
(or, I suppose, another possibility is that you don't really understand
the ramifications of your argument).

Do you see why this is important? What if I say it's not possible for an
atheist to ever believe in god, then you tell me about an atheist you
know who converted to Christianity? How would you react to me responding
that he could not have actually been an atheist? You would rightfully
protest that I'm just indulging in special pleading to rescue my very
intemperate assertion. And you would be right. I would have introduced a
rhetorical escape that renders my assertion unfalsifiable.

>> The last part is important because without it you are free to
>> insist that Christians never fail to follow Christ (as in commit
>> murder) because when they do so they cannot be Christian. Surely
>> you can see how this would amount to an embarrassingly daft,
>> ethical get-out-of-jail-free card.
>
> In the New Testament, in the same chapter, the Apostle Peter was
> commended by Christ for stating correctly as to who He really was.
> His theology was attributed by Christ to have been imparted to him by
> the Father. But a few verses later Christ sternly rebukes Peter for
> inadvertently doing the bidding of Satan in another matter.
>
> So in the former Peter is following Christ unlike in the latter. The
> point is persons can be following Christ then in the next moment that
> can be following Satan. When the latter occurs they are not following
> Christ. When persons perceived as Christians commit acts perceived as
> murder they are not following Christ. They are, in fact, following
> Satan.
>
> Concerning your point: We don't know if an alleged Christian goes to
> heaven or hell if he or she were to die while not following Christ.
> The only point I'm making is ***when*** a person commits murder they
> are not following Christ. Peter wasn't following Christ when he
> embraced Satan. But we know Peter accepted the correction of Christ
> and continued to follow Him.

This doesn't address my point. It is essentially a statement that when
one doesn't follow the rules of Christianity one is not a Christian, but
upon resuming obedience to the rules one can be Christian again.

I don't think you mean it this way, but that kind of qualification puts
you in the position of saying no Christian can ever sin, in essence that
Christians are always valorous and true, never bad. It sounds sophomoric
and detached from reality.

What I think you should say is that when a Christian breaks the rules he
is not being a good or compliant Christian, e.g., when the Inquisitors
murdered they were being quite terrible Christians. No one would dispute
this, and it wouldn't leave you looking like you were asserting that
Christians can do no wrong - a position which makes a mockery of
observable reality, logical consistency, and Christianity itself.

[jillery]

My favorite example of this is when Samuel tells Saul to:

“Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their
possessions. Don’t have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and
even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and
donkeys.”

But Saul spared King Agag and the best cattle and sheep. Samuel
accused Saul of disobeying God, and punished Saul by withdrawing his
favor and anointing David as the new king.

Not only does the Biblical God expect us to murder, but he demands us
to do so in Its name.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Joe Cummings]

Just a little qualified "whataboutery " here, Ray.

According to Tawney (Religion and the Rise of Capitalism), There were,
on average, two burnings at the stake in Geneva during the Calvinist
hegemony of about 70 years.

I can't think of a more obscenely cruel form of punishment - and that
goes for any authority, Catholic or Protestant which employs it.


The question for Ray is: does he condemn the Calvinists who killed in
this dreadful way in the same terms as he condemns - rightly - the
Catholics?

Joe Cummings

[Joe Cummings]

My apologies: " ..on average there were two burnings at the stake per
year ...."

Sorry for the omission.

Joe Cummings

[Burkhard]

There are two big problems with that position. First, it is an example
of the "no true Scotsman fallacy". You simply define yourself right. and
the problem with that is that every other group can of course use the
same argument. So Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans etc, pretty much every
religion with a rudimentary ethics, can also claim that their members
never commit murder. And atheists can do this too, because we know since
Aristotle that causing harm is a irrational, so any group that centers
around a notion of rationality can avail itself of your argument. And
with that we have neatly proven that nobody commits murder, ever.

The second problem is that it is from a Christian perspective abysmally
bad theology, deeply heretic and indeed undermining the foundations of
Christianity. Because a founding idea of Christianity is that we need
Christ for the redemption of our sins, and you have just "proven", by
clever looking manipulation of words, that no Christian ever sins.

[jillery]

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 13:22:24 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Your powers of prescience are amazing. How many times do you identify
just the right point, and say it in just the right way, just before I
would have said the exact same thing, if only I had thought about it
and had your talents ;-0)

[Mark Isaak]

Christian cannot commit murder, but followers of the Christian God can.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Ray Martinez]

Your points belong to previous debates. In this thread I am only addressing my original argument----not rebuttal points made in previous debates. Return to the OP and address what I said. If not, good day Professor Nyikos.

Ray

[snip...]

[Ray Martinez]

I can't readily produce the quotation but Luther also said, in essence, that he was amazed that Christ chose to use an evil person like himself.

Believe me, the quotation I'm alluding to essentially says what is seen above.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Yes, God orders the destruction of nations, groups of people, and individuals. Sometimes He has an Angel do it other times He tells a human leader to do it. Your comments presuppose these judgments completely wrong and invalid. In your eyes, the eyes of Atheism, there is no justification for judgment. Your only interest here is to portray the Bible through a 21st century politically correct lens in order make the judgments of God appear completely unjust. Yet when one takes the time to digest the full context of any particular judgment one discovers that the peoples who were judged had it coming.

In your eyes no one deserves death; sin and rebellion against God do not exist. This is the presupposition of your comments, however. Objective minds understand that in the Bible God has a right to judge people and nations. Your tactic is to feign ignorance and ignore objective facts. And according to your sentiments, brought forward today, ISIS doesn't deserve death. Yet, in the Bible, the peoples bearing the brunt of judgments of death, are the genealogical descendants of ISIS and other anti-Semites who have opposed Israel, the Jews, and the Hebrew God.

You've only asserted hypocrisy and have yet to make an argument showing what you're talking about.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

And the Inquisitors also thought their victims "had it coming". That's
why they were able to torture and kill people they thought of as
heretics. They didn't see their actions as murder. They thought they
had God's permission to bring judgement.

> In your eyes no one deserves death; sin and rebellion against God do not exist. This is the presupposition of your comments, however. Objective minds understand that in the Bible God has a right to judge people and nations. Your tactic is to feign ignorance and ignore objective facts. And according to your sentiments, brought forward today, ISIS doesn't deserve death. Yet, in the Bible, the peoples bearing the brunt of judgments of death, are the genealogical descendants of ISIS and other anti-Semites who have opposed Israel, the Jews, and the Hebrew God.

And the Inquisition felt that the people they tortured and executed were
being judged by God. They felt they had the right to kill anyone who
they saw as the enemy of God.

You are showing, quite clearly, Ray, that someone who thinks themselves
as Christian can indeed murder.


snip


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

This is a contradiction with your earlier claim that a Christian can't
be a murderer. While Luther himself isn't known to have killed anyone,
he certainly endorsed killing Jewish persons.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 5:25:37 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Make no mistake this topic is directed primarily at Peter Nyikos, and to a lesser degree Jillery. Concerning Peter, he is basically capricious. One just never knows which side of the bed he will get up on? So in case he gets up on the right side of the bed, defined as responding to messages in a timely manner, not cutting them up beyond recognition, or changing the basic structure of the format, and importing long exchanges from other topics into his messages, all of which contribute to destroying context, I wish to engage him in the subject matter seen in the title.
> >
> >
> > Because of these posting sins briefly alluded to in the above paragraph, I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.
> >
> >
> > My true and original position:
> >
> >
> > Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.
> >
> >
> > IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ. So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ. For when a person murders another person or persons they are not following Christ. So the secular voices who say the Inquisitors were Christians and murderers are refuted. No where in the New Testament does Christ condone murder.
> >
> > Ray
> >
>
> There are two big problems with that position. First, it is an example
> of the "no true Scotsman fallacy".

The NTS is false----a fallacy in and of itself. It assumes, and simply says, human identity claims are exempt from normal evidentiary requirements. They are not.

> You simply define yourself right.

Does the definition of evolution do the same?

> and the problem with that is that every other group can of course use the
> same argument. So Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans etc, pretty much every
> religion with a rudimentary ethics, can also claim that their members
> never commit murder.

They would HAVE to show it from a preexisting text. The argument I make is quite explicit AND can be supported throughout the Bible with specificity. Does the Koran, for example, advocate jihad as understood today?

Secular voices admit the person of Christ did not advocate violence in order to maintain or propagate His message. So acts of unjust violence cannot be said to
occur as originating from Christ. When He was arrested in the Garden one of His apostles drew his sword and injured a member of the arresting party. Jesus told him to sheath his sword and healed the injury miraculously.

> And atheists can do this too, because we know since
> Aristotle that causing harm is a irrational, so any group that centers
> around a notion of rationality can avail itself of your argument. And
> with that we have neatly proven that nobody commits murder, ever.

Your attempt to drown out the small of core of crucial facts fails IF a preexisting text exists supporting these facts with specificity. That Text exists as does the specificity.

So the burden is now on you to support your claim. Show when a person who is Atheist commits murder they are not following the tenets of Atheism? All you can do is say secular law forbids murder. Therefore violators are acting non-secularly. The claim lacks specificity. It relies on mere existence of antonyms.

>
> The second problem is that it is from a Christian perspective abysmally
> bad theology, deeply heretic and indeed undermining the foundations of
> Christianity.

Groundless assertions.

> Because a founding idea of Christianity is that we need
> Christ for the redemption of our sins, and you have just "proven", by
> clever looking manipulation of words, that no Christian ever sins.

This observation says when sinning occurs it is sanctioned by Christ; the same is blasphemy. Christ causes no one to sin, and He disapproves of that which sends a person to hell.

Granted, according to Biblical Theology, the Atonement consisted of the Sin Offering and the Trespass Offering. The latter covers knowledge of sins committed. The former covers the state of sin or the inherited Adamic nature. Both are reckoned freely to the sinner in exchange for faith. But one is not in the faith ***when*** one is committing murder, for example.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

Evidently you've never heard the saying, "God writes straight in
crooked ways." The late Roman Catholic historian Warren Carroll,
used it at least once while writing about the French Revolution
in _The Guillotine and the Cross_. He made a similar comment on how
Robespierre was defeated, not by the admirable Danton, but by
the underhanded Fouche.

He commented, "Justice does not always come like lightning from above;
sometimes it comes like a tentacle reaching up from quicksand" or
words to that effect.

> >> The admonition "thou shalt not kill" could have been made a bit more
> >> clear as obviously intended with the proviso "unless otherwise told to
> >> do so" for which there are plenty of examples throughout the old
> >> testament in particular (As has been pointed out many times the god of
> >> the bible was a vicious cunt).
> >
> >The commandment of which you speak uses a much narrower word than the
> >English "kill". It essentially says, "Don't commit inexcusable homicide."
> >That includes not only murder but also voluntary and involuntary
> >manslaughter, and also suicide. On the other hand, legally sanctioned
> >executions are exempt.
>
> And throughout the bible you can find a great many justifications for
> even trivial offences, including apostasy.

Maybe you can, but I haven't seen any. Care to enlighten me?

> Given that the O.P.
> directly relates to accusations of apostasy and how a "good Christian"
> would never... I believe that the comparison is a fair one.

The OP is a bunch of drivel. Ray Martinez may think himself an authority
on what is a true Christian, but I suspect him of having become an
apostate many years ago, partly because he avoids getting deep into
any biblical discussions, and partly because he actually seems to
enjoy violating Jesus's commandment, "Don't bear false witness"
day in and day out.

