Is RF officially ramsacked by the secular movement?

[columbus]

No

Seriously?
You don't think that Mike Pence is a Christian?
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

What are you worried about?

Not worried, but pointing out an issue, yes.

I'm seriously curious . . . are you seeing some subtle shift in religious tolerance that requires you to speak out, citing specific ordinances and actions by a unified movement, or are you building a bomb shelter in the basement of your local church because your a paranoid loon with a persecution complex?

I didn't originally speak out. Osgart started this thread. Your ad hominem is also part of the problem. You are attacking me and/or Osgart, instead of the ideas proposed here.

Either way, just for the record, there is no current persecution now. . . You have no evidence in your actual RL of such oppression going any farther than getting offended when someone says something negative on a anonymous message board and you not liking it? That is your basic position?

Who said anything about oppression? I am not offended by someone saying something negative. Again your ad hominem is not helpful to the discussion at hand.

All we are asking is that the prosecutor provide some evidence or citation to reinforce their argument for, or against, any idea.

 

[Enoch07]

Seriously?
You don't think that Mike Pence is a Christian?
Tom

He does not represent all Christians. Just like you do not represent all LGBT. Just like I do not represent all tattooed people.

 

[Enoch07]

I'd say that right now, society's tacit agreement is that all claims can be challenged. I don't think that's the same as saying "guilty until proven innocent". Do you think they are the same?

I agree. Any idea can be challenged. Nobody is advocating for any idea to be immune to scrutiny.

But when the defendant is expected to provide the burden of proof (to prove innocence) it is a guilty until proven innocent stance. When the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor (to prove guilt) the stance is a innocent until proven guilty stance.

 

[Curious George]

Evidence found may be only a small part of a bigger picture. Then evidence is interpreted, with many different interpretations. Do we put evidence in neat boxes of our own world views, or do we subject our evidences to the conviction that they could be incomplete pictures.

People like to absolute the evidence into their own philosophies, and call that evidently done.

But the unknown is a far greater endeavour.

And with conclusions drawn, that ignore other possibilities, a narrow road is travelled, and many things construed as fact, that may be totally oblivious to what is really out there.

The existence of life is an extraordinary happening, that requires extraordinary explanation. We can hammer it down as a fluke byproduct of physical laws, but that leaves a lot of questions unanswered. The logic of the religious person, is not the logic of secular society.

For the logic of the religious person often is intelligence must pre exist for intelligent life to become. That's bedrock for many religious.

Two contrary logics. Two completely different forms of thought and conviction.

And I haven't seen anyone refute that religious logic successfully.

But no one is going to hold the other sides standards.

So it's an eternal impasse. Why does it have to be bitter, as is sometimes the case?

Is this supposed to be poetic? What exactly are you trying to say. Your word choice and grammar obscure your meaning. For instance, you choose to use absolute as a verb: "People like to absolute..." Why choose a word that is not usually a verb to serve as the verb in an infinitive phrase when an infinitive phrase is itself serving as a noun?

Also, you choose language such as "But the unknown is a far greater endeavour." What does that even mean? Most would take such a poetic statement to mean that it is a greater adventure to go where no man has gone before...this isn't star trek we are discussing. How is it appropriate?

 

[QuestioningMind]

How is extremism anything to do with religion? They use the religion as a vehicle of hate.

Exactly... extremists often use religion to justify their hate. How is asking if people who use their religion to justify their hate are mentally ill an attack of religion?

 

[columbus]

He does not represent all Christians. Just like you do not represent all LGBT. Just like I do not represent all tattooed people.

I didn't say he represented all Christians. But he is a Christian, and staunchly represented the Christians who elected him to governor.
Nobody represents all Christians, because Christianity doesn't mean anything but whatever is believed by someone who identifies as Christian.
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

I didn't say he represented all Christians.
Tom

That is your implication though here:

Christians have long taken for granted right to persecute people.

To which I said it was never a right to begin with and you responded with:

Vice president Mike Pence disagrees.
Not only did he spend years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to save my state from marriage equality, he then got some legislation passed protecting the right of religionists to discriminate, if the persecution was due to sincerely held religious beliefs.

To which I say by all means prosecute Pence specifically, prosecute any specific Christians who do these things. But all Christians do not do these things. So you can't prosecute Christianity as a whole based on what Pence does. Because that is saying Pence speaks for all Christians.

 

[icehorse]

I agree. Any idea can be challenged. Nobody is advocating for any idea to be immune to scrutiny.

But when the defendant is expected to provide the burden of proof (to prove innocence) it is a guilty until proven innocent stance. When the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor (to prove guilt) the stance is a innocent until proven guilty stance.

I disagree. I think you're conflating the legal system with truth claims. I've never heard the idea that a person who makes a claim is a "defendant"? That seems non-sensical to me, what am I missing?

In other words, if I claim that the earth is roughly spherical, I'm not a defendant. I might be called upon to defend the claim, but my person is distinct from the claim, correct? IMO, you can't equate "burden of proof" in those two scenarios.

 

[osgart]

He implies that religious fervor is something akin to mental illness. He should have stated that he was talking about how extremism doesn't fit in with religion.

