h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Let me introduce you to The No True Scotsman Fallacy:

"All Scotsmen are drunken wife-beaters."
"But look at McTavish. He's teatotal and is kindness itself towards his wife."
"Ah - then McTavish is No True Scotsman"

What you have done, dear Della, is to redefine Christianity to exclude inconvenient counter-examples.

An accusation you've made ebfore, but no it's not what I have done at all.

Besides, it's not a fallacy in this context. There are things that no true Christian would do!

It's convenient for you to believe that the Crusades were a wholly Christian endeavour, and that considerations of secular desire for conquest and territory were not the real reason for them. But all but the angriest-atheists now acknowledge that!

Vicky ( not Della.)

And yet they were promoted by the leaders of the Christian church - which still claims doctrinal authority, incidentally.

OK - let's accept that they weren't following Christian teachings. At very least it shows that immersion in all the trappings of Christianity does nothing to make people act well.

Just like what Muslims say or in fact just choose your religion and substitute

There are things that no true (enter memebr of denomination here) would do!

<>

True, but trivial. No true Muslim would drink alcohol, for instance... but that doesn't invalidate Christianity...

Vicky

Im not interested in the actions of any religious folower as long s they only affect their own bodies.

Now if you as a christian cant remain abstinant outside of Holy Matrimony does that give you the right to even suggest abstinance for others the answer is both logically and morally without a doubt no.

We arent talking about whether or not religion is real the question is it the only path to moral behaviour, but that shouldnt be the question the question should be, "is it a path to moral behaviuor *at all*"?

At a time when people were allegedly more devout I dont recall ever reading of single christain saying "Stop the Crusades Jesus is all about love and the Muslims are just travelling a differnt road to the saem truth"

I dont know of a single Pope who has said, "You know what the Proddies are just as likely as catholics to enter heaven, so it doesnt matter if you are catholic or not as long as you accept Jesus as you saviour" or did I miss something?

Yet we have all these faithers going "I dont like [x] if we want that to happen less we need to do what Allah told Muhammed" So while Muslims in some sountries incarcerate women who choose to flee abusive marriages and the Church of England says men who love men cant have the job of reverend but men who rape boys can keep the job of choir master.

People like me will always point out what a crock of religion and its pontificating followers are and how their advice about life the universe or indeed anything isnt worth the breate it was uttered with.

one love

http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/Dra-Til-Helvete.html

<>

Yes, you did, a fairly major recent pronouncement...
http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=674
"But what about the billions of people who do not know Christ or the Church?

"Those, who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may attain eternal salvation" (Catechism, no. 847). Sincere non-Christians can be moved by grace to seek God and know and do His will. When they do so according to the dictates of their conscience they can be saved, for by God's will they are associated with the paschal mystery of Christ."
This is one article..., and then this one...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_othe4.htm
"The remaining Christian denominations which have not preserved the Apostolic succession. They are not "churches in the proper sense." However, their members are "incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church."

Vicky

Hands up I was wrong.

I made a call based on the knwoledge I had and got it wrong. I was wrong all along and my own preening hubris didnt let me think otherwise.

However I did say "I dont know of" now I do know I will apologise for my mistake.

Here's the thing though I did say "Here's what I think" and people had a free choice to agree, disagree or ignore. Whereas church leaders and thought for the dayers have a position of religious/moral authority and tell us things that they claim to "Know" as incontravertible god given truth.

So previous Popes went around telling people one thing was true then suddenly its not. Why dont they just go away for a very long time till they are sure what God says? Till they are sure whther the sun revolves the earth and whther Dinosaurs are a hoax and let the rest of the people on this planet think about what is best rather than trying to impose their ever changing moral codes?

>>So previous Popes went around telling people one thing was true then suddenly its not.

This is because time and time again, unbelievers have given a moral lead to religion. Religions tend to modify the more disgraceful or silly of their beliefs only once the rest of the world - including their own adherents - push them into it.

Take current RC policy on contraception. We all know that it is observed more in the breech than the practice. How long before the church does some fancy footwork?