"No True Scotsman" fallacy...

[Solon]

This is in response to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x679290

And a response to the responses is this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x678200

To be frank, both OPs are correct in their characterization of the Phelps family clan, they are Christian, and they are Kansans. However, people seem to be blowing this WAY out of proportion, ending up falling back on logical fallacies and such to deny the Phelps clan aren't true Christians, and, at the same time, claiming this is a generalization against ALL Christians, which is yet another logical fallacy.

In case anyone isn't familiar with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, please read this link, gives a good summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Now, in order for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to actually be relevant to the discussion, first, we have to define Christian, which seems to be the sticking point, this website seems to have the most objective view on the subject:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm

Now, generally speaking, with my being a non-Christian, I use the broadest definition possible, anyone who seriously, thoughtfully, sincerely, prayerfully considers themselves to be a Christian is considered a Christian. The details of who is a Christian, both in the theological sense, such as believing in the Nicene Creed, or the moral sense, like being charitable, don't really matter.

One thing to remember about the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is that, just because a member of some larger group of people does something that is, in your eyes, wrong, doesn't mean they aren't still a part of that group. To be honest, there is no objective standard to determine who is or is not Christian, a Liberal Christian claiming the Phelps clan are not true Christians is just as valid as a Conservative Christian claiming that Roman Catholics aren't true Christians. To anyone who isn't a Christian to begin with, this seems like splitting hairs, and we generally disbelieve both groups, and rely on those groups to identify themselves as Christian.

Then there is the OTHER definition of Christianity, which is defined in Webster's Dictionary as this:

1. A person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus.
2. A decent, respectable person.
3. having the qualities demonstrated and taught by Jesus Christ, as love, kindness, humility, etc.
4. Of or representing Christians or Christianity.
5. humane, decent, etc.

Notice the highlighted definitions, according to Webster's dictionary, Ghandi was a Christian, which is a foolish proposition, considering that he was a self proclaimed, religious Hindu. In fact, this definition is so inclusive, as to make Christian pretty much a meaningless word. Think about it, an Atheist who volunteers at a soup kitchen 3 times a week could be called a Christian according to Webster's dictionary, even if they strongly deny any association with any Christian teachings or theology. The problem is that definitions 2,3 and 5 seem to permeate American culture, and as such, apparently no bad people can be Christians in this country, hell, you don't even have to believe in Christianity the religion, or have opposing beliefs compared to Christianity to be considered a Christian.

As you can see, I don't take this particular definition at face value, in fact, its pretty much a fallacy within itself, its contradictory to substitute "decency" with "christian", imagine substituting any other religion in with the words used in Webster's dictionary. "My how Sikh of you!"

[slackmaster]

1. A REAL Democrat calls it "Poisoning the Well" instead of No True Scotsman

:D

[kwassa]

2. I think you are wrong.

No True Scotsman doesn't apply, though it is often misapplied in this forum.

Why?

using your Wiki article.

"Using the context of culture, religious individuals, for example, sometimes employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand."

And that is it in a nutshell.

There is no one accepted definition, though you try mightily to make one, as do many others here of the self-identification school. It can ONLY be a logical fallacy if there is one definition of Christian, and that doesn't exist.

[Solon]

3. What's the context then?

If it is a religious context, then the fallacy is valid, if its a moral context, then Christian itself is a meaningless word. Basically, what you are saying, is that there are "no true Christians" living in the world of today, and probably ever, even Jesus Christ, considering he was a Jew.

[kwassa]

29. Disagree again

"If it is a religious context, then the fallacy is valid"

Uh, no. How could it be, when there are so many different RELIGIOUS definitions of Christianity?

You didn't get it.

[Solon]

40. If someone truly and sincerely believes they are Christian, aren't they Christian?

Or is there something I'm missing here?