> >More importantly perhaps, due to the largely anarchial situation before
> >the days of the Judges, the usual punishment for murder was to give the
> >relatives of the deceased the legal sanction to avenge the murder.
> >The book of Numbers, towards the end, has a fascinating description of
> >how to set up three "cities of refuge," where someone who has accidentally
> >killed someone through no fault of his own, can flee and be safe
> >from the vengeance of the relatives.
>
> But the killings sanctioned in the Bible concerned issues far more
> trivial than blood feuds.

I don't suppose this refers to genocide of peoples who have been
accused of child sacrifice, like the Caananites, as opposed to the things
you relate further down.

> >But note this proviso: he must convince the leaders in the city that
> >there was no "blow struck in anger" because otherwise he would not
> >be permitted to stay in the city, nor protected from the wrath of the
> >avengers.
>
> But what of the adulterer (or even rape victim in some respects)?

Yes, there was that, except that the presumption was that if a woman
did not scream out when she could be heard and rescued, she wasn't
really a rape victim. Similar presumptions are still around: remember
how Willie Smith was cleared of rape?

This is not to excuse the severity of the punishment, by the way.

> The
> person who breaks the Sabbath? The person who blasphemes? The person
> who eats pork or shrimp?

I was unaware that these were capital offenses. Can you direct me
to the appropriate passages?

> Some of what is written in the Old Testament makes honor killings of
> today look quite quaint.

Don't you think this makes you look like someone biased against ancient
Hebrews in comparison with modern Muslims who live under completely
different laws?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Really? in the OP you wrote the following (see above):

"I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors."

If I didn't misrepresent you with the above points, I challenge you to tell
where you feel I DID misrepresent you.

> In this thread I am only addressing my original argument----not rebuttal points made in previous debates.

What about future threads? You have run away from these points in earlier
debates, and have never returned to the threads where they were brought
up. Is it a fact that you will never deal with them again?

> Return to the OP and address what I said.

This comes straight from the OP:

"I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors."

Tell everyone how. I'm waiting...

Peter Nyikos

[A.Carlson]

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 19:57:26 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

Yes, one must try and rationalize a great deal of wiggle room if one
wants to make a particular claim of cause and effect.

>> >> The admonition "thou shalt not kill" could have been made a bit more
>> >> clear as obviously intended with the proviso "unless otherwise told to
>> >> do so" for which there are plenty of examples throughout the old
>> >> testament in particular (As has been pointed out many times the god of
>> >> the bible was a vicious cunt).
>> >
>> >The commandment of which you speak uses a much narrower word than the
>> >English "kill". It essentially says, "Don't commit inexcusable homicide."
>> >That includes not only murder but also voluntary and involuntary
>> >manslaughter, and also suicide. On the other hand, legally sanctioned
>> >executions are exempt.
>>
>> And throughout the bible you can find a great many justifications for
>> even trivial offences, including apostasy.
>
>Maybe you can, but I haven't seen any. Care to enlighten me?

Really? Either your own personal moral compass is askew or you know
little about the bible.

In Exodus 20, where the "ten commandments" were being laid out, it
declares that the Hebrew god was a "jealous God" who would punish
multiple generations of fathers who worship otherwise (never mind that
elsewhere in the Bible it was held that children should not bear the
sins of the father but only their own sins).

This is reinforced by numerous passages in the Bible which calls for
the punishment of death for those who are not observant of religious
tenets such as: Keeping the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14), Blasphemy
(Leviticus 24:10-16), General disobedience (Leviticus 26:14-39).

>> Given that the O.P.
>> directly relates to accusations of apostasy and how a "good Christian"
>> would never... I believe that the comparison is a fair one.
>
>The OP is a bunch of drivel. Ray Martinez may think himself an authority
>on what is a true Christian, but I suspect him of having become an
>apostate many years ago, partly because he avoids getting deep into
>any biblical discussions, and partly because he actually seems to
>enjoy violating Jesus's commandment, "Don't bear false witness"
>day in and day out.
>
>> >More importantly perhaps, due to the largely anarchial situation before
>> >the days of the Judges, the usual punishment for murder was to give the
>> >relatives of the deceased the legal sanction to avenge the murder.
>> >The book of Numbers, towards the end, has a fascinating description of
>> >how to set up three "cities of refuge," where someone who has accidentally
>> >killed someone through no fault of his own, can flee and be safe
>> >from the vengeance of the relatives.
>>
>> But the killings sanctioned in the Bible concerned issues far more
>> trivial than blood feuds.
>
>I don't suppose this refers to genocide of peoples who have been
>accused of child sacrifice, like the Caananites, as opposed to the things
>you relate further down.

Men, women, AND children? Really? En Mass? Are you really making an
attempt to justify genocide here?

>> >But note this proviso: he must convince the leaders in the city that
>> >there was no "blow struck in anger" because otherwise he would not
>> >be permitted to stay in the city, nor protected from the wrath of the
>> >avengers.
>>
>> But what of the adulterer (or even rape victim in some respects)?
>
>Yes, there was that, except that the presumption was that if a woman
>did not scream out when she could be heard and rescued, she wasn't
>really a rape victim. Similar presumptions are still around: remember
>how Willie Smith was cleared of rape?

Clearly apples and oranges. You might want to re-read Deuteronomy
22:28-29, especially in context of surrounding passages. Not only was
the virgin represented as being violated, the perpetrator was
specifically required to marry her and not be allowed to divorce her
for the rest of his days (lucky her!), a privilege that he would have
otherwise had.

>This is not to excuse the severity of the punishment, by the way.

Nor does it appear to me to be an actual *rational* justification.

>> The
>> person who breaks the Sabbath? The person who blasphemes? The person
>> who eats pork or shrimp?
>
>I was unaware that these were capital offenses. Can you direct me
>to the appropriate passages?

OK, pork and shrimp (as well as a few other delectable foods) are
referred to by the Hebrew god (the one who doesn't tolerate
disobedience) as being an abomination. One could argue that vengeance
would be carried out by this vengeful, petty god (See Leviticus 26)
but the others are more clearly punishable by death by the community.

>> Some of what is written in the Old Testament makes honor killings of
>> today look quite quaint.
>
>Don't you think this makes you look like someone biased against ancient
>Hebrews in comparison with modern Muslims who live under completely
>different laws?

That's not the point. I couldn't care less whether such horrific
immoral acts stem from the Bible (Old *OR* New Testament), the Koran,
or any other religious tome for that matter. The point that I was
making was that religion (of pretty much any stripe) can be used to
justify extreme immoral acts and that the Bible is clearly no
exception.

[Ray Martinez]

Consider it explicit.

> I will assume henceforth that the two mean exactly the same thing.

Agreed.

>
> > And your final points concerning degree or length of time indicate to
> > me that you didn't understand my argument. Again, when an alleged
> > Christian commits murder he or she is not following Christ when the
> > murder is conceived, planned, and carried out.
>
> And I'm trying to determine if you are saying (as I believe you have in
> the past) that no Christian (follower of Christ) has ever committed

> murder....

I'm saying one cannot be following Christ while committing murder (= axiomatically true).

> ....or if you're saying that any Christian who did so was simply not

> acting Christian at the time. The distinction reveals whether you are
> employing (once again) a logical fallacy, or just speaking figuratively
> (or, I suppose, another possibility is that you don't really understand
> the ramifications of your argument).

Again, I'm saying when one commits murder one cannot be following Christ. Your points don't harm what I've said. Your points assume a Christian remains a Christian if they commit murder. I'm saying ****when*** murder is committed a person is not following Christ. The claim and its logic is specified. If you disagree with the claim then you're saying a person can remain a follower of Christ while committing murder. In so doing you're saying Christ led a person to commit murder. Yet a claim as such is easy to refute from the New Testament AND through the stated facts of my original argument seen in the OP. If you want to challenge any one of these stated facts then go right ahead. They're just as easy to prove as the formal claim itself.

>
> Do you see why this is important? What if I say it's not possible for an
> atheist to ever believe in god, then you tell me about an atheist you
> know who converted to Christianity? How would you react to me responding
> that he could not have actually been an atheist?

All Christians were Atheists at some point in their life; God has no grandchildren.

> You would rightfully
> protest that I'm just indulging in special pleading to rescue my very
> intemperate assertion. And you would be right. I would have introduced a
> rhetorical escape that renders my assertion unfalsifiable.

But you're scenario about Atheism and possible conversion to Christianity is far different than the claim made in the OP. If you disagree then show me?

The problem with this statement is that it conveys the exact view the Bible exists to repudiate!

Allegiance to a code of conduct is NOT the message of the New Testament, but the Old Testament per se. One can only follow Christ by way of faith which the Bible spends considerable time and effort defining and explaining as not works or allegiance to the code of conduct.

There is only ONE "rule" of Christianity: FAITH; one can only begin walking with Christ by faith. The Book of Galatians was written to make the point that one ***continues*** walking with Christ by faith and NOT by compliance to a code of conduct. If one pursues the latter as the way to walk with Christ one is then subject to the penalty of the code of conduct and has made abrogate the new covenant of grace.

>
> I don't think you mean it this way, but that kind of qualification puts
> you in the position of saying no Christian can ever sin, in essence that
> Christians are always valorous and true, never bad. It sounds sophomoric
> and detached from reality.
>

But I didn't say Christians cannot sin! I made a specific claim. YET I think I now understand your point and it fails to harm my claim because when one sins one is not following Christ. And I've cited Scripture to support my claim with specificity.

> What I think you should say is that when a Christian breaks the rules he
> is not being a good or compliant Christian, e.g., when the Inquisitors
> murdered they were being quite terrible Christians. No one would dispute
> this, and it wouldn't leave you looking like you were asserting that
> Christians can do no wrong - a position which makes a mockery of
> observable reality, logical consistency, and Christianity itself.

You have the traditional non-scriptural view of Christianity.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:55:32 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> Again, I'm saying when one commits murder one cannot be following Christ.

Unless, of course, God commanded you to kill someone He wanted killed. In which case, I suppose, it would not be murder, even if it looked like murder to the rest of us.

>
> Ray

[Robert Camp]

I was expressing no view of Christianity in these posts, nor do I (in
this context) have any kind of view, traditional or otherwise.

I was attempting to determine whether you were making a coherent
argument. But you've misapprehended so many of my comments that it's
hardly worth continuing.

In any case, I think I understand your position, and I'm pretty sure
when push comes to shove it will be revealed (once again) as a No True
Scotsman fallacy (and no, the NTS is not itself a fallacy).

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 5:25:37 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Make no mistake this topic is directed primarily at Peter Nyikos, and to a lesser degree Jillery. Concerning Peter, he is basically capricious. One just never knows which side of the bed he will get up on? So in case he gets up on the right side of the bed, defined as responding to messages in a timely manner, not cutting them up beyond recognition, or changing the basic structure of the format, and importing long exchanges from other topics into his messages, all of which contribute to destroying context, I wish to engage him in the subject matter seen in the title.
>>>
>>>
>>> Because of these posting sins briefly alluded to in the above paragraph, I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.
>>>
>>>
>>> My true and original position:
>>>
>>>
>>> Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.
>>>
>>>
>>> IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ. So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ. For when a person murders another person or persons they are not following Christ. So the secular voices who say the Inquisitors were Christians and murderers are refuted. No where in the New Testament does Christ condone murder.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>
>> There are two big problems with that position. First, it is an example
>> of the "no true Scotsman fallacy".
>
> The NTS is false----a fallacy in and of itself. It assumes, and simply says, human identity claims are exempt from normal evidentiary requirements. They are not.

Of course they are not, and the NTS does not claim so. You overlook the
"true" in the NTS, and the role it plays It does take however an
empirical, objective description of group membership, of which
self-description is one important criterion but not an all important one.

