The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr said:
Then all of science has "clearly lost it", because they categorize things based on definitions all the time.

See, you're misapplying the No True Scotsman concept in a way that makes all knowledge invalid.
Click to expand...

Oh and religion and self-proclaimed religious people are better by using categories they do not even care to define, so that they can "weasily" with wielding names with a vague sense, if any, of what they actually mean, and telling others do as they say but not as they do.
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr said:
I'm going to start with a rather scholarly distinction, between broad and narrow meanings: the broad meaning includes all that has a claim to some category, the narrow only those which fit a precise set of requirements. As an example, take the concept of "driver": in the broad definition, everyone who can get into a vehicle and manage to steer it along a course is a driver; in a narrow definition only those capable of handling most adverse conditions and dealing with on-road emergencies qualify. As another, "chess player": in the broad sense, anyone who knows how to move the pieces is a player; in the narrow sense only someone with a grasp of basic concepts of strategy makes the cut.

In the broad sense, anyone who claims to be a Christian is, because the term indicates followers of Christ, and anyone who says he's following has to be counted (this is the definition used by census-takers and pollsters). OTOH, in the narrow sense only those whose lives show significant characteristics of Christ to their neighbors (in the broad sense) count.

So, taking the narrow sense, that being what I mean in such comments as I made, I'd venture optimistically that five percent of those fitting the broad definition can be included in the narrow.

In a pastoral perspective, though, the narrow definition has to be adjusted to include all those making forward strides in showing those significant characteristics of Christ. These may appear to outsiders to be total losses, but consider someone who has been a thief, drug dealer, pimp, and murderer (with a lot more violence on the spectrum) who turns to Christ: if he changes so he's only stealing occasionally and has a GF who's also a prostitute, he's made some big strides. To all of us who don't know him, he won't appear as much of a Christian, definitely not in the narrow definition, but to those who know he's a testimony of how a life can change and keep changing. Including those, I'll expand my count to ten percent.

To some that may seem awfully pessimistic, but given the numbers who participate in hateful activities when the clear words of Christ condemn them, I don't think so. Some may be misled, but the words are there for them in the book, and there are ministers who expound those words clearly.

Of course many realize what they've really been doing when it gets close to the end, so it may be twenty or thirty percent or even more who die actual Christians -- but there's no way to gain data on that in the least, so it's outside the scope of even guessing.



Oh -- superb video; tragically quite true: many Christians run when faced with the real thing.
Click to expand...

Kul, the fallacy is not about broad and narrow meanings, it is about the assumed use of any of those to avoid the actual points in the discussion. It is not about whether you use this or that sense, it is about your throwing any of those handy ready-made expressions to weasel away from the discussion, and typing a lengthy spiel does not make you appear any more reasonable if you are diverting the discussion from the reasonable course: you are just writing for people who would get lost in the lines and get only the sense that you have developed something reasonable and clever.



Yes, I know you are more articulate and make more sense than her, but your trick is that you pretend that what you wrote is relevant and has anything to do with your previous "true Scotsman" one-liner.


Even if it had not been your intention, your "true Christian" appeal was a perfectly fine example of the "true Scotsman" fallacy. Now you can go to the "correction of names" doctrine for the concept behind that lengthy post, if you want.

And least, in that case you took more pains that just dismiss someone by seeing your own reflection in his supposed "fantasies".
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Kulindahr said:
Since you don't want to live in reality, I'll leave you to your fantasies.
Click to expand...

How ironic.
attachment.php


3163l.jpg

Yeah the spelling's off, isn't it?
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

A funny quotation from a novel I'm reading:

"But, Mr. Chillingworth, I cannot and will not renounce the sublime truths of Scripture. They may be incomprehensible; they may be inconsistent; and some of them may look ridiculous; but still they are sacred and sublime, and I will not renounce them although my reason may not accord with them, because they are the laws of Heaven."
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Woah! Do I ever agree with that!
 
Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

^^ Awww... what about submission to Mothra, the Jesus of Japanese Kaiju?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top