[kwassa]

42. You are missing quite a bit, actually.

You've just stating your personal opinion of what makes a Christian. Opinions are nice things, but only opinions. There are many differing opinions of what makes someone a Christian.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn1.htm

WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?
The scope of the definition problem

Range of definitions of "Christian:"
There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`ân). Different people have defined a "Christian" as a person who has:

Heard the Gospel in a certain way, and accepted its message, or
Become "saved" -- i.e. they have trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior), or
Been baptized as an infant, or
Gone to church regularly, or
Recited and agreed with a specific church creed or creeds, or
Simply tried to understand and follow Jesus' teachings, or
Led a decent life.
Following these different definitions, the percentage of North American adults who are Christians currently ranges from less than 1% to about 75%.

Within a given denomination or wing of Christianity, there is usually a consensus about who is a Christian, and who is not. However, there is often little agreement among members of different faith groups on a common definition of "Christianity."

What people can agree on, and what they cannot:
With a bit of effort, one can sometimes collect a random group of adults and have them reach a consensus on a definition of:

Who is an Evangelical Christian, or
Who is a Roman Catholic, or
Who is an Eastern Orthodox believer, or
Who follows the Historical Protestant faith, or
Who is a Pentecostal, or
Who is a Mormon, or
Who is a Jehovah's Witness,
etc.

But it is probably impossible to have any large group of adults reach a consensus on precisely who is a "Christian," and who is not.

There are on the order of 1,500 denominations, para-church organizations, and other groups in the U.S. who consider themselves to be Christian. 1 Added to this are thousands of independent Christian congregations which are not affiliated with a denomination. One could assemble a random group of adults and ask each individual to sort the 1,000 groups into two piles: those which are "truly" Christian, and those that are not. In some cases, an individual will select their own faith group as the only truly Christian denomination, and define all of the other 999 as sub-Christian, quasi-Christian, or non-Christian. Other individuals might say that all 1,000 denominations are Christian. Most likely, a given individual will select most of the 1,000 groups as Christian, and reject the others. There is no possibility of reaching a common definition which would identify which groups are "truly" Christian.

[Solon]

45. Hence the reason why, as a point of reference, I use...

that's same website's definition of what a Christian is. As quoted, on that same page:

This web site uses an inclusive definition of Christianity -- the same one that is used by public opinion polls and government census offices: Anyone who seriously, thoughtfully, sincerely, prayerfully considers themselves to be a Christian is considered a Christian for the purpose of our essays.

You may have a problem with that, but, guess what, its your problem.

[Solon]

4. Actually, it seems to me that there is an accepted definition, at least to the Christians...

on this board, the Webster's definition, i.e. there are no BAD Christians, only false ones, and as such, there is no fallacy, because Christian equals Good. Granted, now we would have to define what is Good, to Phelps and clan, protesting the funerals is "Good" while to most Mainstream Christians, its bad. Of course, I never understood why self professed Christians deny that others are also self-professed Christians, especially if those others do something you don't like.

[hfojvt]

5. what if it is 'group identifying'?

Who is, or is not, a Methodist, for example, is not defined by any person who says 'I am a Methodist'. The Methodists, as a group, have the right to say 'No, you are not'. Tragically, however, they still have not done so with either Bush or Cheney. Apparently being a public serial liar is not egregious enough for them. The difference between, however, a bad Christian, and a false one depends on personal accountability. If, a self-described Christian is called on some generally accepted un-Christian behaviour, such as, say, adultery. Then what happens? The bad Christian says 'I have sinned' and tries to make it right. The false Christian says 'so what?' and tries to weasel out of any accountability, willing and able to keep doing what they are doing.

[Solon]

6. There is no overall Christian Pope that can excommunicate any Christian...

Hell, most Christian sects don't even have such methods for disassociating people within that sect. Besides that, you would have to be a God to figure out if someone is "true" to their religion, or at least psychic. That's the reason why people rely on other people's self-proclamations of religious fealty, because that is the only standard that is reliable. Besides, according to polls, about 75% of the country identifies as Christian, yet, if you used the exclusionary arguments of all those who self identify as Christian, then none of them are true Christians. As a Non-Christian, I think they are splitting hairs.