So NTS fallacy notwithstanding, say someone calls himself a Christian,
and you find he thinks that this involves saying voluntarily and
consciously the Shahada, performs five times a day the Salat, observes
the ritual Sawm, went of the Hajj, and whenever giving for charity
declares to God his intention to give the zakāt, then he simply is
confused about word meaning. He obviously is not a Christian but a
Muslim. But you to not need the word "true" to describe this, by
generally accepted and objective criteria, you can determine group
membership

And that clearly applies here. They accept the Nicean Creed, and that
is pretty much a key indicator. They participate in activities and
rituals that are clearly associated with the Christian tradition (going
to mass in church, observing lent etc etc) that makes them clearly
member of a culturally distinct group.

That they might not be perfect members of that group, or not match your
own private vision of an ideal member, is irrelevant

>
>> You simply define yourself right.
>
> Does the definition of evolution do the same?

no, of course not

>
>> and the problem with that is that every other group can of course use the
>> same argument. So Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans etc, pretty much every
>> religion with a rudimentary ethics, can also claim that their members
>> never commit murder.
>
> They would HAVE to show it from a preexisting text. The argument I make is quite explicit AND can be supported throughout the Bible with specificity. Does the Koran, for example, advocate jihad as understood today?

No true Muslim would, obviously, jihad, meaning merely "struggle", only
refers to the internal struggle of a person against temptation, and to
live a righteous life.

Or so the argument would run.

>
> Secular voices admit the person of Christ did not advocate violence in order to maintain or propagate His message.

Apart of course when he assaulted the money changers with a dangerous
weapon. Or told his disciples to sell their coats and buy swords if they
did not have any. Or sanction a degree of violent self-defence even
though he then deescalated the conflict. And of course endorsed all the
precepts for conduct of war from the Old Testament - Matthew 5:18

So acts of unjust violence cannot be said to
> occur as originating from Christ.

But since according to you whatever god does is just, this is just a
tautology - at least within your belief system

When He was arrested in the Garden one of His apostles drew his sword
and injured a member of the arresting party. Jesus told him to sheath
his sword and healed the injury miraculously.
>

According to Luke, but strangely not in the other gospels. And as I
said, you could as well read this as a story of "proportionate self
defence - having previously sanctioned the swords in the first place,

>> And atheists can do this too, because we know since
>> Aristotle that causing harm is a irrational, so any group that centers
>> around a notion of rationality can avail itself of your argument. And
>> with that we have neatly proven that nobody commits murder, ever.
>
> Your attempt to drown out the small of core of crucial facts fails IF a preexisting text exists supporting these facts with specificity. That Text exists as does the specificity.
>

no idea what that is supposed to mean

> So the burden is now on you to support your claim. Show when a person who is Atheist commits murder they are not following the tenets of Atheism?

Plato, Apology, 26a. All evil is the result of ignorance. Our innate
capacity to reason therefore leads naturally to a life that eschews
evil. committing evil is irrational, and as atheist, you thrive to
rationality.

Mind you, I don't believe in this argument myself - the point is that it
is just as invalid as yours, and for the same reasons.

>All you can do is say secular law forbids murder. Therefore violators are acting non-secularly. The claim lacks specificity. It relies on mere existence of antonyms.
>
>>
>> The second problem is that it is from a Christian perspective abysmally
>> bad theology, deeply heretic and indeed undermining the foundations of
>> Christianity.
>
> Groundless assertions.

The "grounds" or reasons are in the next sentence - that is how
"because" works in the English language. Maybe you should try more
thinking, less writing?

>
>> Because a founding idea of Christianity is that we need
>> Christ for the redemption of our sins, and you have just "proven", by
>> clever looking manipulation of words, that no Christian ever sins.
>
> This observation says when sinning occurs it is sanctioned by Christ;

Nope, it doesn't, and I have no idea how anyone with minimal logical
skills could read it into the text. The sinning is not sanctioned
(permitted) by Christ, but it also does not mean that you stop being a
Christian when you sin. Same way in which secular law in the US
prohibits murder, but you don't stop being a US citizen if you kill
nonetheless.

>the same is blasphemy. Christ causes no one to sin,

nobody said he did, that claim is only in your mind

>and He disapproves of that which sends a person to hell.
>
> Granted, according to Biblical Theology, the Atonement consisted of the Sin Offering and the Trespass Offering. The latter covers knowledge of sins committed. The former covers the state of sin or the inherited Adamic nature. Both are reckoned freely to the sinner in exchange for faith. But one is not in the faith ***when*** one is committing murder, for example.

Lots of words, no meaning
>
> Ray
>

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/5/16 1:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 9:20:39 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:

>> [...]

>> In order to prevent the possibility that there might be a
>> bait and switch later on, I wanted the equivalence between follower of
>> Christ and being a Christian to be explicit.
>
> Consider it explicit.
>
>> I will assume henceforth that the two mean exactly the same thing.
>
> Agreed.
>

>> [...]

>>
>> I don't think you mean it this way, but that kind of qualification puts
>> you in the position of saying no Christian can ever sin, in essence that
>> Christians are always valorous and true, never bad. It sounds sophomoric
>> and detached from reality.
>
> But I didn't say Christians cannot sin! I made a specific claim.
> YET I think I now understand your point and it fails to harm my
> claim because when one sins one is not following Christ. And
> I've cited Scripture to support my claim with specificity.

You said above that being a Christian is the same as following Christ.
So when you say, "when one sins one is not following Christ," you say
when one sins, one is not a Christian. Which is the same as saying
Christians cannot sin (because when they do, they are, ipso facto, not
Christians).

[Joe Cummings]

It's interesting the Ray has carefully avoided dealing with my request
to condemn the immolations in Calvinist Geneva as well as the brutality
of the Inquisiton.

I don't think it's a question of "cowardice" or other personal weakness.
In my opinion he can't deal with it for to do that he would have to
admit that Protestants also can be as guilty of brutality as well as
Catholics.

And if there's anything more "fixed" for Ray than "species fixity" it"s
his religious beliefs, which seem to lead him to believe that the world
is divided into atheists and their dupes on one side and Ray, and
possibly his next-door neighbour, on the other side as the only
upholders of the Truth.

I think sometime I'll have a look at his ideological motivation.

Have fun,


Joe Cummings .

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 11:00:36 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:

>On 2/5/16 1:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 9:20:39 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> In order to prevent the possibility that there might be a
>>> bait and switch later on, I wanted the equivalence between follower of
>>> Christ and being a Christian to be explicit.
>>
>> Consider it explicit.
>>
>>> I will assume henceforth that the two mean exactly the same thing.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I don't think you mean it this way, but that kind of qualification puts
>>> you in the position of saying no Christian can ever sin, in essence that
>>> Christians are always valorous and true, never bad. It sounds sophomoric
>>> and detached from reality.
>>
>> But I didn't say Christians cannot sin! I made a specific claim.
>> YET I think I now understand your point and it fails to harm my
>> claim because when one sins one is not following Christ. And
>> I've cited Scripture to support my claim with specificity.
>
>You said above that being a Christian is the same as following Christ.
>So when you say, "when one sins one is not following Christ," you say
>when one sins, one is not a Christian. Which is the same as saying
>Christians cannot sin (because when they do, they are, ipso facto, not
>Christians).

No true Scotsman would say that.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Ray Martinez]

The NTS is completely fallacious; it asserts human identity claims are exempt from normal evidentiary requirements. Thus the NTS attempts to objectify the subjective.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

For Peter Nyikos: This is WHY I don't care to argue Biblical Theology here at Talk.Origins: can't find anyone with even rudimentary knowledge.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 2/8/16 11:51 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:15:32 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 2/5/16 1:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 9:20:39 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/16 4:35 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 2:55:39 PM UTC-8, Robert
>>>>> Camp wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/16 1:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>

>>> But I didn't say Christians cannot sin! I made a specific claim.
>>> YET I think I now understand your point and it fails to harm my
>>> claim because when one sins one is not following Christ. And I've
>>> cited Scripture to support my claim with specificity.
>>>
>>>> What I think you should say is that when a Christian breaks
>>>> the rules he is not being a good or compliant Christian, e.g.,
>>>> when the Inquisitors murdered they were being quite terrible
>>>> Christians. No one would dispute this, and it wouldn't leave
>>>> you looking like you were asserting that Christians can do no
>>>> wrong - a position which makes a mockery of observable reality,
>>>> logical consistency, and Christianity itself.
>>>
>>> You have the traditional non-scriptural view of Christianity.
>>
>> I was expressing no view of Christianity in these posts, nor do I
>> (in this context) have any kind of view, traditional or otherwise.
>>
>> I was attempting to determine whether you were making a coherent
>> argument. But you've misapprehended so many of my comments that
>> it's hardly worth continuing.
>>
>> In any case, I think I understand your position, and I'm pretty
>> sure when push comes to shove it will be revealed (once again) as a
>> No True Scotsman fallacy (and no, the NTS is not itself a
>> fallacy).
>
> The NTS is completely fallacious; it asserts human identity claims
> are exempt from normal evidentiary requirements. Thus the NTS
> attempts to objectify the subjective.

The NTS fallacy asserts nothing of the kind, and does nothing of the
kind (and, in truth, it's not a formal fallacy, but that doesn't obviate
the invalidity of its use to rescue failed arguments).

In fact, the No True Scotsman fallacy observes that the the abuser is
using it to *avoid* "evidentiary requirements" by revising the original
contention so as to disallow an obvious counterexample (a kind of
special pleading), or by simply denying the applicability of the
counterexample.

You employ both tactics liberally. And the truly sad part is I don't
think you're aware of it.

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:05:30 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 2/5/16 1:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 9:20:39 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> In order to prevent the possibility that there might be a
> >> bait and switch later on, I wanted the equivalence between follower of
> >> Christ and being a Christian to be explicit.
> >
> > Consider it explicit.
> >
> >> I will assume henceforth that the two mean exactly the same thing.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> I don't think you mean it this way, but that kind of qualification puts
> >> you in the position of saying no Christian can ever sin, in essence that
> >> Christians are always valorous and true, never bad. It sounds sophomoric
> >> and detached from reality.
> >
> > But I didn't say Christians cannot sin! I made a specific claim.
> > YET I think I now understand your point and it fails to harm my
> > claim because when one sins one is not following Christ. And
> > I've cited Scripture to support my claim with specificity.
>
> You said above that being a Christian is the same as following Christ.
> So when you say, "when one sins one is not following Christ," you say
> when one sins, one is not a Christian.

When one sins one is not following Christ (= axiomatic fact).

> Which is the same as saying
> Christians cannot sin (because when they do, they are, ipso facto, not
> Christians).
>

It's not the same. At any rate you admit that you said it, not me.

Followers of Christ or Christians remain sinners and have the capacity to sin until they day they die. You've departed specificity because you can't support what you're saying from the Bible, unlike myself.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

If I define Christians in some way that does not include whether or not they commit murder in the definition, then whether the statement "Christians do not commit murder" is true or not is an empirical question. Finding someone who met the definition of "Christian" who had, in fact, committed murder at the time they fulfilled the definition of being Christian would falsify the claim that Christians do not commit murder.

On the other hand if I define Christians in such a way that the definition requires that they not commit murder, then the statement "Christians do not commit murder" is true by definition.

The NTS fallacy is simply the fallacy of appearing to be making a statement about the world "Christians do not commit murder" when you are really making a statement about how you intend to use words, ie you will not call someone a Christian if they commit murder.

In the case of the original NTS, the speaker appears to be claiming that all men born in Scotland wear kilts, but all he's really doing is saying that we shouldn't call a man a Scot if he doesn't wear a kilt.

