Guilty By Association?

[waitasec]

You're still straddling the fence. You can't have it both ways. You can't conclude that people are guilty by association and then in the next sentence claim that categorizing people is impossible.

i never said categorizing people is impossible if what they claim to be is definable.

christianity is full of good and bad things...cherry picking the good things about it is cowardly

 

[waitasec]

This comment is so richly ironic.

This is what you said on another thread when a Christian asked you if she should be be mocked and ridiculed because of the actions of some other Christians:

Christine:


You:


So - you feel perfectly justified in espousing "guilt by association" when it comes to groups of people. But then you say in another thread that groups of people can't be defined. Oh wait - yes they can - oh, wait - no they can't - I mean some can and some can't -

How can I possibly move your goalposts? WHAT GOALPOSTS? We're not even playing on the same field, or even the same sport apparently.

Here's a shirt that may come in handy:

you whats really ironic?
you are ridiculing me in the same way dawkins is asking atheists to

 

[Kathryn]

you whats really ironic?
you are ridiculing me in the same way dawkins is asking atheists to

I'm not ridiculing you. That's why I didn't say specifically "Here's a shirt for you." At this point in our conversation, we probably should both go out and buy that shirt. Neither of us is making any headway with the other.

I am calling you out though. That's a bit different. We are engaged in a debate. I've been very patient with you on these topics for several days now. I've sourced my comments, explained my POV in detail, given you opportunity after opportunity to clarify your position, and bring some consistency to the table. That's not ridicule and mockery. But I am running out of patience. Your arguments run in circles! It's maddening to try to follow your line of reasoning. That's just the truth as I see it - no mockery intended.

 

[Kathryn]

i never said categorizing people is impossible if what they claim to be is definable.

Oh come on. You're just not willing to accept the definition of Christianity that others present to you. I don't have a problem defining what a Christian is. You do. I guess we're at an impasse.

Of course there are exceptions to rules, and to definitions. But to claim that it's impossible to define the term "Christian" is a real stretch.

 

[waitasec]

I'm not ridiculing you. That's why I didn't say specifically "Here's a shirt for you." At this point in our conversation, we probably should both go out and buy that shirt. Neither of us is making any headway with the other.

I am calling you out though. That's a bit different. We are engaged in a debate. I've been very patient with you on these topics for several days now. I've sourced my comments, explained my POV in detail, given you opportunity after opportunity to clarify your position, and bring some consistency to the table. That's not ridicule and mockery. But I am running out of patience. Your arguments run in circles! It's maddening to try to follow your line of reasoning. That's just the truth as I see it - no mockery intended.

i haven't ridiculed you
or christine so why treat me as if i deserve to be.
i'm only trying to explain why there is tention between the 2 groups
but alas you are hell bent on :ignore: what ever it is i'm saying.

"christians" are associated with the ugly part of it too
whether you accept it or not.

 

[waitasec]

Oh come on. You're just not willing to accept the definition of Christianity that others present to you. I don't have a problem defining what a Christian is. You do. I guess we're at an impasse.

Of course there are exceptions to rules, and to definitions. But to claim that it's impossible to define the term "Christian" is a real stretch.

there are many definitions.
which one should i pick?
yours? but of course....it has to be yours, right?

 

[Kathryn]

i haven't ridiculed you
or christine so why treat me as if i deserve to be.
i'm only trying to explain for there is tention between the 2 groups
but alas you are hell bent on :ignore: what ever it is i'm saying.

"christians" are associated with the ugly part of it too
whether you accept it or not.

Oh, so suddenly you're able to define a group (Christians), AND apply guilt by association.

Thanks for clarifying your position. And quit acting like I'm victimizing you.

 

[waitasec]

Oh, so suddenly you're able to define a group (Christians), AND apply guilt by association.

Thanks for clarifying your position. And quit acting like I'm victimizing you.

"christians" are associated with the ugly part of it too
whether you accept it or not.

 

[Kathryn]

"christians" are associated with the ugly part of it too
whether you accept it or not.

So you are saying that you can define Christians and that Christians are guilty by association?

 

[waitasec]

So you are saying that you can define Christians and that Christians are guilty by association?

"i choose to be a christian and i also choose to disassociate myself from all the bad things christianity is associated with"

is that what you are saying?

 

[Kathryn]

"i choose to be a christian and i also choose to disassociate myself from all the bad things christianity is associated with"

is that what you are saying?

You answer my direct question first and we can go from there.

You have been the one claiming two disparate points as true, apparently without grasping the inconsistency of your argument.

First you say that Christians as a group cannot be defined, because the term "Christian" cannot be defined. Then you apparently determine that you CAN define "Christian" as you would like to, and pronounce Christians as guilty by association.

So - I asked you a direct question, several times in the last few posts. You have not yet answered that question. I will answer your question after you give me the courtesy of answering mine.

 

[waitasec]

You answer my direct question first and we can go from there.

You have been the one claiming two disparate points as true, apparently without grasping the inconsistency of your argument.

First you say that Christians as a group cannot be defined, because the term "Christian" cannot be defined. Then you apparently determine that you CAN define "Christian" as you would like to, and pronounce Christians as guilty by association.

So - I asked you a direct question, several times in the last few posts. You have not yet answered that question. I will answer your question after you give me the courtesy of answering mine.

you promise?

 

[Kathryn]

you promise?

Absolutely! I will DEFINITELY answer your question. I appreciate "playing fair."

 

[waitasec]

So you are saying that you can define Christians and that Christians are guilty by association?

i cannot define christianity as it is associated with the positive and the negative.

 

[Kathryn]

"i choose to be a christian and i also choose to disassociate myself from all the bad things christianity is associated with"

is that what you are saying?

No. What I am saying is that as a Christian, I am responsible for living my faith ethically. I cannot control what other people do in the name of Christianity, and therefore I am not responsible for their actions.

I do not believe in collective guilt. I do, however, accept the reality of collateral damage.

 

[waitasec]

i would also like to clarify that i cannot define "christians" as a whole either, for obvious reasons

 

[Kathryn]

i would also like to clarify that i cannot define "christians" as a whole either, for obvious reasons

ok.

Truce! My house, bottle of wine, long skinny cigarettes, back patio? How much fun would that be to get a bunch of us girls together??? OMG that would be hilarious!

 

[waitasec]

No. What I am saying is that as a Christian, I am responsible for living my faith ethically. I cannot control what other people do in the name of Christianity, and therefore I am not responsible for their actions.

I do not believe in collective guilt. I do, however, accept the reality of collateral damage.

but of course.

in light of where this all came from, dawkins was saying, if you know someone who claims to be a "christian" and doesn't follow all it's tenets or is absolutely convinced of what it claims (by observation)...mock them, and when i say "know" i mean someone who you are personally involved with...not your work mate or someone wearing a religious symbol who happens to be waiting in line with you for a slice of pizza at costco...

 

[waitasec]

ok.

Truce! My house, bottle of wine, long skinny cigarettes, back patio? How much fun would that be to get a bunch of us girls together??? OMG that would be hilarious!

your on!!!

 

[waitasec]

you promise?

a friendly reminder....