Yes, it’s a tu quoque – except I am a neutral observer. I don’t have anything to prove one way or the other.Tu quoque! And what’s your point?Another non-contributory remark!
There is nothing neutral about your posts! Your anti-Christian, pro-Islam bias is very transparent!
I’m not saying it isn’t one. But I’ve made no judgment here as to the validity of the claim itself, only pointing out that the claimant may want to be a little more careful before throwing it around. The textbook use of tu quoque is to dismiss the argument, which I have not done.
I hold nothing for or against any creed. They’re just ideas. I am pro-people who hold to their beliefs as staves to support themselves and apply them charitably and with respect for others, and I am anti-people who hold to their beliefs like swords with which to attack the unbeliever, who show little or no charity and respect for anyone who thinks differently.There is nothing neutral about your posts! Your anti-Christian, pro-Islam bias is very transparent!
It is. But the fallacious use of tu quoque is to dismiss the argument, not to point out hypocrisy. I have not used it to dismiss the argument; I am using it as rhetoric instead of logic.
How is taking direct quotes from other religions’ holy books and pointing out what they teach intolerant?
No he is not abigot from what I have seen on this thread. He is being Catholic. The Catholic Church teaches that Catholicism contains the fullness of the Truth and you can be saved IN another religion but not BY that religion. If he is a Catholic I think he is being very charitable for praying for muslims because he wants them to have eternal happiness.yes you are a bigot
And I, personally, would take that as a badge of honor. We have the truth.
Yes some Christians are hateful and there will always be Christians that are hateful. But I rarely(if ever) hear these hateful Christians using their religious texts to justify their hateful acts. For us Catholics the Catholic Church is the supreme authority on Christinanity and you do not see them supporting these hateful Christians nor do you hear of priests giving sermons inciting violence.
“Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of stability.”
Unfortunately, many Christians do use the scriptures to back themselves up in this respect. Some are anti-Semites because they still hold the Jews responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Some are racists because they believe black people are descended from Noah’s cursed son Ham. Some bomb abortion clinics or shoot doctors because they think God requires it. Some Protestants are anti-Catholic because they think you guys worship Mary. There are Christian terrorist groups like the Army of God and Christian Identity who base their hatred in scripture.
This is not biblical or is it taught by the CC. CC teaches that we should seek the face of God in all humans, and will be judged on how charitably we treat our fellow humans
CC teaches that murder and violence are mortal sins. Army of God and Christian Identity teaching is heresy to CC.
These people may call themselves Christians, but they are not. We are judged by what we do, not what we say.
cc does not preach violence and fatwas from the pulpit. Muslim clerics, who are the representatives of Muhammed do.
Who are you to declare someone ‘not Christian’? They’re Christian – sick, hateful, and evil, but Christian. They aren’t doing a very good job of following the Christ, but they have as much claim to the title ‘Christian’ as bin Laden does to the title ‘Muslim’.
Some Christian preachers do – Fred Phelps, for a famous one. Some other Protestant ministers prefer to gloat over tragedies and call them divine punishment. A couple of Catholic priests were complicit in the Rwandan genocide. These are hardly the only cases. If Christians would belittle another faith for not living up to its nickname because of the actions of a few preachers, let them first ensure that theirs does.
I second that!:yup:
Tu quoque is perfectly legitimate in certain circumstances. If you are claiming that because Muslims do bad things therefore Islam is bad, Mirdath is perfectly right to point out that by this logic Christianity is bad. If you want to claim that Christianity is bad as well, then indeed Mirdath’s remark contributes nothing! But I presume you would not want to admit that.Tu quoque! And what’s your point?
Vickie
But we aren’t talking about the last judgment. We are talking about a religious label. If you start saying that people who do right are Christians and people who do evil aren’t, you have made “Christian” useless in its normal, historical sense. The same is true when Muslims say that Islamic terrorists “aren’t real Muslims,” or when anti-Muslims say that moderate Muslims “aren’t real Muslims.” This use (or misuse) of language accomplishes nothing.
No one is objecting to him saying that Muslims are wrong.
Mirdath’s argument was not a logical fallacy. If Osama bin Laden were to claim that his behavior was correct because some Christians had done this sort of thing in the past, that would be the tu quoque fallacy. Obviously Mirdath was not saying this. His argument was rather a form of reductio ad absurdum.