Posted: Apr 21, 2017 7:27 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I am well aware that there are whole denominations that haven't actually read the bible.

In the same way that climate change is highly 'controversial'.

It's called cherry-picking.
And doubly so when people apply it to make a No True Christian argument.

Please expound on the "No true christian" comment? It sounds like you're accusing me of something I didn't do.

No, I am pointing out that claiming that anyone who claims to be, is a Christian leads to unfortunate consequences and that Christians often have to resort to fallacious No True Christian cherry-picking to avoid that.
In other words by cherry-picking the bible and then claiming the core message of Christianity isn't what the book says it is, and still claiming to be a Christian is silly.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

First, I'm not making the "claim" that a Christian is anyone who claims to be one, per se. However, just like the evolution of language words, like "christian," can change in meaning as a defacto standard. I don't see any extant definition of Christianity being objective. Certainly some definitions of the word can be more christ like or christ-adherent than some others, I suppose, but to completely extract whole swaths of the population from the christian set simply because of this or that minor point is also silly.

I am not doing that.
I am pointing out that those people cherry-pick to a greater degree than orthodox Christians.

PensivePenny wrote:
I know from personal experience, as well as my own reading, that not all christians agree with "original sin."

That's immaterial. It is the fundament of the Jesus story.
The only reason Jesus was send/came to earth was because God created the eternal sin/curse and that apparently only be undone by sacrificing his son, who is also himself, to himself.
That's in the NT. If you do not believe that, that's fine and your choice, but that does mean you are cherry-picking and ignoring the origin and core message of the religion you claim to adhere.

PensivePenny wrote:
It is mainstream and perfectly acceptable.

I never said it wasn't.

PensivePenny wrote: A dog with 3 legs is still a dog.

But the correct analogy in this case, is Dogists claiming there isn't a dog and that you can have any pet and still get to go to heaven.