[Ray Martinez]

Once again, Robert wastes another golden opportunity to win the argument by providing an example!

Ray

[eridanus]

El miércoles, 3 de febrero de 2016, 21:35:40 (UTC), Ray Martinez escribió:
> Make no mistake this topic is directed primarily at Peter Nyikos, and to a lesser degree Jillery. Concerning Peter, he is basically capricious. One just never knows which side of the bed he will get up on? So in case he gets up on the right side of the bed, defined as responding to messages in a timely manner, not cutting them up beyond recognition, or changing the basic structure of the format, and importing long exchanges from other topics into his messages, all of which contribute to destroying context, I wish to engage him in the subject matter seen in the title.
>
>
> Because of these posting sins briefly alluded to in the above paragraph, I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.
>
>
> My true and original position:
>
>
> Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.
>
>

> IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ. So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ. For when a person murders another person or persons they are not following Christ. So the secular voices who say the Inquisitors were Christians and murderers are refuted. No where in the New Testament does Christ condone murder.
>
> Ray

you are "apparently ignoring" some versicles of the NT. Not counting those
described in the OT and ordered "apparently" by god. But as Christians do
not renegade of the OT, all the murders of the OT are accepted by Christians
as OK.

Eridanus

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:05:30 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:

Did the Inquisitors go about their business thinking Christ approved? If so where did they obtain this idea?

Where did the Inquisitors obtain the idea that their actions were sanctioned and approved by Christ?

Ray

[eridanus]

the objective definition of a Christian is "someone that show off or pretend, or affirm to be Christian". And this definition contains those that do
not truly believe in any of the slightly different Christian dogmas.

If someone pretends to be a Christian is a Cristian; even if he believes this
religion is bogus.
eridanus

[eridanus]

Christian doctrine is more than simply a collection of biblical statements.
It is also a philosophical interpretation of many of those statements, and
theoretical (philosophical) arguments used as political tools to conserve
power. If the political tools requires some torture of prisoners, and to
burn them alive in a fire, it is done not to punish him, but to protect
other people of following the idea of the "criminals" they are torturing
or burning in a fire. Other aspect of the question are false accusations
of random people, meant to instill fear in the population, so "they would
not stray out of the right path". If you are terrified of the authority
that can accuse you of being a sorcerer, or a witchcraft, you would guard
yourself and fear of authority, even fear someone could denounce you for
uttering some words out of line.
This state of fear is merely a political device; it has the aim of aborting
any hypothetical rebellion.
eridanus

[Robert Camp]

The argument is not about whether you use the NTS fallacy (though you
do, and I've pointed it out many times). The argument is about whether
the No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy itself.

It doesn't surprise me that you can't keep track of the issue. What is
particularly pitiful, though, is that you demonstrate your ability to
miss the point by complaining about me missing an opportunity to address it.

[Earle Jones27]

*
I was taught that a Christian was one who believed in the divinity of
Christ: That Jesus was the only son of God, who created the Heavens
and Earth.

The Nicene Creed (Apostles' Creed) was the measure of a person's
Christianity. It is based on belief and not on actions.

According to Ray (whose hypothesis is Genesis 1:1) a Christian is one
who "follows Christ."

Consider a person who follows Christ, but doesn't believe in the
Divinity of Jesus.

Is that person a Christian?

How about a person who follows Christ but believes that the whole
religious fairy tale is a bunch of crap?

Is that person a Christian?

earle
*

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/8/16 12:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:05:30 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 2/5/16 1:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 9:20:39 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> In order to prevent the possibility that there might be a
>>>> bait and switch later on, I wanted the equivalence between follower of
>>>> Christ and being a Christian to be explicit.
>>>
>>> Consider it explicit.
>>>
>>>> I will assume henceforth that the two mean exactly the same thing.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you mean it this way, but that kind of qualification puts
>>>> you in the position of saying no Christian can ever sin, in essence that
>>>> Christians are always valorous and true, never bad. It sounds sophomoric
>>>> and detached from reality.
>>>
>>> But I didn't say Christians cannot sin! I made a specific claim.
>>> YET I think I now understand your point and it fails to harm my
>>> claim because when one sins one is not following Christ. And
>>> I've cited Scripture to support my claim with specificity.
>>
>> You said above that being a Christian is the same as following Christ.
>> So when you say, "when one sins one is not following Christ," you say
>> when one sins, one is not a Christian.
>
> When one sins one is not following Christ (= axiomatic fact).

Which means (according to what you said above, that "following Christ" =
"Christian") when one sins, one is not a Christian. Which is both
ludicrous and against everything Christ and Christianity teaches.

It follows, via inevitable logic, that Ray Martinez does not follow Christ.

>> Which is the same as saying
>> Christians cannot sin (because when they do, they are, ipso facto, not
>> Christians).
>
> It's not the same. At any rate you admit that you said it, not me.
>
> Followers of Christ or Christians remain sinners and have the
> capacity to sin until they day they die. You've departed
> specificity because you can't support what you're saying
> from the Bible, unlike myself.

Then you need to alter one of your premises. In particular, note the
fact a Christian is one who *does* sin. Yes, fact. If you disagree,
name one person who identifies as a Christian and has never sinned.

When one follows the north star, that does not mean the person's each
and every step is due north of the previous one. Likewise, following
Christ does not mean doing it perfectly.

[Mark Isaak]

> Did the Inquisitors go about their business thinking Christ
> approved?

I expect so. Some people need to think they are doing God's work in
order to justify committing atrocities.

> If so where did they obtain this idea?
>
> Where did the Inquisitors obtain the idea that their
> actions were sanctioned and approved by Christ?

Almost certainly from the same place you get your idea that (some of)
your actions and beliefs are approved by Christ. Where is that?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 3:00:24 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> For Peter Nyikos: This is WHY I don't care to argue Biblical Theology here at Talk.Origins: can't find anyone with even rudimentary knowledge.

You just say that because you can't cope with what I write about
Biblical Theology, and simply indulge in Truth by Blatant Assertion
that I got it wrong.

A more timely issue: you have yet to deal with something I wrote
to this thread last week:

________________ excerpt_______________________

> Your points belong to previous debates.

Really? in the OP you wrote the following (see above):

"I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors."

If I didn't misrepresent you with the above points, I challenge you to tell
where you feel I DID misrepresent you.

> In this thread I am only addressing my original argument----not rebuttal points made in previous debates.

What about future threads? You have run away from these points in earlier
debates, and have never returned to the threads where they were brought
up. Is it a fact that you will never deal with them again?

> Return to the OP and address what I said.

This comes straight from the OP:

"I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors."

Tell everyone how. I'm waiting...

===============================end of except from

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/hA6A-Z_NbqY/F419Bj_iFwAJ
Message-ID: <5b4788d7-c0af-42b4...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 20:25:06 -0800 (PST)

I'm still waiting...

Peter Nyikos

[Burkhard]

And Ray, having his ignorance exposed again, runs away, unable to refute
a single thing. Is that a rooster I hear crowing in the backyard?

[Peter Nyikos]

Burkhard speaks truer than he knows. Martinez's treatment of Jesus's
relationship with Peter is the worst piece of Biblical Theology I
have ever seen. The only reason I haven't hit him on that is that
he might claim that since it isn't in the OP, I am violating his
express command to me to stick only to things in the OP, and
ignore what I write.

Groundhog Day is only a few days ago, and I think Ray thinks of
himself as a god.

In the film, "Groundhog Day," Rita says "You aren't God" after Phil
claims to be a god. Phil replies with words to the following effect.
"I didn't say `I'm God'; I said `I'm A god.' I'm not THE God -- at least,
I don't think I am."

At least, Ray doesn't think of himself as THE God. :-)

Peter Nyikos

[Burkhard]

You can read for yourself here:
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

That document established the first inquisition. (esp. Canon 3)
>
> Ray
>

[Greg Guarino]

On 2/4/2016 9:16 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 6:55:38 PM UTC-8, gdgu...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Make no mistake this topic is directed primarily at Peter Nyikos, and to a lesser degree Jillery. Concerning Peter, he is basically capricious. One just never knows which side of the bed he will get up on? So in case he gets up on the right side of the bed, defined as responding to messages in a timely manner, not cutting them up beyond recognition, or changing the basic structure of the format, and importing long exchanges from other topics into his messages, all of which contribute to destroying context, I wish to engage him in the subject matter seen in the title.
>>>
>>>
>>> Because of these posting sins briefly alluded to in the above paragraph, I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.
>>>
>>>
>>> My true and original position:
>>>
>>>
>>> Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.
>>>
>>>
>>> IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ. So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ. For when a person murders another person or persons they are not following Christ. So the secular voices who say the Inquisitors were Christians and murderers are refuted. No where in the New Testament does Christ condone murder.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>

>> I'm curious. Suppose someone were to call for the burning of synagogues and the homes of Jews. Could such a person be a Christian while doing so?
>>
>
> I can't readily produce the quotation but Luther also said, in essence, that he was amazed that Christ chose to use an evil person like himself.
>
> Believe me, the quotation I'm alluding to essentially says what is seen above.
>
> Ray
>
But was Luther a Christian while he held those positions?

[Dana Tweedy]

I get the feeling the Ray thinks he outranks God. He's always trying to
explain what God really meant.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

No, he was not following Christ when he advocated harm to non-Christians.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I'm all for objective criteria.

> And that clearly applies here. They accept the Nicean Creed, and that
> is pretty much a key indicator.

As if the NC usurps the Bible! Of course the reverse is true.

> They participate in activities and
> rituals that are clearly associated with the Christian tradition (going
> to mass in church, observing lent etc etc) that makes them clearly
> member of a culturally distinct group.
>

This particular criteria says Catholicism is true; once again the Bible is missing. So your criteria assumes the subjective opinions of the Pope to usurp the founding document (Bible).

> That they might not be perfect members of that group, or not match your
> own private vision of an ideal member, is irrelevant

As argued, literally, your criteria only supports membership in the Catholic Church, not a follower of Christ.

> >
> >> You simply define yourself right.
> >
> > Does the definition of evolution do the same?
>
> no, of course not
>

Question was rhetorical. If one does accept the definition of evolution one is assenting to the alleged fact.

> >
> >> and the problem with that is that every other group can of course use the
> >> same argument. So Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans etc, pretty much every
> >> religion with a rudimentary ethics, can also claim that their members
> >> never commit murder.
> >
> > They would HAVE to show it from a preexisting text. The argument I make is quite explicit AND can be supported throughout the Bible with specificity. Does the Koran, for example, advocate jihad as understood today?
>
> No true Muslim would, obviously, jihad, meaning merely "struggle", only
> refers to the internal struggle of a person against temptation, and to
> live a righteous life.
>
> Or so the argument would run.
>
> >
> > Secular voices admit the person of Christ did not advocate violence in order to maintain or propagate His message.
> >
> Apart of course when he assaulted the money changers with a dangerous
> weapon. Or told his disciples to sell their coats and buy swords if they
> did not have any. Or sanction a degree of violent self-defence even
> though he then deescalated the conflict. And of course endorsed all the
> precepts for conduct of war from the Old Testament - Matthew 5:18
>

This particular response challenges a basic premise of my argument (well known secular position that holds Christ as a religious leader who did not advocate violence in order to maintain or propagate His message).

So Burk's attempt to paint Christ an advocate of violence is refuted by the well known secular position alone.

As for his case: overturning the moneychangers tables was an act of integrity and courage; for only Jesus could get away with such an act; nobody was injured except for the days receipts; perhaps Burk could support his accusation here? If not I'll assume the same is his original idea and an ad hoc one at that.

As for the remainder of his accusations, they are obviously ad hoc.

