shirgall

It is illogical to attempt an argument using terms without agreed definitions.

Compare it to the Covenant of Unanimous Consent. http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

Nah, it's objectively logic because it really wants to imitate logic's clarity and certainty.

The reason I have encryption and firearms and lasers and red meat is because my nosy neighbors say I shouldn't.

It is the very first link under "Important Links" in the footer.

It was not a legitimacy statement, it was a perceived discontinuity of immateriality statement. I know that state borders have the same ephemeral nature as mafioso personal protection insurance.

Sure, but doesn't it make the border seem real?

While I agree that nationhood is a concept, there's something tangible about a border when it is actively protected and enforced. A property claim doesn't exist either, but without being able to stake one out, "property" itself has a hard time existing. Even so, a virtual nation that relies on empiricism as a matter (pun intended, har har) of policy?

Never argue deeply with anyone not willing to change, or if you are not willing to change if presented with compelling reason or evidence.

"Today I'm going to talk about how to make American wealthy again..."

Which religion invested and endorsed the power of violence in a tiny few inbred bloodthirsty narcissists and their lackeys via the divine right of kings for hundreds of years?

Then why did you bring violence up? That's a lot of postings and replies for something that you are now agreeing was unrelated. Neither Stefan nor I have taken a position that self-defense is wrong. Both Stefan and I have taken a position that the initiation of force is wrong. Why did we waste so many electrons on this? Are you now saying that Christianity is against the state? That is demonstrably untrue. And if Christianity has nothing to do with the state and decries violence, why are the guards at the Vatican armed?

You may relent after some analysis. Consider this angle: Bastards fight for passion, the others fight for Dynasty. Yes, this season has been about the War of Five Queens, with all the feminist baggage, but it all has had some logical progression to it. They never claim that all women can do everything all men can. There are a couple of special women. There are some few special men too. It's a fantasy, so destiny is going to triumph over self-determination anyway.

No, I'm saying that a lot of supposedly pious Christians use a lot of excuses for violence (I did quote a saint after all). Therefore what does violence have to do with being objectively Christian?

Is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent insufficient justification to use lethal force to end that danger? Did St. Bernard not say the thing I quoted? Rape is "grave bodily harm" in the sense that rape itself is likely to cause irreparable harm, including death, broken bones, or losing the ability to bear children, especially since rape is often backed up with credible threats of physical violence. You have to gauge each situation, of course. (Being rendered unconscious is a serious threat, too, for example.)

Since there are statements about avoiding violence in a number of religions, Christianity cannot claim such an idea for its own. Then there's my bloodthirsty namesake, Joshua. Deuteronomy 20:17: "You shall not leave alive anything that breathes." Canaan will never be the same. Supposedly Christians renounce violence, but "The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls.... When he inflicts death, it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain." (Bernard of Clairveux) Rulers love to justify violence and motivate the troops with manipulation. Manipulation is the key driver of religion. I was not raised by Christians. I was not raised as a Christian. Perhaps this is hidden by the fact that my Romani ancestors are used to hiding in plain sight amongst various religions. I cannot accept a definition at whose heart is the idea that people who follow a love of truth (literally "philosophy") could identified as objectively someone or even someone that shares the objectives of someone that discards truth for a comfortable fiction. Truth is preferable to falsehood. This is not a tenet of a religion.

The "at odds with philosophy" comment related to Christianity not use of force doctrine. I think the underlying issue is that you do not see that use of force and Christianity are orthogonal concepts.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your definitions. Does it mean that I'm objectively Norse if I think that some people are tricksters even if I have no personal belief in Loki? A lot of critics of the Bible accuse the authors of stealing its many stories from other religions and myths, actually, not just the fact that parts of the Bible contradict other parts of the Bible, let alone the criticism that there was a meeting where they voted on what ancient writings were part of the Bible and what were voted off the island.

We can't know. We have no tool that looks at a brain and measures faith. My only quibble is the terminology "objectively Christian" and it does not appear we can come to grips on a common definition for those words, which makes discussion on the matter pointless.

Fair enough, but let me add that only people that believe a concept is real can also claim to have a relationship with that concept, and to get there you have to believe in the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible. My goal is to arrive at an agreed upon definition that makes "objectively Christian" mean the same thing to all the participants of the discussion.

Fans of Number Six will enjoy Portmeirion! http://www.portmeirion-village.com/ Be seeing you!

But in practical terms a Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Bible, both of which are at odds with philosophy, which means Stef is NOT objectively Christian. I have no idea why use of force discussions have anything to do with with the above. Obviously the threat of force in response to felonious conduct is not a paper thread, as the justification for the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. The threat is used to avoid the danger. If the danger ceases you've avoided it, which I mark as a success. If the danger does not cease then the actor may have to to use lethal force, as it has become unavoidable. What does this have to do with Christianity? Why does it matter if the person who has led you to this precipice think he or she is justified?

By dragging this out it become's very difficult to apply Hanlon's Razor to the conversation, which devalues engagement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGPFyqBnOAg