XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: theswain@operamail.com   
      
   Bill Baldwin wrote:   
   > Larry Swain (theswain@operamail.com) wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>Bill Baldwin wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Larry Swain (theswain@operamail.com) wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>You should have.  Nowhere in this discussion so far has anyone   
   >>>>intimated that a Hindu is a Christian; the point has been that   
   >>>>Daryl's definition of who is a Christian as in Christian religion   
   >>>>is far too narrow and would automatically exclude a number of   
   >>>>recognized Christian bodies. Whether an animist, Hindu, Taoist or   
   >>>>Buddhist is a Christian or not was introduced by Darryl in an   
   >>>>effort to win debating points rather than engage the actual data   
   >>>>under discussion.  So it doesn't go to the heart of anything.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Larry, it was not introduced in an effort to win debating points.   
   >>>It was introduced in an effort to clarify where the line is and   
   >>>why. You and others made the claim that Muslims claim to worship   
   >>>the God who appeared to Abraham, so obviously they worship the   
   >>>same God as the Christians. Is that a fair characterization?   
   >>   
   >>I cry "shenanigans"!   
   >   
   >   
   > Does that mean I have unfairly characterized your view? I really did   
   > think that's what you were saying. Judging by Daryl's response, he   
   > interpreted your words in the same way. I thought we'd try taking it   
   > a step at a time rather than respond to what we think the other   
   > person is saying.   
   >   
   >   
   >>Let's say we're discussing whether a group   
   >>of people who have banded together to protest their company's   
   >>treatment of the worker and are in negotiations with said company   
   >>should be defined as a union.  I'm arguing for inclusion.  Daryl   
   >>responds and asks then about whether the Republican party then is   
   >>a union because it talks about worker rights in its platform.   
   >>Huh?  The political parties haven't even entered the discussion   
   >>and certainly do not help in determining the definition of a union   
   >>in this case.  And so Daryl's invoking of Hindus and Voodoo as   
   >>possible Christians certainly isn't germane to the discussion.   
   >>Its a red herring....and Daryl didn't just ask a question, but   
   >>made a conclusion and invoked Dorothy L. Sayers to disprove this   
   >>supposed position about Hindu Christians believing Christ was an   
   >>incarnation of Vishnu.  Had he simply asked a question, it would   
   >>be a different story.  Not sure what is difficult to comprehend   
   >>here.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   > Well, your analogy doesn't make sense to me. Now if you had   
   > stipulated that an organization that talks about worker's rights is a   
   > union, then it would be natural to ask whether you meant to include   
   > the Republican Party in your definition.   
      
   Exactly.  And in neither the analogy nor in the discussion nor what I   
   said was anything intimated that anything outside the Abrahamic faiths   
   was indicated.  So including them in an effort to characterize my   
   statements as "chaos" is ridiculous.  Was several days ago, remains so   
   today.   
      
      
   In the same way, if you   
   > stipulate that everyone who claims to worship the God who appeared to   
   > Abraham worships the same God, then it is natural to ask whether you   
   > mean to include a Voodoo worshiper or a Hindu who makes such a claim.   
      
   Once again with the false hypothetical construct....show a Hindu who   
   worships the Hindu gods AND the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)