>
> So acts of unjust violence cannot be said to
> > occur as originating from Christ.
>
> But since according to you whatever god does is just, this is just a
> tautology - at least within your belief system
>

How can God do anything unjust or unrighteous? If the answer is yes then you're implying God is not God; that some other thing is God.

> When He was arrested in the Garden one of His apostles drew his sword
> and injured a member of the arresting party. Jesus told him to sheath
> his sword and healed the injury miraculously.
> >
>
> According to Luke, but strangely not in the other gospels. And as I
> said, you could as well read this as a story of "proportionate self
> defence - having previously sanctioned the swords in the first place,
>

I provided direct evidence of deliberate non-violence. You refuse to acknowledge while creating a negative response. Evidence, it appears, is irrelevant to you.

> >> And atheists can do this too, because we know since
> >> Aristotle that causing harm is a irrational, so any group that centers
> >> around a notion of rationality can avail itself of your argument. And
> >> with that we have neatly proven that nobody commits murder, ever.
> >
> > Your attempt to drown out the small of core of crucial facts fails IF a preexisting text exists supporting these facts with specificity. That Text exists as does the specificity.
> >
>
> no idea what that is supposed to mean
>

It means I have and can continue supporting my claims from Scripture. Christianity specifically says reality is under the direct control of Christ and Satan. When one is sinning, Satan is being followed. The passages I invoked concerning the Apostle Peter SHOW how the battle goes back and forth, from one hour or moment to the next. So what I say is supported with specificity.

> > So the burden is now on you to support your claim. Show when a person who is Atheist commits murder they are not following the tenets of Atheism?
>
> Plato, Apology, 26a. All evil is the result of ignorance. Our innate
> capacity to reason therefore leads naturally to a life that eschews
> evil. committing evil is irrational, and as atheist, you thrive to
> rationality.
>
> Mind you, I don't believe in this argument myself - the point is that it
> is just as invalid as yours, and for the same reasons.
>

Your claims lack specificity. They're ad hoc generalities .

> >All you can do is say secular law forbids murder. Therefore violators are acting non-secularly. The claim lacks specificity. It relies on mere existence of antonyms.
> >
> >>
> >> The second problem is that it is from a Christian perspective abysmally
> >> bad theology, deeply heretic and indeed undermining the foundations of
> >> Christianity.
> >
> > Groundless assertions.
>
> The "grounds" or reasons are in the next sentence - that is how
> "because" works in the English language. Maybe you should try more
> thinking, less writing?
>
> >
> >> Because a founding idea of Christianity is that we need
> >> Christ for the redemption of our sins, and you have just "proven", by
> >> clever looking manipulation of words, that no Christian ever sins.
> >
> > This observation says when sinning occurs it is sanctioned by Christ;
>
> Nope, it doesn't, and I have no idea how anyone with minimal logical
> skills could read it into the text. The sinning is not sanctioned
> (permitted) by Christ, but it also does not mean that you stop being a
> Christian when you sin.

I've supported my view from the Bible; one moment Peter was following Christ the next he was following Satan. And I do indeed understand what you're saying, but you lack the theological expertise to argue it from Scripture. I'm not trying to insult you; rather, just stating a fact.

> Same way in which secular law in the US
> prohibits murder, but you don't stop being a US citizen if you kill
> nonetheless.
>
>
> >the same is blasphemy. Christ causes no one to sin,
>
> nobody said he did, that claim is only in your mind
>
> >and He disapproves of that which sends a person to hell.
> >
> > Granted, according to Biblical Theology, the Atonement consisted of the Sin Offering and the Trespass Offering. The latter covers knowledge of sins committed. The former covers the state of sin or the inherited Adamic nature. Both are reckoned freely to the sinner in exchange for faith. But one is not in the faith ***when*** one is committing murder, for example.
>
> Lots of words, no meaning
> >
> > Ray
> >

In other words your theological knowledge has reached its limits.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 6:05:22 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 7:45:21 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
> > On 2/4/2016 9:16 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 6:55:38 PM UTC-8, gdgu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > >>> Make no mistake this topic is directed primarily at Peter Nyikos, and to a lesser degree Jillery. Concerning Peter, he is basically capricious.

It is you who are basically capricious, Ray. You tell me to stick to the OP,
and even when I do, you ignore me.

<snip for focus>

> > >>> I wish to engage [Peter] in the subject matter seen in the title.

I stuck to the subject matter seen in the title, but you moved the goalposts
and demanded that I stick to things you wrote in the OP.

So I did that in reply to you, and you have twice ignored me.

> > >>> Because of these posting sins briefly alluded to in the above
> > >>> paragraph, I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning
> > >>> the Inquisitors.

I think I see why you ignored my requests to tell me in what way
you think I misrepresented your position: you cannot think of a single
way! In fact, it seems you never had any way in mind, you just wanted to bring
charges of misbehavior by me, based on things having nothing to do with
your position concerning the Inquisitors.

I snipped them above because of their complete irrelevance to your
illogical feelings.

> > >>> So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.

> > >>> My true and original position:

It isn't your original position, liar. I don't think you can find yourself
writing anything like the following in the whole thread where you
introduced this topic.

> > >>> Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.

Your original unequivocal statement went like this:

So the Inquisitors delivered people to their deaths. The Inquisitors
murdered people. Murderers are not following Christ when they murder,
so these people were not and are not Christians, but Atheists denying
Christ and His command to love your enemies.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/9-iVn1GcuhA/PmwrrqK7CgAJ
Message-ID: <75e34976-f64c-4c79...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:13:35 -0700 (PDT)

> > >>>
> > >>> IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices

The "secular" voice was your own, Ray. YOU wrote the words above.

And no amount of "context-mongering" will save you. You wrote these
words in reply to me, and if you click the above link you will see
that these words are NOT taken out of context. In fact, the context
only makes it more clear that it was YOU, and not some "secular
voices," who wrote the above.

> > >>> I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ.
So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ.

And you not only claimed they were murderers, you drew the conclusion
that they were Atheists and not followers of Christ.

That was your original position. And if you are squeezed into a corner
on this NEW position of yours, I expect you to disappear from this
thread, never to return, and then start another thread saying something
ELSE was your original and true position.

And now, let's look at what Guarino told you, with this background in mind.

> > >> I'm curious. Suppose someone were to call for the burning of synagogues and the homes of Jews. Could such a person be a Christian while doing so?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I can't readily produce the quotation but Luther also said, in essence, that he was amazed that Christ chose to use an evil person like himself.
> > >
> > > Believe me, the quotation I'm alluding to essentially says what is seen above.
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > But was Luther a Christian while he held those positions?
>
> No, he was not following Christ when he advocated harm to non-Christians.
>
> Ray

That's not what Guarino asked you.

Let me put it this way: are YOU a Christian Protestant evangelical
when you bear false witness against me? You certainly aren't following
Christ's express command, "Don't bear false witness" whenever you do it,
like when you lie that my accusations of slander by you are actually
disagreements about evolution.

Peter Nyikos

[eridanus]

on person is a Christian if he "apparently believes in Christ" and is not
challenging the main dogma in a dramatic manner. Just in little details.

Then, a fake Christian is indistinguishable from a true one, as a rule of
thumb.
eridanus

[eridanus]

El martes, 9 de febrero de 2016, 0:05:24 (UTC), Earle Jones27 escribió:

That is the question of appearances. Just imagine the moon landing was
a hoax, for the sake of the argument, and those that "landed on the moon"
are still astronauts that landed on the moon. You cannot see any sign
in their faces that they had not landed.

Then, some Christians are "professional Christians", not sure about the
meaning of this. But ordinary Christians "are not professional" but
common rank people that follow the crowd with not much heed. And this
idea can be extended to being Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever. You simply
comply with the rules... more or less, depending on how much forced you
are to. If not forced... and there some social apparatus working to force
you, if not forced, your religion slowly fades into oblivion. It gets
extinguished. But if not were because some people is earning a buck out of
it that "they work against the extinction".
eridanus

[Burkhard]

So you claim, but why should I take your subjective opinion for it? For
hundred and millions of Christians and through the centuries, accepting
the NC is a crucial litmus test for belonging to a christian church.

>
>> They participate in activities and
>> rituals that are clearly associated with the Christian tradition (going
>> to mass in church, observing lent etc etc) that makes them clearly
>> member of a culturally distinct group.
>>
>
> This particular criteria says Catholicism is true;

No it doesn't. Truth of any specific religion does not enter into it.
But as a matter of historical, socio-cultural fact, Catholics are
Christians, so one diagnostic criterion to identify Christians is
observing participation in rituals and activities that distinguish them
from other religions or groups.

Doesn't mean that we have to observe it for any specific member - that
distinguishes diagnostic criteria from definitions - or that
contradictory evidence can counterbalance such an observation (observing
that a person worships Shiva, and whn he goes to mass only to have a
place where he can listen in quiet to the football over his mp3 player),
but it is a pretty good and very objective criterion nonetheless.

> once again the Bible is missing. So your criteria assumes the subjective opinions of the Pope to usurp the founding document (Bible).

No, my criteria takes the fact that historically, culturally and
socially, Catholics are Christians, something you can check in any
"history of ideas for dummies" book. I take this objective historical
fact over the subjective opinion of some random guy on the Internet any
time.

>
>> That they might not be perfect members of that group, or not match your
>> own private vision of an ideal member, is irrelevant
>
> As argued, literally, your criteria only supports membership in the Catholic Church, not a follower of Christ.

That specific criterion allows me to identify a person as Christian,
since Catholics are Christians, your private and subjective definitions
notwithstanding. It doesn't work for every person, but diagnostic
criteria don't have to. For a protestant, you simply check the
corresponding, external and observable behaviour.

>
>>>
>>>> You simply define yourself right.
>>>
>>> Does the definition of evolution do the same?
>>
>> no, of course not
>>
>
> Question was rhetorical. If one does accept the definition of evolution one is assenting to the alleged fact.

Only in your world, not in reality. There is no definition of evolution
that on its own guarantees that it also exists.

>
>>>
>>>> and the problem with that is that every other group can of course use the
>>>> same argument. So Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans etc, pretty much every
>>>> religion with a rudimentary ethics, can also claim that their members
>>>> never commit murder.
>>>
>>> They would HAVE to show it from a preexisting text. The argument I make is quite explicit AND can be supported throughout the Bible with specificity. Does the Koran, for example, advocate jihad as understood today?
>>
>> No true Muslim would, obviously, jihad, meaning merely "struggle", only
>> refers to the internal struggle of a person against temptation, and to
>> live a righteous life.
>>
>> Or so the argument would run.
>>
>>>
>>> Secular voices admit the person of Christ did not advocate violence in order to maintain or propagate His message.
>>>
>> Apart of course when he assaulted the money changers with a dangerous
>> weapon. Or told his disciples to sell their coats and buy swords if they
>> did not have any. Or sanction a degree of violent self-defence even
>> though he then deescalated the conflict. And of course endorsed all the
>> precepts for conduct of war from the Old Testament - Matthew 5:18
>>
>
> This particular response challenges a basic premise of my argument (well known secular position that holds Christ as a religious leader who did not advocate violence in order to maintain or propagate His message).
>
> So Burk's attempt to paint Christ an advocate of violence is refuted by the well known secular position alone.

So a "well know secular position" trumps the bible? Do you ever think
before you write?

>
> As for his case: overturning the moneychangers tables was an act of integrity and courage; for only Jesus could get away with such an act;

The issue under discussion is the use of violence, not whether there are
justifications for the violence.

>nobody was injured except for the days receipts;

not according to John 2:13-16, where he made a weapon normally used on
animal hide, and used it on them. And if you are a small business, the
days receipt can mean if your children get hungry.