[hfojvt]

14. to an extent the point is not to kick somebody out

but to get them to quit doing the bad things they are doing. I do not think it is splitting hairs to challenge people to be more sincere or more dedicated to loving their neighbors. Nor do I think it is legitimate to use those who are not trying, or who are demented in their efforst, to smear those who sincerely are trying.

[Solon]

20. The problem is that it's not nearly so clear cut as all that...

The Bible, Old and New Testament, is contradictory in various ways, and so, for each person that claims to be Christian, the religion is very personal, yet at the same time, they try to organize. Phelps interpretation of Scripture happens to differ slightly from yours, does that make him, somehow, less Christian?

[hfojvt]

24. Neither of us would say the scripture is that contradictory

and neither would say the difference is slight. I guess there is only a slight difference between us, since we both went to protest a Bush visit. My sign said basically "Bush sucks" and his said "Gays suck". Thanks so much, for conflating us.

[Solon]

25. I'm not conflating either of you with each other...

Just saying that, he focuses on Leviticus, you focus on different books in the Bible, to be frank, its still the same book, used by both of you.

[hfojvt]

8. Webster has a habit, which I think is bad

of defining words the way people actually use them. Thus they are noting that many people use the word 'Christian' to mean the same thing as 'good' as in 'that is a Christian thing to do.' Trouble with that is that people usually turn to the dictionary to determine if they are using a word properly.

But you have defined Christian by a BELIEF rather than an ACTION. Is a person Christian because they sincerely believe in Christ or because they sincerely try to follow Christ? As with a vegetarian, is that somebody who believes they should not eat meat, or somebody who lives out their belief (or tries). You may say there is no difference since a person can sincerely believe they are following Jesus, but you might also have some objective guideposts. For example, a person may believe they are going to St. Louis from Springfield, and there are, in fact, many different routes to follow. You could take 65 North to I-70, then East on I-70. You could take 60 East, then 63 North or I-55 North, etc. But it is objective to say that a person is deluded who believes they are going to St. Louis when they are going west on I-44.

[AuntPatsy]

11. Interesting and I have to agree with what your implying.

[damntexdem]

12. No, not "an" accepted definition.

Christian ideologues have always excelled at labeling their targets as "not true Christians." In fact, the Phelps consider very few others to be 'true Christians.'

[bananas]

7. Gandhi was a Christian

He said so himself: "I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, I am a Jew."

You make several logical fallacies when you say "according to Webster's dictionary, Ghandi was a Christian, which is a foolish proposition, considering that he was a self proclaimed, religious Hindu."

Your conclusion is wrong, and your reasoning is wrong.

[Solon]

13. Uhm, no...

Ghandi was inclusionary in his view of other religions, he says that all religions have a basis in love, compassion, and the Golden Rule. He also doesn't claim that Hinduism is any better or worse than any other religion, and therefore sees value in all religions. Besides that, its contradictory to say that Ghandi was all of those religions, considering that their theological basis varies so widely, Muslims don't consider Jesus as Son of God, but rather an Inspired Prophet, Christians don't consider Muhammad as anything but a heretic, and to Hinduism neither mean much of anything(this varies from sect to sect), and Jews, of course, consider both Christ and Muhammad as false prophets or mistaken, at best.

At best, the statement he made means practically nothing other than he doesn't believe in all the contradictory stuff, and only believes in the Golden Rule, which is pretty much common in all religions. In other words, he wasn't a member of ANY religion.

[bananas]

15. Um, yes...

He said he was a Christian.
Are you calling him a liar?
:eyes:

[Solon]

17. He also said he was a Jew, Muslim, and Hindu...

are YOU calling him a liar?

