Lion IRC wrote:The Plc wrote:In the very recent
Handmaid's Tale thread in which Lion was the core participant, this issue - Lion's bare assertion that religion isn't imposed on people - was discussed. This assertion of Lion's was opposed by myself and others, and Lion completely failed to respond.
Thats almost exactly what I felt about the failure of several ppl - you included - to respond to
my points. Unlike most people in that thread - you included - I actually gave references and examples from the book including chapter numbers and page numbers. Your anti-catholic church agenda derails were off topic.
This is extremely disingenuous. Flat out lying for Jesus.
Lion's attempts to frame the discussion in the manner he wanted (That the "portrait of Christianity" was either presented in a "distorted or false way" or not concerned with a "consistent theology" that was harmonized with "Christian Scripture") called out repeatedly as fallacious and equivocation, again and again and again, by myself and others, to the point of tedium, but flat out ignored each time by Lion as he continued to say the same things. Will I quote all the examples of the objections he ignored?
While you might not recognise the version of Christianity in this book, there are plenty of places around the world at this very moment practicing forms of Christianity you wouldn't recognise, so that's hardly relevant.
Lion seems to be arguing that HT is parodying (if that is the proper word) Xian theology/practice that is not true to "authentic" Xianity. So what is this authentic Xianity and where might we find some? As ST points out, Xian theology and practice is quite diverse, with every sect claiming "authenticity." So how do we determine who's correct? Jesus/God is strangely silent on this topic, the Bible is notoriously ambiguous and has been interpreted every which way, so what other recourse do we have?

Lion can argue until he's blue in the face that the Republic of Giliead is nothing like the particular version of Christianity he keeps in his own head, but the fact remains that it is NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM
I will say it again: There are numerous Christian groups around the world today who practice a version of Christianity you would not recognise, accept or even conceive of as being Christian. Likewise, they'd feel the same about your set of beliefs and practices - one example is the celebration of the Black Nazarene currently being celebrated by approximately 80 million filippinos. Further, there are plenty of documented Christian groups in existence today that build theocratic sects enforcing things that the majority of modern humans would reject, such as polygyny and hebephilia.
It may not be a version of christianity that Lion thinks is valid, but that doesn't mean that scriptural support for most of what goes on in the novel - as people tend to do in real life. Besides, in real life there are plenty of christians who don't think that Lion's particular flavor of christianity is a valid one.
The *cough* "argument" being presented by Lion IRC frequently implies that because the regime's flavour of christianity differs from his version of christianity, the regime's version is not actually christianity at all. No True Scotsman and all that. The regime is, apparently, 'distorting' religion's "intended purpose", of which Lion IRC is thus far unable or unwilling to provide a citation. Is the "intended purpose" of hinduism the same as the "intended purpose" of presbyterianism? We could readily check by comparing the clear statements of intent in their respective scriptures (which will presumably be identical, along with the mission statements of all religions) - if only Lion IRC will provide the relevant passages. Alas, without that evidence his 'argument' looks worryingly like bullshit.
The reason why no one will address Lion's points about the 'ungodly' aspects of the Republican of Gilead because the fallacy of equivocation he employs here has been recognised and discussed right from the beginning, with no adequate and convincing response. It's almost pointless to point out the 'No-True Scotsman' form of argument Lion continues to use, as it has already been done so, repeatedly, but still Lion shows no evidence of comprehending, understanding and realising it.
Anyway, instead of regurgitating your "no true Scotsman" defence once more (which is what you've just done), you might as well save your breath; whether or not the theocracy of Gilead is truly Christian as you define it,
Lion's desperate A is Not-A arguments not only fly in the face of reality ...
How about responding to the gauntlet slapped liberally around your face numerous times in this thread regarding the tens of thousands of different versions of Christianity, all of which you claim to recognise, but yet fail to appreciate the logical ramifications of as you blithely reassert the no true scotsman fallacy?
There's absolutely no need to refer to chapter and page - we're not talking about specific details in the book, as much as you'd LOVE to muddy the waters
Is he trolling, being obtuse or can he just not read English? The (not so immaculate) assumption underlying his argument has been cut away at by several posters at several times - the assumption that we can determine if Gilead is Christian or not by looking at the text and seeing if it meets Lion's personal and vague standard of what Christianity is - but he continues to ignore it, and then tries to claim victory after making the same arguments.
Do we need to keep following you down the rabbit hole and dragging you out by the scruff of your neck repeatedly?
Do we really need to keep pointing out to you the 30,000+ denominations of Christianity that don't practice the same version of it as you, even while they use the Bible too - the one you said prescribed what Christianity it.
Do we need to keep walking you through this simple logic that you keep ignoring while transparently attempting to drag the conversation off onto other matters - a mendacious device well known by people who can follow an argument.
Do we really need to keep having our intelligence insulted by your pathetic escapades that revolve solely around hubris not permitting you to admit you are fucking wrong?
All ignored. "I think I heard a pin drop", as the poster Spearthrower wrote.
The reason why I brought up the Catholic church was because it demonstrated the self-contradictory absurdity of Lion's bare assertions in the thread that he didn't himself personally define Christianity, but Bible did, but at the same time religion was "personal and transcendental" and that "People decide their religious convictions in their heart", as well as the famiiar assertion that "Christianity is offered - not forced on people". I wrote that under Lion's given criteria of what was really Christian, the Catholic Church wasn't Christian because most of it's doctrines were non biblical, yet Lion would have to reject their self-identification with Christianity despite them being 'personal and transcendental', "religious convictions in their heart". It wasn't an anti-Catholic tirade - another one of Lion's lies. If anything I was defending their right to identify as followers of Christ, which Lion would not have recognised because most of their beliefs were not based on the Bible. If it's off topic, then it's because it was in response to Lion's off topic posts.