>perhaps Burk could support his accusation here? If not I'll assume the same is his original idea and an ad hoc one at that.

Sigh, look up what ad hoc means, for heaven's sake.

>
> As for the remainder of his accusations, they are obviously ad hoc.

you really, really need to read up on what ad hoc means

>
>>
>> So acts of unjust violence cannot be said to
>>> occur as originating from Christ.
>>
>> But since according to you whatever god does is just, this is just a
>> tautology - at least within your belief system
>>
>
> How can God do anything unjust or unrighteous? If the answer is yes then you're implying God is not God; that some other thing is God.

Not really, no. A deity that declares an abstract moral law, which is
intelligible enough for people to judge their own actions and the
actions of others, can of course then also be applied on the actions of
said deity. Same way in which a parent teaches their children what you
can, must and must not do - and of course the children can then apply
this standard also to the actions of the parent.

The same idea is the cornerstone for the rule of law: the law giver, the
members of parliament, are as bound by the rules they promulgate as the
citizens are.

What you are arguing for is simply "special pleading",exempting one
actor from the rules ta universally apply to everyone else - which is
funnily enough exactly what "ad hoc" means, when used correctly: an
unjustified exception to a general rule.

>
>> When He was arrested in the Garden one of His apostles drew his sword
>> and injured a member of the arresting party. Jesus told him to sheath
>> his sword and healed the injury miraculously.
>>>
>>
>> According to Luke, but strangely not in the other gospels. And as I
>> said, you could as well read this as a story of "proportionate self
>> defence - having previously sanctioned the swords in the first place,
>>
>
> I provided direct evidence of deliberate non-violence. You refuse to acknowledge while creating a negative response. Evidence, it appears, is irrelevant to you.

You really don't understand how to build an argument based on evidence,
do you? You mention falsification, but you have no idea whatsoever what
it means, or how to do it, do you? You are making a universal claim:
Jesus NEVER... The only thing I have to do to rebut or falsify that
claim is one single counter example - and i gave you the evidence, from
be bible,for this. Which makes your evidence that sometimes, he was also
non-violent, simply irrelevant for the claim that you have been making

>
>>>> And atheists can do this too, because we know since
>>>> Aristotle that causing harm is a irrational, so any group that centers
>>>> around a notion of rationality can avail itself of your argument. And
>>>> with that we have neatly proven that nobody commits murder, ever.
>>>
>>> Your attempt to drown out the small of core of crucial facts fails IF a preexisting text exists supporting these facts with specificity. That Text exists as does the specificity.
>>>
>>
>> no idea what that is supposed to mean
>>
>
> It means I have and can continue supporting my claims from Scripture.

As did I. Only that in your case,the evidence that you cited was
unsuitable to actually support your claim - which you could have seen
had you understood what your won claim logically entails..

>Christianity specifically says reality is under the direct control of Christ and Satan. When one is sinning, Satan is being followed. The passages I invoked concerning the Apostle Peter SHOW how the battle goes back and forth, from one hour or moment to the next. So what I say is supported with specificity.

No it isn't, really, because the issue under discussion is if a person
is a Christian, even if they fail to follow all the time Christ in their
action.

>
>>> So the burden is now on you to support your claim. Show when a person who is Atheist commits murder they are not following the tenets of Atheism?
>>
>> Plato, Apology, 26a. All evil is the result of ignorance. Our innate
>> capacity to reason therefore leads naturally to a life that eschews
>> evil. committing evil is irrational, and as atheist, you thrive to
>> rationality.
>>
>> Mind you, I don't believe in this argument myself - the point is that it
>> is just as invalid as yours, and for the same reasons.
>>
>
> Your claims lack specificity. They're ad hoc generalities .

sigh. I don;t think that in all the years you posted here, you used "ad
hoc" correctly even once, but this one is particularly funny. Being "ad
hoc" (which btw does not mean necessarily "wrong") means to stipulate a
specific exception from a general rule. "ad hoc generalities" is
therefore a contradiction in terms, as meaningless as saying "a white
black thing".

My claim is stronger, not weaker than a specific example, all specific
examples follow from it by simple modus ponens. Really, really basic logic.

>
>>> All you can do is say secular law forbids murder. Therefore violators are acting non-secularly. The claim lacks specificity. It relies on mere existence of antonyms.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The second problem is that it is from a Christian perspective abysmally
>>>> bad theology, deeply heretic and indeed undermining the foundations of
>>>> Christianity.
>>>
>>> Groundless assertions.
>>
>> The "grounds" or reasons are in the next sentence - that is how
>> "because" works in the English language. Maybe you should try more
>> thinking, less writing?
>>
>>>
>>>> Because a founding idea of Christianity is that we need
>>>> Christ for the redemption of our sins, and you have just "proven", by
>>>> clever looking manipulation of words, that no Christian ever sins.
>>>
>>> This observation says when sinning occurs it is sanctioned by Christ;
>>
>> Nope, it doesn't, and I have no idea how anyone with minimal logical
>> skills could read it into the text. The sinning is not sanctioned
>> (permitted) by Christ, but it also does not mean that you stop being a
>> Christian when you sin.
>
> I've supported my view from the Bible; one moment Peter was following Christ the next he was following Satan. And I do indeed understand what you're saying, but you lack the theological expertise to argue it from Scripture. I'm not trying to insult you; rather, just stating a fact.

Ray, I was taught by some of the best theologians we currently have -
including, as it so happens, a pope-to-be, and later worked with several
of them on research projects. I probably forget in a single week more
about theology than you will learn in your lifetime.

I supported my arguments with biblical quotes, unlike you, I had not to
torture them into an argument.

>
>> Same way in which secular law in the US
>> prohibits murder, but you don't stop being a US citizen if you kill
>> nonetheless.
>>
>>
>>> the same is blasphemy. Christ causes no one to sin,
>>
>> nobody said he did, that claim is only in your mind
>>
>>> and He disapproves of that which sends a person to hell.
>>>
>>> Granted, according to Biblical Theology, the Atonement consisted of the Sin Offering and the Trespass Offering. The latter covers knowledge of sins committed. The former covers the state of sin or the inherited Adamic nature. Both are reckoned freely to the sinner in exchange for faith. But one is not in the faith ***when*** one is committing murder, for example.
>>
>> Lots of words, no meaning
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>
> In other words your theological knowledge has reached its limits.

no, my theological knowledge allows me to identify you cut ad past job
from "Christianity for dummies" as what it is, mindless repetition of
something you obviously don't understand, otherwise you would not offer
it in support of your argument, which it is incapable of support.
>
> Ray
>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 2:00:35 AM UTC-5, A.Carlson wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 19:57:26 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 11:00:37 PM UTC-5, A.Carlson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 18:04:49 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 8:30:40 PM UTC-5, A.Carlson wrote:

> >> >> Just one example is where Samson, after making a rash bet, ends up
> >> >> killing 30 people just to steal their clothes to pay off said reckless
> >> >> bet. Of course the Hebrew god did not lose favor with Samson for
> >> >> being a mass murderer (he was, after all, killing the *right* sort of
> >> >> people) but only lost favor with Samson when his hair was eventually
> >> >> cut - even though said act was committed by someone else!
> >> >
> >> >This use of "lost favor with" is too one dimensional. Jacob certainly
> >> >did not lose favor with God just because he cheated Esau out of a
> >> >blessing; but he suffered plenty for it later, with Laban doing unto
> >> >Jacob as Jacob had done unto Esau. And Samson got his comeuppance too,
> >> >as you yourself noted.
> >>
> >> But for cutting his hair, not for killing so many (presumably)
> >> innocent people.
> >
> >Evidently you've never heard the saying, "God writes straight in
> >crooked ways." The late Roman Catholic historian Warren Carroll,
> >used it at least once while writing about the French Revolution
> >in _The Guillotine and the Cross_. He made a similar comment on how
> >Robespierre was defeated, not by the admirable Danton, but by
> >the underhanded Fouche.
> >
> >He commented, "Justice does not always come like lightning from above;
> >sometimes it comes like a tentacle reaching up from quicksand" or
> >words to that effect.
>
> Yes, one must try and rationalize a great deal of wiggle room if one
> wants to make a particular claim of cause and effect.

The particular claims are in the book of Judges about Samson. The whole
story seems to me no more than a folk tale, like Robin Hood or William
Tell; and I sometimes wonder if it was generally seen as such. I note
that the Sadducees would accept nothing beyond the Torah (Pentateuch).
And so, when they needled Jesus about the woman with seven husbands,
he had to do the best he could with what they accepted; the book
of Daniel, which does speak of the resurrection of the dead, was
off the table.

<snip for focus>

> >> And throughout the bible you can find a great many justifications for
> >> even trivial offences, including apostasy.

I took this to be your atheistic POV being laid upon the bible; apostasy
is hardly a trivial offense for one who is supposed to love the Lord
his God with his whole mind and strength.

> >Maybe you can, but I haven't seen any. Care to enlighten me?
>
> Really? Either your own personal moral compass is askew or you know
> little about the bible.

Nothing askew about my interpretation of what the crime of apostasy
meant to those who believed it.

> In Exodus 20, where the "ten commandments" were being laid out, it
> declares that the Hebrew god was a "jealous God" who would punish
> multiple generations of fathers who worship otherwise (never mind that
> elsewhere in the Bible it was held that children should not bear the
> sins of the father but only their own sins).

Well said, that last bit. [I'm not convinced even of the truth of
there being a creator; in fact I think the evidence on the whole
is against it. But I want the bible seen as it is, and not as filtered
through an atheistic world-view.]

<snip scriptural citations; will look them up when I'm not in a hurry>

<snip earlier text not commented on>

> >> But the killings sanctioned in the Bible concerned issues far more
> >> trivial than blood feuds.
> >
> >I don't suppose this refers to genocide of peoples who have been
> >accused of child sacrifice, like the Caananites, as opposed to the things
> >you relate further down.
>
> Men, women, AND children? Really? En Mass? Are you really making an
> attempt to justify genocide here?

You really are on an atheistic campaign, so much so that you don't see
how I turned your "trivial" to boomerang against you. Read what I wrote
above in brackets, and note that if anyone is making an attempt to justify
genocide, it is you.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later; duty calls.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:59:33 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com>:

And, like many of his stripe, what God is allowed to do.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 8:25:35 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:15:37 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:40:38 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >

> > > Because it contributes nothing to the position on the Inquisitors you
> > > really want to talk about, I've snipped a preamble consisting of a paragraph
> > > and an opening clause to the following paragraph.

> > >
> > > > I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.
> > >

> > > You are only repeating a small part of the things you said concerning
> > > the Inquisitors and have NOT repudiated.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > My true and original position:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ.
> > >
> > > > So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ. For when a person murders another person or persons they are not following Christ. So the secular voices who say the Inquisitors were Christians and murderers are refuted. No where in the New Testament does Christ condone murder.
> > >

> > > If that were all you claimed, there would be no serious problem with
> > > what you did, but you also alleged YOURSELF, repeatedly, that the Inquisitors
> > > WERE murderers (and that therefore, they weren't Christians). And you dug
> > > yourself in deeper by posting the following:
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. Their motives and acts, by standards of today, are
> > > rightfully considered premeditated murder or even genocide.
> > >
> > > 2. Many secular voices assent to the above.
> > >
> > > 3. The New Testament says they are murderers.
> > >
> > > You did NOT say "above and below" in 2. So 3. came with your endorsement.
> > >
> > > I've called this to your attention at least twice, and each time
> > > you neither retracted statement 3. nor defended it, and I've given
> > > reasons on the original thread that 3. is not only false but
> > > incongruous with some things the NT does say.