:eyes:

[hfojvt]

18. are you saying that no true member of one religion

would also respect another? That has not been true in practice. Why doesn't believing in the core - the golden rule, make him a member of all the religions, if that is their core? It seems to me that to be a member of no religion that he would have to deny the golden rule, since you admit that is common in all religions. Like the Drac said in "Enemy Mine" when he was teaching the earthman about his religion, the earthman said 'I have heard this before' and he said 'Of course you have, the truth is the same everywhere.'

[Solon]

19. No, I'm saying that he can't be a member of all relgions at the same time...

at least not without being inconsistent and contradictory in his own beliefs. What I'm saying is that he basically doesn't believe in ALL the "window dressing" of those religions and rather believes in a basic moral code that happens to be shared by the vast majority of religions and non-theistic moral/ethical philosophies like philosophical Taoism and Humanism. There is nothing wrong with that, but, it doesn't make him Christian, at least in a religious context, for I strongly doubt he believed in Jesus Christ as his savior.

[hfojvt]

23. that's only true, if you think the 'window dressing'

is more important than the core. I think of this as set theory where there is a core of Christianity and a core of Islam and alot of over-lap between the two cores. Of course, there is alot of disagreement about what constitutes the core, but there has also been earthly jockeying for position, such as early Christians moving their sabbath to Sunday to distinguish themselves from Jews.

[Solon]

28. Your post makes little sense...

Of course there is overlap in the three Abrahamic religions, there has to be, they all draw inspiration from the same basic set of texts, the five books of Moses, mostly. However, this doesn't mean there, while the overlap exists, that there aren't also conflicts, neither Jews nor Muslims believe Jesus was the Son of God, divine, or without sin, yet that is a Core tenet in Christianity. Same for any other conflict between the religions. The point being that you cannot be both a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or any other addition of religions with such obvious conflicts and be consistent in your religious beliefs. You can, of course, combine any number of tenets from any religions of your choice and form a new religion based on that. However, you still wouldn't be a member of any of the source religions. Here's a tongue in cheek example of this:

[Solon]

22. Another Response: It actually depends on the Religion, or sect of that Religion...

Traditional views differ wildly, depending on religion. Judaism, for example, is a religion for the Chosen People, and can be considered exclusive, but they don't have a concept of damning unbelievers, at least today. Muslims believe in salvation for all People of the Book, Jews and Christians, in addition to Muslims, so, in a general sense, they tolerate and even respect both, they also don't have a concept of a permanent hell, so even unbelievers who are dead have a chance at salvation. Hinduism, compared to these other two religions, varies more wildly, its more of a set of loosely related beliefs, some Hindus are Polytheists, others Monotheists, still others Henotheists, etc. Their respect for other religions also varies wildly, depending on the sect of Hinduism they follow.

Christianity, however, in a general theological context, until really recently, and depending on denomination, believes that only salvation through Christ is possible, and all other people are damned in an eternity of hell fire. Like I said, this is in general theological context, individuals of all these religions may feel differently about this.

Other religions can be more inclusive, Buddhism is an example, in Japan, they have two major religions, Shinto and Buddhism, however, because neither is all that inclusive, almost 80% of Japanese people are Both. This isn't a contradiction, Shinto is a shamanistic religion, based, loosely, on local spirits and Gods, and Buddhism says nothing about the existence or non-existence of any supernatural being, so both can coalesce quite harmoniously. Same can be said for some other Eastern Religions and Philosophies.

[damntexdem]

9. The moral: always insert "true" before the generalization about Scotsmen.

But the Phelps are clearly not decent people. And no true Topekan would do what they do.

[Jo March]

10. With all due respect and hopefully without offending

It is not up to Webster's to set the definition for a Christian. I do not consider myself a Christian by the dictionary's definition but by the definition from the Bible and my church:

It's not enough to say that you believe in Christ. You have to accept Him as your Saviour and allow him in your heart and follow His teachings.

Folks that stop at the first part ("I believe in Jesus") are not Christians. Some believe that He existed but that doesn't make them Christians. There is that second and third step that you have to follow.

