People have been suing the Southern Poverty Law Center, and they just keep failing. Furthermore,
Various types of people continue to sue SPLC and lose their way. The most frequent types of prosecutions are those with strong beliefs, they are not too excited, SPLC thinks they are strong.
The key word is "consider". The "Hate Map" compiled by SPLC lists the individuals and entities that the center believes are hate spreaders. Which includes things like
Gavin McInnes and
The latter makes it clear that for anyone who turns from sexual orientation and narrowness, it hates both sinners and sins.
The latest lawsuit attempting to convert protected opinions into defamation involved a Baltimore City lawyer who claimed that the SPLC's claim that he had ties to a white supremacist organization was defamatory.
Allen asked for $6 million in compensation for his reputation, which may have been caused by the publication of this set of facts and inferences, which eventually led to his expulsion from New York City. Oh, here is a RICO claim, which is believed to be evidence of SPLC's purchase of "stolen" documents, which is evidence of extortion. (The court noted that there was an alleged single criminal act that did not show the "pattern" of illegal activities required to sustain RICO's claims.)
It doesn't matter how much money the lawyer threw on his wall
. Some questionable allegations are sandwiched between his luminous autobiography and editorials on SPLC. According to the first footnote of the court, it seems that the court generally disliked Allen's complaint.
The court was not impressed by Allen's legal arguments. Allen's attempt to bypass the First Amendment defense by attaching a bunch of random, non-voice-related infringements is unworkable. As the court pointed out, clear the "First Amendment" column
, And then discuss other allegations caused by the release of the SLPC leaked document and its corresponding "hatred map" update. Allen could not overcome the first obstacle.
Allen's complaint has no complaints
Even when Allen's "But I have a black friend" was considered in the court! assertion.
The lawsuit was dismissed. It seems that Glen Allen's best course of action is to avoid being portrayed as a neo-Nazi, rather than to establish contact with a notorious neo-Nazi organization. His removal through wiretapping documents did not change his connection with the neo-Nazis, nor did it change his unpaid work for African Americans. The best defense against allegations of defamation is the facts. SPLC's description of Allen is based on basic documents that Allen does not even claim to be false.
Fortunately, for Allen, he will not lose much in attorney fees because he is helplessly representing these proceedings. Truth is deadly relative to defamation claims. Opinion statements and inferences based on public facts are deadly. But in any case, Allen moved forward through his DOA lawsuit, and these allegations will never be answered except when the judge announces his death.
Thank you for reading this article by Techdirt. Nowadays, there are so many things that attract everyone's attention, and we are very grateful for your precious time. We work hard every day to provide high-quality content to the community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media organizations. In this era, advertisers are less and less interested in sponsoring small independent websites, especially websites like us that don’t want to shine in reports. In this era, we don’t have a strong company behind us. Rely on the support of the community. And analysis.
When other sites adopt paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertisements, we always keep Techdirt open and open to anyone. But in order to continue to do so,
. From direct donations to special subscriptions and exquisite merchandise, we provide readers with a variety of ways to support us-every little bit helps. thank you.
Better bastards between Nazis and lawyers are impossible.
I think the term "association" can be easily abused, but in this case, if he intends to provide funds to an organization to further promote white supremacy, it is not the case.
It can be said that the American Civil Liberties Union has contacts with neo-Nazis, and NAACP or BLM counter-demonstrators can also contact them. I have seen this way.
It is difficult for him to be sympathetic, but if he is repairing an immoral belief system, then he probably shouldn't be constantly weeded out.
"But if he is revising an immoral belief system"
You cannot use brothers to fix the Nazis.
Beer and words can actually help solve the problem of racism, as long as they can't really kill people with my experience.
I don’t like using links when he is actually supporting a racist organization.
I think SPLC is correct in most cases, but sometimes they can be very wrong. The essence of what they follow Sam Harris is that the researcher who finds the link between race and intelligence is not necessarily opinionated.
Researchers who find an association between race and intelligence are not necessarily paranoid
But they will promote the kind of "scientific" development that leads to shit like the eugenics movement in the United States, as a reminder, this is one of the main inspirations that we ultimately call the Holocaust.
This is a scientific example of discussing racial differences:
Nobod y really cares about smell or earwax, so it won't cause a massacre, but the idea of whether basic science is good or bad is a bit like saying that encryption is good or bad.
Yes, there are differences in morphology and genome between ethnic groups based on ancestry. When it tries to use this information to trace the origin and clinical conditions of medical use, this is a good science...
...But the problem with genetics and racists is that they always end up trying to "prove" one set of genes is better than another, and this is total nonsense.
The Nazi version of eugenics is one of the more hateful examples, but there are many stubborn wishful thinking thinkers who try to make science prove that they believe and hope to be true.
There are many persistent wishful thinking thinkers who try to make science show that what they believe and hope to be true
For example: the American eugenics who eventually inspired Hitler.
...The eugenicists who predate the UK and Germany. If you find that you are in desperate need of quick-acting emetics, you should read some of the arguments about "white burden".
Usually, eugenics people will grasp any causal connection with the traits they want to show, and then claim that this is evidence of inferiority, because inferiority will become worse if they are not selected to respond.
It is like claiming that Africans are inferior to whites because they are less able to deal with colds, and conveniently did not mention that whites will die on a day when Africans have enough time to find water and shade. Or view the susceptibility to sickle cell anemia in the tribe as a sign of genetic inferiority-a disease that is indeed harmful but provided by side effects
Enable the affected people to live in areas that kill everyone else.
Eugenics is just one of my pet hatreds, and the "smart design" people who share the twisted hobby of turning good science into absolute rubbish.
"The correlation between race and intelligence"
Given that the results vary widely and the accuracy of intelligence tests is doubtful, and it is difficult to determine race, I think that the use of dna, I think the determination of these correlations is inherently suspicious, so of course any conclusions drawn are also suspicious.
Now that you are familiar with it, I really don't have time to evaluate any research done by the Sam brothers. What if Sam says about these concerns?
