Can Someone Wrong about a Teaching Still Be Christian?

[The Yak]

Pastor Bohler, anyone who Has read anything about witchcraft in former times knows that having red hair made some suspect that one was a witch.

Which is irrelevant to the question of whether every witch burned had hair. The real question us what makes the dark arts so irresistible to red heads?

I had to admit that the claim was so unbelievable that I didn't believe it. 

So I looked for the quote online, found it on multiple clickbait websites without any sourcing, and just smiled to see how "facts" get spread.  I honestly thought that it was shared tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps not.

[Pastor Ken Kimball]

Pastor Bohler, anyone who Has read anything about witchcraft in former times knows that having red hair made some suspect that one was a witch.

Which is irrelevant to the question of whether every witch burned had hair. The real question us what makes the dark arts so irresistible to red heads?

I had to admit that the claim was so unbelievable that I didn't believe it. 

So I looked for the quote online, found it on multiple clickbait websites without any sourcing, and just smiled to see how "facts" get spread.  I honestly thought that it was shared tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps not.

"She's a witch!  She's a witch!"  "How do you know she's a witch?"  "She turned me into a newt--and besides she's got red hair!"  "Well you're not a newt now."  "I got better--but she's still got red hair!" 

[Dave Benke]

Pastor Bohler, anyone who Has read anything about witchcraft in former times knows that having red hair made some suspect that one was a witch.

Which is irrelevant to the question of whether every witch burned had hair. The real question us what makes the dark arts so irresistible to red heads?

I had to admit that the claim was so unbelievable that I didn't believe it. 

So I looked for the quote online, found it on multiple clickbait websites without any sourcing, and just smiled to see how "facts" get spread.  I honestly thought that it was shared tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps not.

Since I'm the one who shared it, I would say tongue planted in cheek but with a proviso that there is evidence through history of the danger and intrigue of red hair.  What that means to me is that difference matters to people and either brings fear and reprisal or change in perspective, which is not that easy to accomplish, all things being considered.

Dave Benke

[Dave Likeness]

We are living in chaotic times........

Men want to be women.....Women want to be men.  Sex Change surgery is no longer rare.

Men want to marry men.....Women want to marry women. Same-Sex  marriage is no longer rare.

Bottom Line:  Our culture has an identity crisis and nobody cares.

[SomeoneWrites]

We are living in chaotic times........

Men want to be women.....Women want to be men.  Sex Change surgery is no longer rare.

Men want to marry men.....Women want to marry women. Same-Sex  marriage is no longer rare.

Bottom Line:  Our culture has an identity crisis and nobody cares.

Bottom line:  Your conclusion are based on your assumptions/presuppositions. 


... which is pretty much the theme of this thread and rabbit trails that pop up.  Which assumptions/presuppositions accurately reflect reality does not appear to be demonstrable. This thread has been an interesting read, and I can say I'm grateful that "heretic" doesn't make the rounds like it used to. 

[peter_speckhard]

We are living in chaotic times........

Men want to be women.....Women want to be men.  Sex Change surgery is no longer rare.

Men want to marry men.....Women want to marry women. Same-Sex  marriage is no longer rare.

Bottom Line:  Our culture has an identity crisis and nobody cares.

Bottom line:  Your conclusion are based on your assumptions/presuppositions. 

Everyone's conclusions are ultimately based on their assumptions/presuppositions. The only issue is whether those assumptions/presuppositions are true or not.

[Charles Austin]

My conclusions are always based upon truth and fact.

[Dan Fienen]

My conclusions are always based upon truth and fact.

And your interpretation  of that truth and fact.

[Steven W Bohler]

My conclusions are always based upon truth and fact.

And your interpretation  of that truth and fact.

Silly Rev. Fienen.  How long have you been on this site?  You know that whatever Rev. Austin believes/thinks/concludes MUST be true.  Ipso facto.

[Charles Austin]

And only the most wooden-headed of “thinkers” would say that any fact or any truth can be understood without some kind of interpretation.
And I dare say that this humble correspondent has proven himself to be more willing to change his opinion with a new understanding and interpretation of facts and truth then those who cling with desperate fingers to the interpretation they already hold Despite evidence that their interpretation might be misguided or actually wrong.

[Voelker]

And only the most wooden-headed of “thinkers” would say that any fact or any truth can be understood without some kind of interpretation.
And I dare say that this humble correspondent has proven himself to be more willing to change his opinion with a new understanding and interpretation of facts and truth then those who cling with desperate fingers to the interpretation they already hold Despite evidence that their interpretation might be misguided or actually wrong.

But Charles, you make pronouncements, not arguments. You cite some item from the news as fact, and then immediately move to, "See! X Crime! Y Bad Thing!" Your posts rarely, if ever, include a B between an A and a C. The logic of getting to X Crime is not given — the interpretation you are making, and want others to embrace, is left in the shadows. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it right or true.

[Charles Austin]

And Denying facts  again and again does that make them untrue.

[Dan Fienen]

The crucial task is to properly distinguish between facts and interpretations.

[peter_speckhard]

The crucial task is to properly distinguish between facts and interpretations.

And discerning narrative. There is a reason Republican members of the committee were not allowed to call witnesses. They would have deliberately upset the narrative the committee was tying to create. You can use nothing but facts and create pure propaganda if you’re the only one who gets to talk. That’s what Schiff has tried to do, with some success among those inclined to believe that narrative anyway.

[Voelker]

And Denying facts  again and again does that make them untrue.

Which "facts" have been denied?