Fred Phelps, I'm sure, may have started out as a Christian but he has since dropped all pretense of following the words and teachings of Christ.

Yes, Phelps is a Christian. We cannot take that from him as we do not know what is in his heart truly but we know him by his poisonous fruits, don't we? There's a reason that he only has about 12 or so followers (most of which are his family).

And when people lump all Christians with Phelps, then you can take your "no true Scotsman fallacy" argument and stuff it because they are showing their bias against Christians.

Most DU Christians resent being lumped in with Phelps or Haggard or Falwell or Robertson or Hitler (cause dontcha know he was a Christian? :eyes: ). We get sick and tired of it.

No one who is intelligent would equate most Christians with Phelps. When they do, then I know them by their fruits.

[Solon]

16. See, this is the key difference...

For example, here are two statements that mean two different things: "Hitler was a Christian", this statement is true, at least insofar as his beliefs were concerned, however, saying "All Christians are like Hitler" then that's a gross generalization and happens to be its own fallacy.

[kwassa]

30. I knew you would resurrect that worthless "Hitler is a Christian" garbage

That and No True Scotsman come through DU every two or three months.

Just as invalid the first time as the last, but it won't stop.

[Solon]

35. I stated a fact, I don't see what's offensive about it...

Hitler considered himself a Christian, a Catholic in fact, and therefore he WAS a Christian. Just because someone was or is a Christian doesn't guarantee that they are a good person. I'm frankly puzzled as to why you think this is garbage, unless you think Catholics aren't Christians.

[kwassa]

41. Not a fact, your opinion .....

and not a solid one, either.

[Solon]

47. Are you saying Hitler didn't go to Church...

didn't pray to the Christian God, didn't say that in killing the Jew, he was doing the work of the Lord, etc.?

Either Hitler faked it all, which is possible but impossible to prove, or he was a Christian. What else could he have been, and why deny that he could have been a Christian?

All we have are his words, recordings, and personal correspondence, according to those, he considered himself a Christian.

[kwassa]

48. Hitler was a patholical liar: his words can't be believed

"Hitler was a Christian" is a favorite belief of some atheists, and serves their anti-religious beliefs, which is why it is continually revived on this forum.

Hitler claimed belief in many things. He lied constantly to suit his political purposes, therefore his words can't be relied on, so he can only be judged by his actions.

Are his actions congruent in any way with the teachings of Jesus Christ? of course not. How is he therefore a Christian? Only to those with the most extreme definition that requires no specific belief or action can he be construed to be a Christian, merely the claim of being Christian. No proof required, which allows those that hate religion to construe him as a Christian.

Is it the foundation and essence of his belief system?
Nope, unless one is a revisionist with an agenda. Hitler was a Nazi, his party was the state religion, and nothing else mattered. He used Christian terminology when it suited his purpose to sway the public opinion, and Nazism was the core of his identity, not Christianity.

[Solon]

49. "extreme definition"? Like the SAME definition used by the census and polls?

There is no objective definition of Christian, I believe even YOU stated that. Its the SIMPLEST, LEAST controversial definition that can be found, as far as I can tell. Christianity cannot be defined by acts alone, but also belief, which is generally not known unless the person holding said beliefs state them. The fact of the matter is that Hitler was an evil, possibly insane, or at least unbalanced, individual, but, to be frank, this has little to no relation to his religion. As far as I can tell, and this is true throughout history, but, in a general sense, being a member of any religion or even no religion, doesn't make people any more moral, especially when they have positions of power.

All political leaders of all nations, when they espouse a religion publicly, are using that religion to gain power, this is nothing new, whether it was Henry the 8th or George W. Bush, whoever it is, this is true. The fact that I assert this isn't an anti-religious screed, if anything, its a power corrupts screed. As far as I can tell, religion has a NEUTRAL effect on our moral compasses, we develop our moral/ethical goals first, and attach religious justifications later, when convenient. Even I am not immune to this, I'm Wiccan, and I didn't develop my religious identity till well after I developed my moral compass, I found the religion that matches my moral compass, rather than the reverse.

