right. Because this thread is not a dissertation about the differing possible aspects of evolutuon.
So you just happened to call it “The cost of Evolution, and other things” even though it has nothing to do with evolution.
Glad you cleared that up.
it is about deception and ethics.
You mean things like the ethics of deceptively calling a thread “The cost of Evolution, and other things” when it has nothing to do with evolution? Or equivocating on the meaning of “argument” in a previous response? Interesting approach.
gee whiz, get the message already.
You want to talk about ethics, but so far all you have provided are examples of things NOT to do - is this the christian way of teaching ethics? I'm just curious how that works.
The links are quite pertinent Russ, thanks I will check them out later.
What makes them pertinent - that they play to your fears and your biases (ie the exhibited bigotry of talking about “deceptive churches” and the like), or have you tested them for reality?
From your first post:
Is it unjust to say that a good portion of 'Christians', and others, who support homosexuality also support non-biblical teachings such as evolution? As one of our friendly online comrades has pointed out to us, these two do seem to be inexplicably tied. As evidence, she gave us this link (
The Clergy Project*) to an online petition of
so-called Christian churches (though many Christians would argue a good portion of those named within are not Christian churches) ----
*- edited into link for formating issues, bold added for emPHAsis.
I post this to point out (1) that you did talk about teaching evolution as being evil (in spite of your later denial), and that (2) by this little conflation you tie teaching evolution to the causes of your whole diatribe against the “so-called christians” that you blame for this sad event.
Yes it is unjust, it's another <i>post hoc ergo propter hoc</i> logical fallacy that assumes (a) homosexuality is wrong and a cause of social problems, (b) that teaching evolution is also a cause of social problems, and (c) that both of these have something to do with the killing in question. As an example of making a logical argument that is valid (based on true premises), or sound (has a valid logical structure), it is a complete failure. It's based on falsehoods and logical fallacies.
Now you are equivocating on your position and saying that you are not really attacking evolution, but are just raising ethical issues. As an example of making an ethical argument it is also a failure, not just because it is based on dreadfully poor logic, but because you are begging the question by pre-defining “so called christians” as bad and then blaming them for all the evil in the world with a blanket condemnation that does not discuss the beliefs and practices of a single person that you so condemn. Bigotry is like that.
Can you tell me, as someone outside the christian religion, how someone outside christianity distinguishes “(true) christian churches” from “so-called christian churches”? I'm curious. I thought
christianity was defined by belief in christ as a savior, the teachings of christ.
Can you tell me how this ties into the issue of ethics? If one bases their ethics on the teachings of christ does that make the ethics christian even if they are not? What if they just happen to be the same?
Enjoy.
ps - all responders please note, from my first post here: [color:"red"]“I'm new here, so you will forgive me if I only post on a few threads, and only reply to the first response to my post[/color] (if you feel you have an important point that is not covered you can reply to a later post).” This is my policy to prevent pile-ups, in case of having a number of people making responses, and if you point is important we will get to it, but if it isn't then don't waste other people's posts that may be important. Thanks for your consideration.