 

[Enoch07]

Critique and scrutiny isn't persecution, and if your beliefs are sound and solid, then they should easily stand up to critique and scrutiny. If you're strong and confident in your faith, then having it challenged shouldn't be an issue.

Nobody is saying critique and scrutiny should be abandoned.

Just that a challenge to any idea be reinforced with citation and/or evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest and I fight all the time. I am a decent human being and he is a Trumpy sort.
And he's faux Scottish. And he believes in all feticide all the time because he doesn't want to share the planet with anyone, he gives only grudging allowance to continue breathing to people who aren't him. At best.

So what? So we fight? I don't bother with internet entertainment unless it's entertaining. RF is entertaining, largely because of miscreants like him.
And he's not even religious, except for his Libertarian tendencies. Then he sounds like a Creationist.
Tom

ETA ~ Frankly, Rev is more entertaining than any Saint or Stein I've ever met.~

And you're a fairly decent sort too, as liberal SJWs go.

 

[columbus]

But all Christians do not do these things.

I didn't say that all Christians do.

I said that Christians do. And that is true. Christians do persecute people for ideological reasons. Pence is one of them.
How about this. Instead of telling me that Christians who persecute people, like Pence does, aren't True Christians, you tell the Christians that? Christians like the RF members who think that Trump and Pence are Christians.
How about that? Explaining to the Christians what Christianity means, instead of telling me? I already knowtl.
Tom

 

[columbus]

And your a fairly decent sort too, as liberal SJWs go.

I am not a liberal SJW.
And I know when "you're" is correct and when "your" is correct.
Tom

 

[osgart]

Is this supposed to be poetic? What exactly are you trying to say. Your word choice and grammar obscure your meaning. For instance, you choose to use absolute as a verb: "People like to absolute..." Why choose a word that is not usually a verb to serve as the verb in an infinitive phrase when an infinitive phrase is itself serving as a noun?

Also, you choose language such as "But the unknown is a far greater endeavour." What does that even mean? Most would take such a poetic statement to mean that it is a greater adventure to go where no man has gone before...this isn't star trek we are discussing. How is it appropriate?

To absolute something is to complete it as a whole. The whole of something, may just be a small part of something much bigger, and wider in scope.

Definitive conclusions can be very narrow in scope, and miss the bigger picture. Especially when fitting them into a world view.

Unforseen relationships not previously considered might render any conclusion false or invalid.

The secular world view is just another world view; it requires belief, and faith that is not yet proven to be so.

I see the secular movement as another religion. It just so happens it runs contrary to all other religions.

 

[Enoch07]

I disagree. I think you're conflating the legal system with truth claims. I've never heard the idea that a person who makes a claim is a "defendant"? That seems non-sensical to me, what am I missing?

The person who is challenging an idea is the prosecutor. It's quite simple.

In other words, if I claim that the earth is roughly spherical, I'm not a defendant. I might be called upon to defend the claim, but my person is distinct from the claim, correct? IMO, you can't equate "burden of proof" in those two scenarios.

Why would you start a debate thread reinforcing a fact that you already agree with?

Now if you challenged the claim that the Earth is spherical that is different. In that case you would need to provide evidence and citation as to why you think the Earth is flat. Because you are challenging the idea the Earth is a sphere. The burden of proof would rely on you as a the prosecutor to reinforce your challenge.

Flip it now.

Let's say someone else was challenging the idea of spherical Earth. And you wished to defend spherical Earth. You defend it by countering their evidence with evidence of your own of how the Earth is spherical.

As for religious debates.

If someone was to challenge a religious belief. They should be expected to provide scripture and citations that reinforce that challenge. As a defendant I would counter by providing scripture and citations to counter the prosecutions evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not a liberal SJW.

You joined them about the same time I became a
creationist & a deacon at Westboro Baptist Church.

And I know when "you're" is correct and when "your" is correct.
Tom

I fixed my egregious error....thanx for alerting me to it!

 

[Enoch07]

I said that Christians do. And that is true. Christians do persecute people for ideological reasons.

That is the problem right there. You need to be more specific. I would suggest this terminology instead.

"I said that some Christians do. And that is true. Some Christians do persecute people for ideological differences."

Otherwise it appear you are implying all Christians do this.

 

[columbus]

To which I say by all means prosecute Pence specifically, prosecute any specific Christians who do these things.

Prosecute him for what?
He got elected governor by promising Christians that he would persecute gay people. There are few laws against Christians persecuting whoever they want to persecute. That's why there was the big deal in Oregon. Christians thought that the laws didn't apply to them because they are Christians! Their discrimination was based on sincerely held religious beliefs, so they thought that the law didn't apply to them.

Personally, I think that they should have the rights to be as religious as they want to be. Let them demonstrate what Christianity really means in the real world. Not some abstract world of ideological purity. Christians don't believe in marriage. They only believe in human breeding pairs. Like animals in a barn.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

Unforseen relationships not previously considered might render any conclusion false or invalid.

Is it not only the secular worldview that allows for this?