Although to a large extent, Sam Harris is sometimes frustrated in this regard. For him, it is not just SPLC that has important things to say. (I don’t even remember their participation at that time.)
Sam just said that you can talk about these things, ask questions about race, or disclose the connection between race and certain traits (good or bad) that are found, and it doesn’t make you a racist. For any race, he did not support any views.
As Stephen said in another comment-bad actors may try to use this information to do terrible things. Yes, but the prohibition of the ideological line is also very evil.
If the problem is a social problem, it can be solved through education and cultural integration or modification.
If this is a genetic problem, then we don't have any scientific method to do other than to make the situation worse.
In the distant future, if there are proven safe and reliable genetic therapies, it is time to solve this problem.
If this is a genetic problem, we don't have any scientific method to do other than to make me worse.
But if science proves that there is a genetic link between race and intelligence
It was discovered that the worst people can (and will) use it to imply racial superiority. For a long time, other factors from nature and "nurturing" may cause this connection to be established. Racists don't care. They will declare that their race has inherent superiority, and they will say that the science will support it.
I am not saying that we must not explore this idea in a scientific way. But if someone does this, they must do it very carefully, lest their discovery becomes another endless nonsense Wakefield/autism parade, pretending to be "science." I would rather not give Klan a reason, thinking it should be related to it again.
I did not use the word race there. Genetics plays an important role in intelligence, pretending to ignore reality otherwise. For example, when gene therapy is developed to solve Down syndrome, the scientists who developed this therapy will have to treat the intellectual gap, otherwise it will be worthless research.
I really believe that in the far future, we will be able to solve Down syndrome through gene therapy.
"Genetics plays an important role in intelligence, pretending to ignore reality."
"When gene therapy is developed to solve Down syndrome"
There is a broad theoretical field on this issue.
I'm not that kind of scientist, but because of my score, I like IQ tests. I may be biased against modern IQ tests because I took these tests and got delicious scores.
I like the IQ test because my score is high
Maybe don't be proud of the meaningless numbers in the end.
"I like IQ tests"
I assume you are referring to the IQ test currently in use.
I'm glad you like these tests, but the conclusions drawn from the results are questionable. When trying to compare results across social boundaries such as class, race, religion, etc., the IQ test results are meaningless.
"I took them away and got encouraging scores"
You must be easy to target marketing, ha ha.
They are good in races where everyone has the same type of basic education.
They do not perform well in class because different groups value different things. For example, an Olympic athlete and a farmer do very different things, but this does not mean that one person's adaptability or wisdom is not as good as the other's. Different education and skills are required.
Religious beliefs are one of the places where they disintegrate. One person’s truth may be so different from another’s truth that the test becomes unreliable.
They do not perform well in class because different groups value different things.
This is why IQ tests are nonsense. If they don’t have enough IQ to make them a MENSA, they might be the best damn writer in the world. Someone may have a low IQ, but also have useful skills, which allows them to do a good job of earning a living. IQ test scores don’t make anyone better than others-it just gives conceited people the right to brag about things that made no sense to the bathroom last time.
They are still working to provide a quantifiable definition of intelligence. Some IQ tests will identify 6 different types of intelligence for testing.
Like I said before, it is still a field and a lot of work is being done. I would not call it mature science.
As you pointed out, differences in education will cause major errors in the test attempts to measure. Education is one of many parameters.
I am not saying that we must not explore this idea in a scientific way.
Then, you are more rational than SPLC. Just championing this view will make you a candidate for their hate watch blog.
"As long as you support this view, you can be a candidate for their hate observation blog."
How could this be?
I think this is because of saying "maybe we should look at whether there is a connection between intelligence and race", although almost any famous scientific community is saying "does not exist", which sounds like racism.
I don't believe there is such a connection. I think anyone who says exists is a goddamn racist. However, it is nonsense to ban the problem 100% completely. Even if the answer is still "No, you are a racist", we should be able to learn science and answer questions.
But there may be a connection, and society needs to be able to solve this problem. When many people seem to be unable to grasp the difference between climate and weather, it is difficult to explain the difference between population and individual.
It has been studied. You are correct, there is no link.
Oh, but if it wasn't the Crane, who else would buy so many tiki torches?
Leaving aside the irony of the Koran, he does not "think". To a large extent, this is a group of poorly educated losers who wholeheartedly believe that despite their efforts to become the indispensable losers in life, they are still poor and cannot get a life-saving date. It is still blamed on black people.
Among those with no imagination and no education, paranoia is festering, and they desperately want to hear that they are "chosen" and have a peer who appreciates them. In the United States, this is a problem. About 50% of the population reject facts and science to support beliefs, and poverty rates in less urbanized areas are incredibly high. I think Klan will not be able to stay until these aspects are resolved in some way.
"Sam just said he could talk about these things"
Of course, some things can be discussed, but let us be honest about these things.
As we all know, IQ tests are flawed, but they can still be used as if they were not used.
This is true, but given that eugenics is still a very popular pseudoscience among racists, a series of warnings and clarifications must be given.
You can connect the ACLU with specific Nazi groups that used to represent free speech. However, if you say that "the American Civil Liberties Union is associated with the Nazis" without explaining the context, then you will establish a malicious connection between the American Civil Liberties Union and the ideology of Nazism. For whatever reason, you want people to associate Nazis and their nonsense with ACLU. Using the term "link to" in this way is accidental ignorance at best, and intentional disrespect at worst.
What is the point of "fixing the immoral belief system"?
Are those who wish to change the "morality" of society the most lacking in morality?
What is the point of "fixing the immoral belief system"?
Let people stop violence against people based on race, gender, religion, country of origin or sexual orientation, and stop advocating genocide based on these same characteristics?
Do people who try to stop violence rooted in prejudice have lower morals than those who try to commit the same violence?
No, it's not.
I understand what you are talking about and agree.
I think the term morality covers a wider range than "race, gender, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation", and I am curious about the motivation for change
Race, gender, country of origin and sexual orientation are not options you can choose.
I think this is one of the core reasons why criticizing religion is as good as criticizing anything else.