> > >
> >
> > Your points belong to previous debates.
>
> Really? in the OP you wrote the following (see above):
>

> "I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors."
>

> If I didn't misrepresent you with the above points, I challenge you to tell
> where you feel I DID misrepresent you.
>

But this thread is about the OP. When and if you misrepresent my position then I'll protest.

> > In this thread I am only addressing my original argument----not rebuttal points made in previous debates.
>
> What about future threads? You have run away from these points in earlier
> debates, and have never returned to the threads where they were brought
> up. Is it a fact that you will never deal with them again?

IF you address the OP THEN the same rebuttal points should re-appear? You want to circumvent the OP and make certain rebuttal points the OP. If truth is on your side then why not address the OP and see where it leads?

>
> > Return to the OP and address what I said.
>
> This comes straight from the OP:
>

> "I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors."
>

> Tell everyone how. I'm waiting...
>

> Peter Nyikos

By ignoring the claims made in the OP.

And I'm not ignoring you....I decided to create replies that didn't require a lot of time, and I decided to answer Burk.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Since your arguments challenge a basic premise of my argument, you're refuted. The secular view of Christ as a religious leader who did not advocate or condone violence to maintain or propagate His message is the Biblical view of Christ. Secular, in this instance, got it right.

The remainder of your arguments are ad hoc; and since you don't know what "ad hoc" means no wonder these arguments are as such.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

When Christ condemned an act of violence perpetrated against a member of the arresting party, in the Garden, then healing the injury miraculously, all of the same serves to account for the means to act violently, but not to do so. This is WHY some of His apostles were armed with swords. The means to act violently existed.

Now I offer another passage:

Matthew 10:16 (Jesus speaking):

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

Christ is talking to His disciples, His followers; in the verse these are called "sheep." The "wolves" represent unbelievers or the secular world----their hatred of Christ's message----and their willingness to stop it with violence.

Of course the martyrdom of Christ's apostles and disciples are well known.

Ray

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9dd35e26-f13c-48c0...@googlegroups.com...

>> >> declares to God his intention to give the zakat, then he simply is

>> >> declares to God his intention to give the zakat, then he simply is

Is Christ just another name for Jesus?

IMHO, Christ is the risen, resurrected Christ, not the deceased human person
Jesus. If Jesus was a person, hed be past Rigor Mortis and well away in the
process of rottening
Bacteria as well as rodents et cetera probably would have been doing their
job in the meantime. Not much left for physical resurrection.

Wake up, it is all a myth, a myth that we all should partake in, make true
in our own life, like Paul did.

But anyway, say Jesus when you mean Jesus and Christ when that's whagt you
mean to same.

Unless you consider the two being one and the same, then we don't need two
names.

But in this matter as in any other matters, you are the ultimate authority.
Right?

Why two names, what about I call you Jeremiah instead of Ray, should it
matter?



> Ray
>
>

[Burkhard]

in the: "you'd be right but for my omniscience" category

[Burkhard]

here is a definition for absolute beginners, Ray:

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/glossary.html

now show me where I made a stipulation purely for the purpose of saving
a theory from difficulty or refutation, without any independent
motivation or rationale

[Burkhard]

They were not just armed with swords, they were told by Christ to sell
their things to buy swords, a rather stronger proposition.

>
> Now I offer another passage:
>
> Matthew 10:16 (Jesus speaking):
>
> "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
>
> Christ is talking to His disciples, His followers; in the verse these are called "sheep." The "wolves" represent unbelievers or the secular world----their hatred of Christ's message----and their willingness to stop it with violence.
>

And the role of the Shepherd is to kill the wolves - Psalm 23.

> Of course the martyrdom of Christ's apostles and disciples are well known.>
> Ray

and you still don't get what type of evidence you need to support your
claim. No amount of quotes that support a peaceful version of
Christianity can show
a) that if you act violent, you are not a Christian (as opposed to
merely being bad at being a Christian
b) makes the evidence that sometimes, violence is endorsed, go away

>
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:33:59 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>in the: "you'd be right but for my omniscience" category

>> Since your arguments challenge a basic premise of my argument, you're refuted.

Oy...

Did some idiot *really* post that?

[Robert Camp]

My jaw dropped when I saw that as well. Even for Ray that is a
spectacular bit of incoherence.

[Earle Jones27]

*
Peter: I hope you understand that bit of RayLogic:

"If your arguments challenge a basic premise of Ray's argumemt. your
arguments are refuted."

earle
*

[Ray Martinez]

Because you don't understand argument. When premises are challenged, especially one established by the secular world, the challenger is saying your argument is logical and supports the premise.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

"When premises are challenged..." [the challenger] "...supports the
premise."

It seems to me that your cognitive capacity shows damage far beyond that
which one would expect from ideological delusion. You cannot even put
together a coherent sentence, much less argue logically. Whatever drugs
you are doing, or should be doing but aren't, please fix the problem
before you hurt yourself or someone else.

[Ray Martinez]

The fact that your colleague Burk is challenging the premise that Christ was overtly against violence is because he sees no other way to defeat my arguments. The premise, of course, is rock solid, established by persons who do not share my worldview. Thus I am not the least bit obligated to give any credence to Burk's ridiculous contortions of Scripture while evading the clear meaning of verses that I have already produced. Burk is defeated and refuses to admit. Moreover, neither am I obligated to respond to ad hoc points created on the spot for a special purpose. When and if Burk were to support these ad hoc "arguments" via other scholarly sources that have said the exact same thing then and only then do these "points" become non-ad hoc, deserving a response.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 12:00:15 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 2/11/16 11:34 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:55:14 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp
> > wrote:
> >> On 2/11/16 8:33 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> >>> in the: "you'd be right but for my omniscience" category
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Since your arguments challenge a basic premise of my argument,
> >>>> you're refuted.
> >>
> >> My jaw dropped when I saw that as well. Even for Ray that is a
> >> spectacular bit of incoherence.
> >
> > Because you don't understand argument. When premises are challenged,
> > especially one established by the secular world, the challenger is
> > saying your argument is logical and supports the premise.
>
> "When premises are challenged..." [the challenger] "...supports the
> premise."
>

You just established yourself as the one who doesn't understand.

> It seems to me that your cognitive capacity shows damage far beyond that
> which one would expect from ideological delusion. You cannot even put
> together a coherent sentence, much less argue logically. Whatever drugs
> you are doing, or should be doing but aren't, please fix the problem
> before you hurt yourself or someone else.

Rant.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

Matthew 10:34

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:55:14 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On 2/11/16 8:33 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>>> in the: "you'd be right but for my omniscience" category
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since your arguments challenge a basic premise of my argument, you're
>>>>> refuted.
>>>
>>> My jaw dropped when I saw that as well. Even for Ray that is a
>>> spectacular bit of incoherence.
>>
>> Because you don't understand argument. When premises are challenged, especially one established by the secular world, the challenger is saying your argument is logical and supports the premise.
>>
>> Ray
>
> The fact that your colleague Burk is challenging the premise that Christ was overtly against violence

where do I do this? My claim is that his actions were more ambiguous
than your kindergarden version of his life claims. Sometimes, indeed,
often, he was overtly against violence, at other times less is

>is because he sees no other way to defeat my arguments.

Not really, no, Your argument would be deeply flawed, for the reasons
that I gave, even if Christ had been more consistent on this issue.

The premise, of course, is rock solid, established by persons who do
not share my worldview. Thus I am not the least bit obligated to give
any credence to Burk's ridiculous contortions of Scripture while evading
the clear meaning of verses that I have already produced.

Your verses are irrelevant - a single counterexample falsifies the type
of universal claim you made, regardless how much you have in support of it.

>Burk is defeated and refuses to admit. Moreover, neither am I obligated to respond to ad hoc points created on the spot for a special purpose.

which of course nobody has made.

When and if Burk were to support these ad hoc "arguments" via other
scholarly sources

so in your world scholarly sources trump the Bible? Fascinating!

that have said the exact same thing then and only then do these "points"
become non-ad hoc,

and another data point that you don;t understand what ad hoc means.
deserving a response.
>
> Ray
>

[jillery]

It's almost certain that rockhead does. But like Ray, apparently he
thinks it's ok only when he does it.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:33:59 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>in the: "you'd be right but for my omniscience" category
>
>
>>
>> Since your arguments challenge a basic premise of my argument, you're refuted.

Now that's Chez Watt worthy.

[jillery]

The above illustrates one reason why your posts are incoherent.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:34:56 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

So? If the premise is flawed it matters not a bit whether
the logic chain derived from the flawed premise accurately
follows. Do yourself a favor and look up the meaning of GIGO
before you embarrass yourself further.

To clarify, challenge of the premise is *the* single most
basic beginning for evaluation of a claim; it's done all the
time, and anyone even slightly familiar with logic knows it.
Only after the accuracy of the premise is established can
the logic be evaluated.

And to further clarify, I'm not referring to arguments such
as "*If* this premise is true, then *this* follows
logically", which have the intent of evaluating the premise
by looking for necessary results, but to those such as yours
which begin by *assuming* the premise is true.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 8:10:18 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 8:25:35 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:15:37 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:40:38 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > > > > I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.

> > > > > My true and original position:

You *lied* here about what that position was:

> > > > > Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.

That is not your original position, and you are running
away from the post where I showed you what your original position was:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/hA6A-Z_NbqY/C9PaIK1lGQAJ
Message-ID: <7beac4d0-c661-45d5...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Inquisitors, Christianity, and murder

Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:40:08 -0800 (PST)

It's been two days since you did the post to which I am replying,
and you've done quite a few posts on that day (Feb. 10) and the next, but
I hope your claim at the end of this long post means that your
running away is only temporary.

> > > > > IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ.

You have never established the existence of these alleged
secular voices. In fact, you ran away from the post where
jillery asked you to identify such voices. See documentation below.

You will NEVER either retract or support this claim, will you?

You will NEVER either retract or support the claim that such
secular voices ever existed, will you?

> > > > > So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ. For when a person murders another person or persons they are not following Christ. So the secular voices who say the Inquisitors were Christians and murderers are refuted. No where in the New Testament does Christ condone murder.

And nowhere does he condone bearing false witness, in fact he explicitly
condemns it, so by your standards, you have been a "stacatto Chrisian,"
ceasing to be one when you bear false witness against the people in this
newsgroup, and then becoming a Christian again the moment
you've finished typing your latest falsehood. CORRECT?

If I am correct, then the Inquisitors were also "staccato Christians"
by YOUR crazy standards, ceasing to be Christians once they delivered
up someone to the authorities for legal execution, and becoming
Christians again in between the death of that person and the delivering
of another person up to the authorities, and so on until the
end of the Inquisition.

> > > > If that were all you claimed, there would be no serious problem with
> > > > what you did, but you also alleged YOURSELF, repeatedly, that the Inquisitors
> > > > WERE murderers (and that therefore, they weren't Christians). And you dug
> > > > yourself in deeper by posting the following:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. Their motives and acts, by standards of today, are
> > > > rightfully considered premeditated murder or even genocide.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Many secular voices assent to the above.
> > > >
> > > > 3. The New Testament says they are murderers.
> > > >
> > > > You did NOT say "above and below" in 2. So 3. came with your endorsement.
> > > >
> > > > I've called this to your attention at least twice, and each time
> > > > you neither retracted statement 3. nor defended it, and I've given
> > > > reasons on the original thread that 3. is not only false but
> > > > incongruous with some things the NT does say.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your points belong to previous debates.
> >
> > Really? in the OP you wrote the following (see above):
> >
> > "I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors."
> >
> > If I didn't misrepresent you with the above points, I challenge you to tell
> > where you feel I DID misrepresent you.
> >
>
> But this thread is about the OP. When and if you misrepresent my
> position then I'll protest.