Perhaps this has skewed my views on religion and morality, but, I don't see how this is any different than other people who choose their religions. Christians do the same thing, even WITHIN the religion, you guys pick and choose which verses or Books of the Bible are to be followed, and ignore the others. Whether this allows you to remain "true" Christians is a debate I would not be a part of, not being Christian myself. The fact that you claim to be Christian is enough for me.

If, tomorrow, a Wiccan was accused, arrested, and convicted, of being a murderer, I wouldn't claim they weren't a "true" Wiccan, for, to be frank, I can't put myself in their head, I'm not a God, and therefore cannot judge their beliefs, I can only judge their actions, which would be monstrous in this type of situation. I'm sure OTHER Wiccans would claim they aren't "real" Wiccans, but then I would end up arguing with them instead of you. The fact is that I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-stupidity, and arguing with emotion, rather than logic, is stupid.

To be frank, I feel you are overreacting here, I mean, I learned Hitler was a Catholic in school, and this was in a CATHOLIC school. They said he was a "bad" Catholic, and generally glossed over the Church's role in the Holocaust, focusing instead on those local priests and people who risked their lives to rescue Jews, but at least they acknowledged he was Catholic, even if he was a bad one.

[kwassa]

50. The definition is extreme

Self-identification means little, except that some words came out of somebody's mouth.

"Its the SIMPLEST, LEAST controversial definition that can be found, as far as I can tell."

Least controversial to who? You? No, it is the one that requires no thought on your part, or anyone else's. It doesn't require you to look at a person's actual beliefs, and it serves a political purpose of lumping a mass murderer of historic proportions up with people who actually follow Christ's teachings.

The only reason this "Hitler was a Christian" meme ever pops up is for some atheists to bash religion. It serves no other purpose. You threw this into the discussion, and claim to be surprised by my reaction? Please.

Google Hitler Christian and count how many athiest web sites come up. A common atheist meme, and part of a political agenda for some atheists.

Shall we recycle these arguments again, and go down the road to how Mao and Stalin were atheists?

[Solon]

51. You really didn't read my post, did you?

I'm through, its obvious that you are being irrational here.

[kwassa]

52. I read it.

Being a Wiccan doesn't get you off the hook; you're involved in Christian-bashing, in my opinion. You use the arguments that usually come from some of the atheist crew here. You might feel exempt as a believer in some type of deity, but your argument is both offensive and false.

I also notice you failed to rebut any of my quite rational arguments.

[Solon]

53. I didn't know my CATHOLIC school was involved in Christian-bashing...

after all, I was just repeating what I learned there. I don't see where the bashing took place. To be honest, yours is the FIRST objection I ever heard of Hitler being a Christian.

[kwassa]

55. You haven't hung out enough in the R/T forum enough.

Major wars over this idea.

[Solon]

54. I have a question, would you think it Christian Bashing...

If I stated that Queen Isabella of Spain was a Christian? If you don't know who that is, google it.

[kwassa]

56. It could be.

I don't know her level of understanding of her own faith.

Unlike Hitler, her acts were based in her misunderstanding of Christianity. The Inquisition started in Spain under her and her husband's Ferdinand, including the expulsion of Jews from Spain. Christianity was the only source of her belief.

Hitler's belief system had a little to do with Christianity, but a whole lot to do with German nationalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_political_beliefs

Historians and biographers note some difficulty in attributing the political beliefs of Adolf Hitler. His writings and methods were often adapted to need and circumstance although anti-Semitism, anti-communism, anti-parliamentarianism, German expansionism, belief in the superiority of an "Aryan race" and an extreme form of German nationalism were steady themes. Hitler personally claimed he was fighting against Jewish Marxism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of dispute, in part because of apparently inconsistent statements made by and attributed to him. The relationship between Nazism and religion was complex and shifting over the period of the party's existence and during its years in power

(jump)

In contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or Nazi mysticism, and even ridiculed such beliefs in private and possibly in public.<13> Drawing on Higher Criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated what he termed Positive Christianity, purged of everything that he found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself,<14> but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews

So, basically, Hitler created his own version of the New Testament. Can that be called Christianity?