"...Race, gender, religion, country of origin or sexual orientation..."
One of these things is different.
You can choose religion. Apart from choosing to believe that the earth is flat, there should be no more protection.
So, I think that in a city made up of Christians, you discriminate against non-Christians/homosexuals/any other offensive cultural people in almost all aspects of public life. There will be no problems. Government services.
The government may do more to strengthen the wall between the church and the state (for example, abolish the exemption from membership or allow secular groups to accept it). But this should not allow discrimination based on one religion or another.
I don’t think I said that discrimination against anyone should be allowed. Why try to express it in this way?
As I said, religion is a choice and should not be protected more than any other choice.
I don't like many cats. I am not talking about torturing and killing cats.
I don’t think I said that discrimination against anyone should be allowed.
There is no difference. If you believe that religious people should not be protected by any discrimination in the law because they choose their religious beliefs, then you are saying that discrimination based on religion should be allowed. This idea opened up the whole worm, I think you neither need nor want to open the testicles.
What he has is cognitive dissonance.
He does not consider his religious beliefs to be religious beliefs.
He has not yet realized that different types of choices will be protected differently in all corners of society.
To illustrate the inconsistency, consider the following statement.
Why is the choice of eating broccoli more protected than the choice of renting fraud to murder?
"Why is choosing cauliflower more protected than choosing to hire a murder case?"
Which protected class do they belong to?
""...Race, gender, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation..."
You can choose religion. "
Can you see the difference between race and religion and make a choice?
I understand what you are talking about.
Why should I accept your religious beliefs about how important religious beliefs are?
Are you saying that I should be forced to accept your religious beliefs?
Can you see someone leaving the store because of a bastard and leaving the store because of the Jews? If you can't, please don't go back to this argument-you are beyond the depth, and I don't want to see you drown.
Then I think it’s okay to discriminate against atheists? Since they are not a protected class? Should it be equal?
I mean I don’t like many cats.
The interesting thing is brother. The lack of things should be protected as much as the things themselves.
I guess it’s okay to discriminate against atheists? Since they are not a protected class?
If we protect the rights of religious people, we can-must! -Do the same with atheists. People without religious beliefs cannot have fewer legal rights. This is equivalent to the government showing preference or love for religion, and showing malice or malice towards non-religion. The law, especially the First Amendment, has something to say about whether the government can do this.
Atheism is a religion. This is a religion that believes that God does not exist. We do protect religious or non-religious beliefs, but this is not non-religious beliefs.
That should be
"Religion transcends non-religion"
Atheism is a religion.
I will not argue with you on religious issues.
I tell you the facts; you just want to turn them into an argument that cannot be won.
What are you doing?
"Atheism is a religion."
Given the following definitions obtained through Google, how do you support the claim that atheism is a religion? Maybe you used a different set of definitions? please explain.
The belief and worship of superhuman control, especially personal gods or gods.
Distrust or lack of faith in the existence of God or the gods.
A philosophical or religious position characterized by the implausibility of the existence of a god or any deity
Atheists can believe that there is no God. They can also believe that we don't know whether God exists. Does Christianity allow a similar line of thinking, or does it regard questioning the existence of God as heresy?
Atheism has no structured belief system, dogma or institutional governance. It has no specific belief or form of worship. It has no doctrine, no preacher, no religious service, no school or scripture. I ignore you to show me a single way of showing me that atheism and religion are one-yes, except "they both believe in God".
Agnostics believe that it is impossible for humans to know whether there are any gods
Christianity is compatible with most other religions. If you want to find a denomination that does a cross-faith system.
Agnostics believe that it is impossible for humans to know whether there are any gods
Usually, agnostics are atheists. People who believe in God will not believe that we do not know whether God exists. This is a bit contrary to the entire belief system.
In addition: Since you did not provide any proof that atheism is religious, I will use it as a concession.
If you want to find a fanatical religious atheist to argue whether their religious beliefs are enough to become a religion, then go to that person. I know atheists and it is not worth arguing with them.
I am the wrong person to argue with.
There is no such thing as a "religious atheist". By definition, atheists have no religious beliefs. Atheists have no institutions of worship or rule, no dogmas that all atheists must abide by, no clergy or creeds, prayers, schools, or doctrines. If you can't provide anything that proves that atheism is the same as religion, please admit it, or both of you admit your timidity.
Even in the Abrahamic religion, Islam is correct because Jesus is just another prophet, and Allah will most certainly do this
Let someone share power with him, as far as I know, the similarity of Judaism is that their version of God is also lonely, no one is sitting on his right or left.
Then you enter
Gods and goddesses, myths and creation stories are very different... Christianity is undoubtedly
Compatible with other religions, don’t mind "majority" religious beliefs, unless you want to expand religious beliefs
Past experience and trying to claim that this is a Christian god who dresses up and deceives people with very different myths.
You are selecting a sect with incompatible beliefs.
I can’t fucking believe this bullshit, but I’ll actually quote a fucking priest
"Anything is possible in God"
I have completed the debate with you about the appropriate religion.
I am not interested in any of your missionary activities.
If you mean to point to other religions that are so different from Christianity that they are clearly
Being "compatible" with Christianity indicates that your claim is flawed, so yes, yes.
Now, if you want to rewrite what you mean by Christians
Within the scope of protection of Christianity, they are usually compatible with each other and share the same beliefs and myths.
It is accurate, although it is basically meaningless.
If you don’t want to participate in discussions about religion, then don’t mention religion and/or make claims on the subject, it’s that simple. Likewise, leaving the nonsense of "prose culture", people disagreeing with you and/or pointing out what you did wrong is not qualified, it will only make you look stupid and use words that are obviously inappropriate.
Mission: Tell others what their religious beliefs are, or try to impose your religious views on others
The inability of atheists to believe in religion is an example
People cannot believe in more than one belief. This is another good example.
Personally, I don’t care what your specific religious views are, but tell everyone else that what they must believe is one of the most annoying weird things in the world.