So your feelings that I misrepresented your position were made up off the top
of your head, eh? The allegation that they existed is STRAIGHT FROM
the OP. [See above, right at the beginning of this post.]

Hence I am within my rights, even by your dictatorial standards,
in charging you with lying when you claimed to feel I misrepresented
your position.

Do you plead not guilty? Failure to answer will automatically make your
plea be *nolo contendere*.

>
> > > In this thread I am only addressing my original argument----not rebuttal points made in previous debates.
> >
> > What about future threads? You have run away from these points in earlier
> > debates, and have never returned to the threads where they were brought
> > up. Is it a fact that you will never deal with them again?
>
> IF you address the OP

I started to address it in the post to which you are replying, and
addressed it again in the post from which you are running away, and
I've addressed even more of it in this post. So there is no "IF" about it.

> THEN the same rebuttal points should re-appear?

There were no rebuttal points, liar. You have consistently run away
from the need to either retract or support the claim that the NT
says the Inquisitors were murderers.

> You want to circumvent the OP and make certain rebuttal points the OP. If truth is on your side then why not address the OP and see where it leads?

If truth is on your side, then why don't you stop beating your wife?

THAT is the kind of sentence you've uttered just now.
And you made a false charge in the sentence before it.

> > > Return to the OP and address what I said.
> >
> > This comes straight from the OP:
> >
> > "I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors."
> >
> > Tell everyone how. I'm waiting...
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> By ignoring the claims made in the OP.

You just love to lie and lie and ... indulge in dishonest "logic".
Your claim to feel that I misrepresented you was typed BEFORE you
ever typed out the lie about what your original position was.

You'll excuse all this dishonesty by telling yourself
that Jesus did not care about following moral codes, won't you?

And if jillery has the chutzpah to address what I write here,
I'm sure she'll also have the chutzpah to say she disagrees
with me about what your false statements represent, thereby
implicitly claiming that you are not guilty of lying.

But then, jillery is also a liar, though not to the same
voluminous extent as you or Ron O.

> And I'm not ignoring you....I decided to create replies that didn't require a lot of time, and I decided to answer Burk.

...more than once, and then Robert Camp. But I can be patient, as long as
your running away isn't permanent, this time.

Peter Nyikos

[Inez]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 1:35:40 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Make no mistake this topic is directed primarily at Peter Nyikos, and to a lesser degree Jillery. Concerning Peter, he is basically capricious. One just never knows which side of the bed he will get up on? So in case he gets up on the right side of the bed, defined as responding to messages in a timely manner, not cutting them up beyond recognition, or changing the basic structure of the format, and importing long exchanges from other topics into his messages, all of which contribute to destroying context, I wish to engage him in the subject matter seen in the title.
>
>

> Because of these posting sins briefly alluded to in the above paragraph, I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.

>
>
> My true and original position:
>
>

> Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.
>
>

> IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ. So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ. For when a person murders another person or persons they are not following Christ. So the secular voices who say the Inquisitors were Christians and murderers are refuted. No where in the New Testament does Christ condone murder.
>
> Ray

Most (all?) flavors of Christianity I know of don't expect people to never sin. Rather they suggest everyone is a sinner and you get into heaven by accepting Christ as your personal savior. Your definition of Christianity is at odds with everyone else's.

[jillery]

Indeed. IIUC a fundamental assumption of Bible-based religions is
that all people are inherently flawed, ex, original sin, and so
incapable of keeping any Convenant with God. The assumed distinction
between people is not that they sin, but how often.

[Ray Martinez]

Since what I said epitomizes coherency, your comment is deliberate misrepresentation. And herein one sees how Darwinists operate: they will lie to one's face even when the lie can easily be verified as a lie.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 10:20:10 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:34:56 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:55:14 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> On 2/11/16 8:33 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> >> > in the: "you'd be right but for my omniscience" category
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Since your arguments challenge a basic premise of my argument, you're
> >> >> refuted.
> >>
> >> My jaw dropped when I saw that as well. Even for Ray that is a
> >> spectacular bit of incoherence.
> >
> >Because you don't understand argument. When premises are challenged, especially one established by the secular world, the challenger is saying your argument is logical and supports the premise.
> >
> So? If the premise is flawed it matters not a bit whether
> the logic chain derived from the flawed premise accurately
> follows.

This reply fails to understand what was said. Again: When A PREMISE is challenged the likelihood that the challenge is false is very high. And in THIS case the challenge is, in fact, false: Christ never practiced, advocated, or condoned violence. The only reason this premise is being challenged is because the challenger sees no other way to defeat the argument made based on the truth of the premise. Yet IF the premise is false then of course the ensuing logic would be flawed and the argument false. But that is not the case. In fact, as just mentioned, I'm glad to see said premise challenged: the challenge means my argument is completely sound, invulnerable.

Both secular and non-secular agree: Christ never practiced, advocated, or condoned violence. Anyone who says otherwise is contorting Scripture, ad hoc.

> Do yourself a favor and look up the meaning of GIGO
> before you embarrass yourself further.
>
> To clarify, challenge of the premise is *the* single most
> basic beginning for evaluation of a claim; it's done all the
> time, and anyone even slightly familiar with logic knows it.
> Only after the accuracy of the premise is established can
> the logic be evaluated.
>
> And to further clarify, I'm not referring to arguments such
> as "*If* this premise is true, then *this* follows
> logically", which have the intent of evaluating the premise
> by looking for necessary results, but to those such as yours
> which begin by *assuming* the premise is true.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:41:12 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

Apparently you have very distinctive ideas of what "coherency" means.
None of your expressed premises above are remotely consistent with
reality. When premises are challenged in any world, secular or not,
the challenger is explicitly challenging the premises, and says
nothing about the logic or its support for the premise being
challenged. You really should learn how to read English.

Also, even if your claim was true, that something is true just because
you say so, it doesn't follow that someone is lying when they disagree
with you. That's yet another self-serving assumption you share with
the other self-important... umm... posters... in T.O.

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 7:20:13 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 8:10:18 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 8:25:35 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:15:37 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:40:38 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:35:40 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > > > I feel Peter has misrepresented my position concerning the Inquisitors. So I want to simply repeat my true position and go on from here in this topic.
> > > > > > My true and original position:
>
> You *lied* here about what that position was:
>

Deliberate misrepresentation.

> > > > > > Secular voices routinely say the Inquisitors were murdering Christians. Thus these secular voices are saying Christianity is a false religion populated with hypocrites.
>
> That is not your original position, and you are running
> away from the post where I showed you what your original position was:
>

Another deliberate misrepresentation.

> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/hA6A-Z_NbqY/C9PaIK1lGQAJ
> Message-ID: <7beac4d0-c661-45d5...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Inquisitors, Christianity, and murder
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:40:08 -0800 (PST)
>
> It's been two days since you did the post to which I am replying,
> and you've done quite a few posts on that day (Feb. 10) and the next, but
> I hope your claim at the end of this long post means that your
> running away is only temporary.
>
> > > > > > IN RESPONSE to THESE secular voices I point out people who murder cannot be following Christ.
>
> You have never established the existence of these alleged
> secular voices.

Told you it was a deliberate misrepresentation. Peter produces evidence proving my point. The issue was: my original position. It is seen above. Peter's reply chides the point as unsupported----which isn't the issue. The issue here was my original position. As to Peter's point: He is saying secularists never make the point. Good. If they do my argument stands waiting to refute them. But secularists have made the point. Secularists say many false things about Christianity: just read the writings of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, for example. For Peter to argue secularists have never said X is patently ridiculous. They say worse things. So Peter evades the point. No problem. IF the point is made against Christianity my argument, as mentioned, stands ready to refute.

> In fact, you ran away from the post where
> jillery asked you to identify such voices. See documentation below.
>
> You will NEVER either retract or support this claim, will you?
>
> You will NEVER either retract or support the claim that such
> secular voices ever existed, will you?
>
>
> > > > > > So the Inquisitors cannot, at the same time, be murderers and followers of Christ. For when a person murders another person or persons they are not following Christ. So the secular voices who say the Inquisitors were Christians and murderers are refuted. No where in the New Testament does Christ condone murder.
>
> And nowhere does he condone bearing false witness, in fact he explicitly
> condemns it, so by your standards, you have been a "stacatto Chrisian,"
> ceasing to be one when you bear false witness against the people in this
> newsgroup, and then becoming a Christian again the moment
> you've finished typing your latest falsehood. CORRECT?

An Atheist-Evolutionist, Peter Nyikos, slandering a Protestant Christian, Ray Martinez, as a liar? while asserting secularists would never say Inquisitors were murdering Christians? Nothing new here. Atheists have always slandered Christians as liars and murderers.

>
> If I am correct, then the Inquisitors were also "staccato Christians"
> by YOUR crazy standards, ceasing to be Christians once they delivered
> up someone to the authorities for legal execution, and becoming
> Christians again in between the death of that person and the delivering
> of another person up to the authorities, and so on until the
> end of the Inquisition.

I've supported my view directly from the Bible, unlike my Atheist opponents in this topic.

Mindless accusations. You're way too angry, Peter. If truth is on your side then calm down and argue it.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

As one could expect our Atheist and Darwinist continues to lie to one's face even in plain view of the claims of fact which can easily be verified by reading the exchanges and context.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical)

[solar penguin]

On Saturday, 13 February 2016 20:45:10 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> what I said epitomizes coherency

But "epitomizes" doesn't mean "lacks".

[Ray Martinez]

I've always said IF secular says, and I said I have seen them say it. You don't know that secular routinely lies about Christianity? Oh, you're secular, so you're protecting yourself. Well, looks like my argument has thoroughly convinced you not to say it----couldn't be more pleased. I'm convinced you won't say it because you're challenging the premise.

>
> Hence I am within my rights, even by your dictatorial standards,
> in charging you with lying when you claimed to feel I misrepresented
> your position.
>
> Do you plead not guilty? Failure to answer will automatically make your
> plea be *nolo contendere*.

Peter continues to initiate a mindless accusation of lying because he can't refute anything I say.

>
> >
> > > > In this thread I am only addressing my original argument----not rebuttal points made in previous debates.
> > >
> > > What about future threads? You have run away from these points in earlier
> > > debates, and have never returned to the threads where they were brought
> > > up. Is it a fact that you will never deal with them again?
> >
> > IF you address the OP
>
> I started to address it in the post to which you are replying, and
> addressed it again in the post from which you are running away, and
> I've addressed even more of it in this post. So there is no "IF" about it.
>
> > THEN the same rebuttal points should re-appear?
>
> There were no rebuttal points, liar. You have consistently run away
> from the need to either retract or support the claim that the NT
> says the Inquisitors were murderers.

Peter takes the position that the Inquisitors killed legally, which is a position that if accepted will become lost and augmented to "Christians are murderers."

So Peter's position is ad hoc.

By today's standards the Inquisitors were murderers. And they were not Christians: one cannot say murderers are following Christ.

Ray

[Öö Tiib]

Before it at least seemed that some managed to discuss something with
Ray ... now it seems like ... his wiring is short-circuiting? I am
fully serious, it is most bizarre what he is writing there. Hopefully
he is just pretending.

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:18:08 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>You have never established the existence of these alleged
>secular voices. In fact, you ran away from the post where
>jillery asked you to identify such voices. See documentation below.

Apparently perpetuating your argument with Ray is so important to you
that you don't care about using the testimony of someone you claim is
the most dishonest poster in T.O.