[Jo March]

32. "As far as his beliefs were concerned" -

Hitler cloaked himself with the robe of Christianity and nationalism to get where he wanted to be.

His beliefs cannot be backed up with the words of Christ.

But, my question to you is this, what is the point of saying that Hitler was a Christian"? What is the point, really, besides throwing out a HUGH piece of flamebait and getting folks all riled up because you have just linked them with a horrible mass murderer?

I personally like it when folks say that Hitler was a Christian because the first person to mention Hitler in a debate is the loser of that debate. :D

[Solon]

33. Actually, you are misrepresenting Godwin's law...

He said the longer an internet discussion takes place, the chances of Hitler or Nazis being mentioned approaches 1. He never made any statement about whether the discussion of Hitler or Nazism is valid or not, only that such a comparison should be made only if absolutely necessary. Besides, given your post, you lost the argument, because you mentioned him first.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

43. Ever heard of "Gott Mit Uns" belt buckles?

Hitler said God spoke to him personally, just like God speaks to Bush, allegedly.

And what about Jesus being the prince of peace, when he said "I come not in peace but WITH A SWORD; I have come to set the daughter in law against the mother in law, etc."

That's not very peaceful. Yet it's one of the truest things he said. He splits families for GENERATIONS.

[KittyWampus]

21. Motives & Intent & Actions are defining, IMO. Crusades have, as their motive, world domination

how easy it is to warp an ideology or religion or philosophy to mask ones true intent.

And it doesn't matter what Crusades you care to look at.

They're all designed to whip the masses into a frenzy for the benefit of a few.

[BlooInBloo]

26. My thread was NOT in response to any other thread. I had no knowledge of that other thread when...

... I posted mine. The grammatical subject line similarity is striking.

[BlooInBloo]

27. In any case - christians have a vested interest in this - you'll never get them to admit the truth.

EDIT: Your interest in truth is laudable, however.

[kwassa]

31. Your agenda is quite visible, too.

Let's smear all Christians with Fred Phelps.

[Goblinmonger]

44. Where has that been done?

Put up or shut up. Where has anyone on DU equated Phelps with all Christians?

[Solon]

46. I've gone out of my way to actually NOT equate Phelps with all Christians...

And still they complain! I swear, there is no satisfying some people.

[bryant69]

34. There it is; All Christians are responsible for the Insanity of Phelps

If we don't want to be associated with him, we have to stop being Christians.

I don't know why people don't understand this.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[AuntPatsy]

36. That is NOT what the op is saying and you very well know itl

[bryant69]

37. If that's not what he's saying that's what he should be saying

If we didn't by our actions allow Christianity to thrive and continue, than there would be no point to Phelps. He would have as much relevance as someone standing up saying "Zues says that we must not abort babies." How would someone proclaiming the commandments of Zeus fare? Poorly. But by our continued support of Christianity we create a climate in which Phelps and his insanity can flourish.

Bryant

[AuntPatsy]

39. Sorry, I misunderstood your post.

[Solon]

38. How to misconstrue my OP...

I swear, you guys just love reading minds don't you?

Christians are NOT some monolithic group of saints, and Christians come on all varieties, THAT'S the POINT, saying that Phelps isn't a Christian is foolish when there isn't a universally recognized standard as to what a Christian is except what people SAY they believe in.

[SidDithers]

57. No, you've got it all wrong...

there's no such thing as a bad christian, because any repugnant behaviour automatically means that you no longer believe in God.

And that makes the baby jesus cry.

Sid