Great, now point to the work done by me or Stephen. It's just a reminder that "that's wrong" doesn't fall into that category, and it's nothing except correcting a person's belief that a married bachelor will become something.
No, correcting your misuse of terms will not tell you in any way what your religious beliefs must be, nor will it force atheists to have no religious beliefs.
This example depends on how you want to define religion. I can see a way of atheistic religion, which only requires that no gods are involved (so not gods, alien spirits), but in
Atheism, not part of it, is similar to the way a particular religion is based on atheism.
This leads to a rather confusing belief system and depends on
What they copied may violate one or more religions (for example, if someone believes that both religions belong to monotheism)
A man with multiple gods), but unless I miss anything, neither Stephen nor I will say anything
... you are
The week that became the most interesting/hypocritical? Seriously, this is what you did back and forth to start
In terms of "atheism is a religion" and "atheism both means believing that there is no god". If you are very opposed to others telling others what they must believe, maybe
do it yourself.
This is another
If the box does not fit you, it means you are stealing (plagiarizing) the religious beliefs of others.
You always have the right to be a baptism of intolerance and say that only your religion is the correct religion, and only the denominations you recognize are other religions, but this does make you a baptism of intolerance.
Well, thank you for making it clear that I don’t need to take you seriously, which can save a lot of time.
Mission: Tell others what their religious beliefs are, or try to impose your religious views on others
Oh, do you mean so?
Because it’s like you’re telling me what atheism is (you’re wrong), what is the belief structure of atheism (you’re wrong again), and it implies that if I don’t believe it, I’m wrong (you are an innocent three People group) wrong).
, Son, is preaching.
Maybe you should recall the old proverbs about rocks and glass houses. Your walls look like they are made of Tesla truck windows.
Arguing with that guy.
He did not speak for all atheists. His belief structure is not atheistic dogma. For what reason did I argue with him whether atheism is a religion? (No, by the way.)
No, we are picking any Christian denomination that chooses the Bible as a cornerstone.
It can be said that you cannot become a Christian and cannot tolerate other religions. The burning of pagans is one of the core arguments in many biblical passages. Even after Catholic churches removed most offensive churches.
This is not what mainstream Catholicism teaches.
So? Catholicism is a branch of Christianity. Catholic dogma will not apply if it does not apply to other denominations.
Essentially, what they mean is that SDM is talking about
Christian denominations preach that non-Christians will go to hell. This is obviously wrong, because the main Christian denominations clearly preach the opposite.
In essence, the audit committee provides a counterexample to a very broad proposition. They do not need to prove that every sect of Christianity has different beliefs. Only quite a few Christians do this. Mainstream Catholicism is closely followed by Christians.
Christians go to the lion.
It would be better to take care of the atheist. Indeed, the most we do is to insult other religions.
Those who remain silent will let us continue.
Revenge? At best, we will laugh at them harder. Worst of all, we screwed them up.
These gay beaters behaved too well for too long.
I am responsible to atheists and no major problems
Atheists who have persecuted atheists, but in most cases, atheists tend to tolerate all religions.
Question the meaning of Christians = homosexual assaulters. Although many Christians are gay beaters, many Christians, including me, are not. I really hope you don't let those who are not so tolerant give in.
(And, in order to avoid this situation, please do not quote the Bible to me, saying that Christianity is homosexual in nature. I have received enough support from other Christians. It is enough to say that the Bible is affected by the time it was written, and the Bible as a whole is so self-conscious. Contradictory, so that it is impossible to fully understand it in terms of its face value without doing it.
Picking cherries. I personally believe only certain parts of Genesis (the story of Abraham), the story of Exodus, the story of Saul, David and King Solomon, and the four gospels and the book of Acts are intended to be close to truth literally. I agree with these doctrines. When contradictions arise, act in the Acts of the Apostles, the Acts of the rest of the New Testament, and the New Testament of the Old Testament. I think the rest are metaphors, embellishments, pure myths, products of the times, or some combination of these four. )
Okay, it sucks, aren't you?
You choose to defend the atheists, and if you disappear overnight, no one will cry for your team. Breeders are all the wrong things on our planet.
Your time is almost here, and I will be happy to present you a damn funeral pile. Many people will.
"The breeder"? Likewise, you attribute to me beliefs or practices that I don't actually have.
Moreover, I am a defender of equal opportunity. I will defend atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, antitheism, etc. When I am a Christian, I will defend anyone from false or unsupported claims or arguments. I stand
I will not impose religious beliefs on others. I rarely mention them in conversations. I only do this in this case because it is relevant and clarifies my position.
To be honest, I don’t know how what you said has anything to do with my comment.
Hi, Anonymous Co.! The atheists are here. (Well, agnostic atheists, but still so.) I will defend the right of religious believers to follow their specific religious beliefs. I will even defend the right to existence of religion. When I condemn the actions of religious people/groups, I will do so, and personally hope for the decline and eventual "extinction" of religion.
What I will not do is hope for their death. I usually don’t celebrate their deaths (I make exceptions for pedophile priests and anti-LGBT religious leaders). And I'm sure I won't be happily waiting for the day when I can "ignite the fucking funeral pyre" for religion-because to be honest, it sounds so sweet and will kill people.
I think I understand what he meant. Christians, Muslims, or any religion should bear the responsibility and accuse their congregation as bastards in the first place.
No one will go to police a boring atheist. There is absolutely no reason to do this. Accept him and he will move on. Don't accept him, he will do more, a group of friends scream at him because you "sink to his level".
Why must he stop?
Mainstream Catholicism has remained silent on dog behavior in recent years, but this still cannot change the fact that for Christians, unbelievers will burn in hell. This view is condemned regardless of their lives. Any other parties’ actions are condemned. faith.
If you call yourself a Christian and choose not to believe it, you are directly violating many other statements in the New Testament.
This is a very common problem for people who have a rational point of view but still have to try to reconcile their own personal views of religious beliefs with those clearly articulated in the core texts of the religion.
Ask a pastor or pastor-any one-India, Shintoism, Taoism or Jews, who have done charity and self-sacrifice for others throughout their lives, but refused to accept Jesus Christ because their savior will go to hell or go to heaven.
He may seem ashamed and dismissive of the question, but the only answer he can honestly give is that the living sage you mentioned has been condemned and will die in hell forever.
That's not right
In any case, the pastors and Sunday school teachers I know teach that people of any faith, even non-religious, can go to heaven. They also teach that being a good atheist or other religion is better than a bad Christian.
Then, maybe they should update the Bible. Now, what the Pope occasionally says contradicts the Old and New Testaments.
Deuteronomy is the most severe. It calls on anyone who obeys God's law to execute anyone who tries to worship an entity other than Abraham.
The most important thing is that there is no ruling or even said in the New Testament.
Therefore, according to the Bible, as a Christian, you cannot admit the validity of any other faith.
You can start a new faith to maintain the so-called "Christian" faith, but in this case, I suggest that you first discard all faiths that originated from the Old Testament.
It is not difficult to understand why modern Christian churches choose to make such extreme choices in their teaching that they seem to have a completely divided character. Look at the works of Pope Francis in his later years-for example, "If the pagans will end the so-called Christian society".
For centuries, the Catholic Church has produced a message of division, with one hand reaching out to the pagans for conversion and changing purposes, and the other hand clenching a fist to warn loyalists of the dangers of apostasy and pagans. Obviously, Francis, like his predecessor, followed this approach.
As I said, ask any pastor or pastor what the Bible says to those who live a model life but refuse to accept JC as their savior. Either he has to say that the Bible cannot be interpreted literally-in this case, according to the dictionary definition, he is an apostate or a heretic-or he has to be ashamed to admit that the Christian faith is very clear, only those who have no choice Those who reject JC as a personal savior will go to heaven.
Almost every link you have quoted "invincible ignorance", it is clear that the loopholes are narrow. You can enter heaven as an atheist-if and only without being told. If you are told the word of God and still refuse to believe it, then you are toasting. For outright heretics who reject JC's approval of another godhead, see Deuteronomy.
Oh, is that the first link you gave? Finally, countries are very clear that this means that this opens the door for all people who choose to give up idolatry. Therefore, we still believe on the page that the belief in JC is and remains the standard to avoid the eternal curse.
The only reason why today’s Christianity and today’s radical Muslim extremists do not see through the same filters is because Christians have largely chosen to ignore more than half of the books that are considered religious core. Just like Francis, the church has become very good at expressing a political message that aims to portray Christianity as a "reasonable" choice.
Your garbage is actually complete garbage. This is not mainstream Catholicism. Every one of your propositions has an answer, I know. I don't care if you are not a Catholic. The Catholic Church will not teach those garbage.
Actually. Ask any theologian.
No Catholic missionary or pastor wants to talk about this publicly, and it will not change the fact that the total rejection of unbelievers is and remains a belief.
If you ask the Pope, if someone-anyone-if they actively reject JC by following their original beliefs, then he can go to heaven, then the man will evade answering, and if you are an honest person, just say bluntly "No"...or call another meeting of Cardinal Ranis and rewrite the Bible.
Do not. The answer is that Christianity does not believe that believers of other faiths can go to heaven unless they rely on it. These are facts, written deeply in your own scriptures, and accepted and explained by every theological scholar.
of course not. It is neither for those who want to change, nor for those who do not need to teach seriously. However, this happens in any formal seminar or theological bible study, which is why Opus Dei is closer to the Catholic Church in FAR than any liberal priest you may have come across.
The frustrating thing is that every time this topic comes up, there are always some self-styled Catholics who bluntly refuse to read their scriptures, and eventually replace their arguments with smug and angry denials.
Any religion or denomination with the Bible at its core cannot get rid of the following facts:
Therefore, if you choose not to believe (this is what most "Christians" do today), then you are actually a pagan who rejects your own holy book altogether. These are the facts.
The irony is that if I am right and no creator cares enough about the soul after death, then this is unique to most actual believers who choose to “add or delete” from the Bible and be condemned The path to success. According to Deuteronomy and Revelation.
If I am wrong, and there is a creator who happens to accurately describe him in Christian scriptures, then I think I will face additional punishment, that is, almost all Christians on earth will accompany in hell.
I don't care what your religious beliefs are.
Look, not every priest or pastor believes that the Bible written in the Bible is 100% true. Of course, not every
Believe this. this is
What is wrong is that those of us who do not fully interpret the Bible literally must be apostates or heretics.
I have explained my point of interpreting the Bible literally. Some parts are outdated or purely fabulous; others are metaphorical; some are replaced by the second half of the Bible; some are even misrecorded. In my opinion, Deuteronomy and Leviticus are one of the most questioned books together. Considering the age and many contradictions of the Bible, as well as the inherent fallacies of the biblical authors and the way of historical records at the time (not to mention the fact that a considerable part of it was passed down orally before generations), we cannot believe 100% of it is indeed 100% real, and today 100% is relevant. Perhaps
Update, but there are many problems, the most obvious is
Will be responsible for updating it.
Say it again, don't say it again
What do we believe in or not, what makes someone a Christian or not, or what a Christian should or shouldn’t believe. When you (an atheist) argue that atheism is not a religion, I will defend you and others and do not accuse it of pro-teaching. However, what you are doing now is more like se teaching. Although in a very unusual way, it is also very close to No True Scotsman's fallacy.
I can use the Bible to refute the Bible, refute this or belief in the Bible, or explain why
If you are a Christian, please have a certain belief. I have no problem in arguing about the historical accuracy/inaccuracy of the Bible or its reliability as a source of morality or fact. It is also possible to use the Bible for this purpose. I can even accept using the Bible to persuade me to believe something or behave in a certain way
However, an atheist tried to use the Bible to tell me that if I am a "true Christian", then when they themselves do not believe that the Bible is beyond the boundary, I must believe in so-and-so. I don't tell you what you do or don't believe. I hope to receive the same courtesy from you.
(According to the record, I have no problem with you using what Pope Francis and other Catholic authorities have said about Pope Francis. This is fair game. I have nothing wrong with the rumors of Catholics; not only such a fair game, but this It is also in line with my understanding of Catholicism. This is a broader claim. For example, any Christian pastor or pastor who says that the Bible is not 100% true, by definition, is a heresy or apostate, and this is questioned.)
It's not my damn problem.
Your gay harasser has chosen a botched collection of stories about a fictitious friend who is actually a problem with dad. We laughed at you as your own collective fault. We will use it for you at any time and every time we have the opportunity.
It sucks to be you!
Again, I can laugh at the Bible or my faith. I think this is not very constructive, but I think I am very clear that mocking and criticizing the Bible, Christians, my beliefs, etc. are all fair games.
However, there are some problems with what you said.
When you say that I only believe in something because of something in the Bible and I claim to be a Christian, I do have a problem. As I clearly pointed out, I actually don't believe that most Bibles recite true stories, and it's actually easy to make mistakes. Therefore, as I said, the arguments of the Bible do not necessarily have anything to do with my beliefs.
I also encounter a problem when you make all Christians collectively responsible for the actions and beliefs of a few people, or make general statements. Not because i was offended
This is just a bad statement.
When someone, especially a non-Christian, dare to tell me that I am not actually a "real" Christian, I have another problem.
In general, I have questions about the fallacy argument.
Likewise, I am not telling you not to laugh at religions, religious beliefs, religious organizations, religious people or holy books. Laugh at all you want. I usually keep silent about these things. I want the mockery to be as close as possible to accurate and infallible, but even then, I usually don’t bother about it. However, in this case, I didn't even argue with someone and mock anyone or anything. This is a practical proposition on Christianity put forward under a serious background. What I just said was not about mocking people, but about asserting against them.
Well, this is a set of arguments that has been well thought out and put forward. I actually disagree with some of your points, but mainly I think that in order to freely interpret the Bible like most Protestants and secularized Christians, what you have is no longer Christianity, just like once St. Peter If you give up the belief in supporting JC's preaching, you cannot call him a "Jew." Or Sufi, for that matter, they are in trouble like every previous faith.
What you have is another branch of the Abraham faith, very close to radical monotheism-ironically, the Catholic Church created the heresy specifically to deal with the Inquisition.
I suspect that the only reason the Catholic Church gave up its crusade against Protestantism is that as long as they ignore or tolerate its existence, they can still claim to represent legitimacy.
An excellent argument. However, this has the inherent fallacy of epic proportions-if you yourself admit that the big book describing him is largely a myth and shared with a long-term organization that has long-standing legal trademarks, then why would you choose to call yourself Compared with the Muslim or sufi beliefs, the brand and trademark label for the religious beliefs of Christians are very different from the beliefs you believe in?
I think we are going to be Catholic. What I can accept is that most Protestants don’t have too many common dogmas.
I just can’t bear to say that these protesters continue to call themselves Catholics, despite the fact that they are actually practicing a new religion, which is far from Catholicism compared to Judaism or Islam.
Please explain where St. Peter "abandoned" his Jewish faith.
It is worth noting that both JC and Martin Luther began to try to reform Judaism and Catholicism respectively.
This "fallacy" is actually not a fallacy at all. It’s just that you can’t understand someone’s choice because they seem to be unreasonable to you. This is a personal suspicion rather than a logical argument. I believe that the Catholic Church has broken away from many core parts of Christianity a long time ago, and many of its current creeds are based more on personal interests and traditions, rather than because Jesus is actually speaking this sentence and taking into account the Orthodox Church. Already exists. Just like the Catholic Church, and they all call themselves Christians, why would I give up the label of Christianity because I only disagree with many core beliefs that I hold? Martin Luther did not.
I am pretty sure that the Catholic Church does not have a Christian trademark.
I don’t know anything about Sufis, but Muslims and I disagree on many issues, whether Jesus is my savior and whether Muhammad is God’s prophet. I think those are
Disagreements are far more important than my disagreements with any organized church.
I have more to say, but I think it has been enough so far.
When he began to follow the pagans, who was expelled by the high priest of Jerusalem and declared apostate?
Look, the rules at that time were simply too clear.
Reforming the dictionary definition of faith by changing several main notes of the faith clause is heresy. You can make an argument that the Catholic Church has deviated from the teachings of JC-in this case, they will become pagans, and Luther reinvigorated the original faith. An ironic explanation, but it didn't change many arguments.
However, JC did not "reform" Judaism. He bluntly refuted many important terms of faith, which is why so far, the harmony between "God is law" and "God is love" is not very good.
What JC did was as radical as what Mohammed did. The end result is a new religion, not a reform of the old religion.
4&5) No, the Catholic Church does not have a trademark. What it contains is a clearly defined codification of their beliefs, which makes it quite easy to determine what a Catholic is. For other self-proclaimed tolerant, tolerant, semi-democratic, semi-democratic, semi-absolute saints, secularists, rationalists, supremacy... all the way to the belief-based paranoia of the believers of the Cibolo Baptist Church, and other people who call themselves Christian Neither can say the same thing.
Therefore, someone like you must identify yourself as... an agnostic of the Lutheran sect, unless you want to go with the crowd to perform fire-blowing abortion clinics and entangle gay marriages. There is no conflict because the sect "Christian" fits into this range.
However, Muslims and Catholics still have more in common than you. Both parties at least acknowledge that JC speaks for God and acknowledge the validity of the Old and New Testaments. They are still different beliefs. You seem to stick to some of the godheads mentioned in the Bible and reject most of the rest. This sets you apart.
No, it’s not that if we’re talking about service focusing on actual scriptures, which describe the core texts and main notes of their religion, then the appearance and execution of the service doesn’t matter at all.
Some of the Sephardi services in Judaism are different from the typical ashkenazi orthodox services. You may think that this is from the faith of the other half of the world, but it is essentially Judaism.
You want to identify yourself as a Christian... It's ultimately your personal choice, just as I don't claim to have authority over anyone else who wants to identify themselves. However, I still think this is the same as the Chinese who I used to speak Mandarin. This is incorrect. He has lived in Asia all his life and claims to be a Scot because he is playing a bagpipe.
I think that for those agnostic who practice tolerance, it is time to take adequate measures and declare that they will not be confused or confused with those radical Calvinists and Puritans (main religious activities are making anyone such a person). It's painful not to share their opinions when it's time to offer them allegiance.
In this regard, the situation of Catholics is even worse. Unless they end up with the Pope’s miracle, Cardinal University is willing to retrospect the Bible.
Not all Christians believe that all of the Bible is true.
In addition, what you are doing is telling Christians what their beliefs are, no matter what they actually believe. Many people believe that good deeds are still a way to enter heaven. This may conflict with certain passages in the Bible, but according to the nature of the Bible, every Christian must do
Choose and choose which parts of the Bible are acceptable.
Then, frankly, they are not "Christians" but those pagans who followed JC in Jerusalem-Paul, John, Peter and others-once they rejected the Pentateuch in support of their new covenant. It is reasonably called "Jews". Prophet.
It's really easy: Jews have laws. Christianity has the Bible. Islam has the Quran. Once you increase or decrease from the general rules of the chosen religion, you will no longer follow that religion. Deuteronomy appears again in the Pentateuch/Old Testament. In Revelation, it also applies to the New Testament. The Quran also has a similar prohibition.
Since the end of the Crusades, every pope has bent backwards in a twisted fascist language to make Christians more friendly to liberal views-witnessing the massive use and abuse of "invincible ignorance", one of the popes accepted After that, he made a wide range of speeches. Regarding the way heaven is open to everyone, it deliberately does not involve the following facts: This only means that you still need to admit that you first believe in JC as your savior.
In the last century, no pope or cardinal publicly declared that stubborn, unrepentant pagans-including Jews, Zoroastrians and Muslims-would still go to hell. They are literally articles of faith.
Unfortunately, this means that there are many semi-secular Christians around who eagerly refuse to believe in most of their beliefs while still trying to sell their religious beliefs to others as "humanitarians."
It is good to be one of the few Protestant denominations. However, these are the minority Protestant views of Christianity.
You have now formally contradicted the No True Scotsman fallacy.
What makes a Christian a Christian is not believing in the Bible, but believing that Jesus Christ is our Savior. The bible is supplementary. Christianity = / = Bible. This
The necessary parts of the Bible are the four gospels, and since they are not always consistent, there is clearly some room for error.
No right (well,
You will, but that’s not what I meant.) Tell me I’m not a true Christian. It is between me and God.
In addition, I am not a Catholic, so anything the pope or cardinal must say has nothing to do with my faith. I am an agnostic Christian (especially Lutheran church).
Besides, I will not persuade anyone to convert to Christianity. IMO, the command to preach the gospel has been completed and no longer applies today. Therefore, I do not try to "sell" my religious beliefs. I will defend it against such a broad claim as you, but I did not go beyond the scope.
As I said in another more detailed comment, I don't think that 100% of the Bible is 100% true or applicable today. There are too many contradictions in the Bible. If God is truly tolerant, merciful, and merciful, then certain parts of the Bible cannot be true. However, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. He came down from heaven and died to protect us from our sins. He was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven. I also believe in many stories about Abraham and his escape from Egypt. I believe these are important parts of Christianity. I put a grain of salt in everything else. Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Revelation (and the story of Adam, Eve and Noah) are particularly doubtful.
By the way, not all Jews accept the Torah.
In addition, Jesus and his apostles
The Jews are not heretics. It took a long time for Christians to be officially identified as non-Jews.
Once again, what about those who choose not to believe who he is? Looking at the Lutheran Church, I want to see how Lutheranism explains it. The fallacy of No True Scots is not suitable in this situation, just like a person of Mediterranean descent, who has lived in Egypt all his life, it is difficult to claim to be Scots without breaking the dictionary definition.
Because I don't know it or not, I think you must at least say hello to the core point of Luther teaching-metaphorically, you are now wearing a MAGA hat and Hillary shirt to the Sanders rally.
Really. We call them "secularized." As far as I know, they have a very difficult time with the orthodox people in Israel. They often scream for blasphemy and occasionally try to be stoned on vehicles driving on the Sabbath.
I usually have reservations about Judaism beyond a lengthy and complicated independent argument, but considering that since the Talmud was written, Judaism has been deeply rooted in culture and tradition than any other living faith today. ingrained. . There are two aspects here-one is the religious aspect, and the other is the membership of a secular group inherited through matrilineal. I am referring to the religious aspect here. The high priest of Jerusalem determines the identity of JC.
Obviously, JC and his happy band are apostates. After all, this was the exact reason Pilatus had to agree to crucify that guy.
This is the same as Luther nailing 95 papers to that door, making himself a prophet of a new branch of Abraham's faith.
Now, today, when someone says they are Christians, I absolutely don’t know whether this person believes in the Bible, whether he believes that I will burn in hell, whether he believes that pain is beneficial or harmful, whether it’s abortion or something else. Contraception is okay, or it is a deadly sin... Hell, if the definition of "human" is so broad, it may include trees, rocks, or stellar corpses.
At the same time, every large religious organization that claims to be a Christian has a very narrow definition of the meaning of this concept.
The explanation for this debate is that no real Scots fallacy would become like this:
I think that although Kim's uncle in the example is free to consider himself a Scot, when other people try to convince him that he is not like that, he will not regret it.
If you just pick one thing you like from a given religion and reject the rest, then you are doing the same as JC, Luther and Mohammed. You have destroyed your belief in IKEA to suit your particular living room.
I totally agree that you have the right to call yourself. When the opinions of others are too far away from any understood definition, don’t be frustrated or surprised as long as they are not comfortable with the opinions.
Now, today, when someone says they are Christians, I absolutely don’t know whether this person believes in the Bible, whether he believes that I will burn in hell, whether he believes that pain is beneficial or harmful, whether it’s abortion or something else. Is contraception possible or a deadly sin...
The thing is this: Many Christians cannot reach consensus on these issues. Even have
Who can't reach consensus on those issues. The same is true for Islam and Judaism.
I can tell you now, that was wrong. Catholics do believe that Easter Orthodox Christians and Protestants of any denomination are Christians. For most denominations, Protestants consider Catholics and Orthodox Christians to be Christians. Orthodox Christians believe that both Catholics and Protestants are Christians. They may differ in what is the "right way to heaven", but outside of the minority, they usually agree on what makes a Christian a very broad definition, even if they are in certain details. Or different opinions about someone. A kind
Both (and her predecessors) have made a definition of Christianity, which is more or less commensurate with the Christians I have given.
Since many sects and sects of Christianity differ in making a Christian a Christian, they contradict each other to a large extent. Considering all these factors, what I just said is the only thing that is generally agreed: Jesus Christ is our Savior, he is the Son of God, and there is only one God. Almost every major sect of Christianity has different opinions on Christian morality, and even whether they believe the Bible is literally true. Almost every major religion has similar differences.
The problem is, at least for non-Christians, the overall definition of Christianity must include
among them. Therefore, why the definition is so broad. You find that the definition is not as useful as you hoped, it is not a fault of the definition
However, there are many Christian denominations and denominations, and each denomination has its own values, morals and beliefs. If you want more information, please ask. Your inconvenience and confusion are not our problem.
Moreover, what Luther did was to create his own Christian denomination, so if I was doing something similar to what he was doing, then what I was doing was creating a new branch of Christianity. Therefore, I still believe in Christianity.
In any case, the distinction between the separation between different sects or sects of the same religion and the separation between different religions is quite arbitrary, just like dialects for the same language and dialects for different languages.
Likewise, your example of misuse of the "incorrect Scots fallacy" is cruel.
First of all, Scots actually only have two or three recognized definitions: residence, genetic/family residence and culture. Two of them are objective and not subjective at all. In contrast, there are many accepted definitions of Christianity, most of which are subjective. In addition, being a Scot has nothing to do with belief or mentality, and almost every definition of Christianity includes belief and/or mentality, which is the main part of the definition, if not all. Therefore, the definition of Christianity is no different from the definition of Scots.
Secondly, a lot of people who are definitely Scots
Some people who play bagpipes are
Scot. Therefore, defining a Scot as a "bagpipe player" will definitely produce false positives
False negatives. You have not proved that this is the case in my definition of Christianity: does it exclude any Christians or does it include any obvious
Christian? If you can't do anything, then you haven't indicated that there is indeed a problem with my definition. And of course you haven’t stated that my definition is
It's like the definition of Scots by the second person.
Third, if religious belief is involved, it will only be religious. Believing that a person is a Scot is not a religious belief, so trying to convince them that they are not a Scot does not make people believe in religion. But tell someone that they are not a Christian because they believe in
The definition of Christian may be pro-dependent, which is
There is no real Scots fallacy.
You’re saying that I’m not a “real” Christian because my faith and
I personally believe that a person must believe in order to become a "true Christian" as you define it. This is a clear case of "there is no real Scots fallacy".
As I said, it is related to
Definition of understanding. As I said, my pastor gave a similar definition.
I will definitely...may not be very frustrated, but when someone thinks that someone is not a "real" Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist, etc., I definitely disagree. (Almost) universally accepted. Surprised? Do not. There are many different definitions of Christianity. But this is what "there is no real Scots fallacy" means, and I will point this out.
Yes, atheism is great, isn't it? There are no stupid books to maintain standards. When we tell you, you will dance. You are making a mess after your partner singing a mole. Atheist? Now, no matter who we want, we are all on the free side of love.
You will fit any of our damn standards, and you can also get a front row seat in the Colosseum in Rome.
...To be honest, I can’t tell you now if you are playing a stereotyped "dumb atheist" or just an atheist
Shoot yourself in the foot and make yourself look bad.
I guess if the former likes self-deception, if the latter likes
Just handing the ammunition to the theists as an example of what an immature atheist might be like makes it more difficult if you don't actually take it seriously.
Make a good point.
Me... what? This has almost nothing to do with my comment. If you are a troll, you are terrible. I don't even know if you are going to offend me or an atheist. If not, then you will alienate both parties here, and your views are too confusing to comment too much on it.
What are you talking about the Colosseum? Is it the Pokémon Colosseum? I want the front seat there!
This is what I am going to say here. I have nothing to say about what I have already said, and I don't want to repeat myself for such obvious trolls.
I guess it's because some clumsy people think that pulling the "become a better person" card into a complete doughnut mouth is both fashionable and avant-garde.
I think he does have a little bit. Atheists have no reason to discipline their behavior, but a Christian is a hypocrite. They will happily drag everyone into the mud and giggle.
A Christian turned out to be a hypocrite, and they would happily drag everyone into the mud, and then giggle.
Just as some Christians/Christian groups exalt themselves as morally higher than others, openly showing moral hypocrisy makes this illusion difficult to eliminate, so that the only response is to point it out. If Catholics want to act like dogma is the true word of God himself, then it should not cover up child rape and insist on pedophilia.
I mostly agree. However, I do have questions about holding
What's in charge
Do/not do. Not that
Do it, but that
The protesters here are:
Responsible for Christian denominations/Christian groups
I blame people for trying to make the Catholic Church law enforcement. The only law enforcement agency of the Catholic Church is the Vatican and its diplomatic post. Many people violated or approached the foreign agent registration law by trying to make the Catholic Church enforce the law.
The problem is that the Catholic Church has also done a lot of work to prevent law enforcement. They tried
Hide the problem.
One of the biggest problems is if you think they do not owe you law enforcement resources, but they do not owe you.
Child abuse is certainly condemned.
Similarly, the Catholic Church is not only helping law enforcement but also law enforcement officials. They hindered their advancement. They told victims and witnesses not to go to the police and punish those people. When asked, they also lied to the authorities. In addition, they
Perform such LEO duties internally, but this is not the case.
This is not just the failure to provide LEO resources; this is a