I have an issue on my hands that I don't know how to handle with class. Let's dive in.
As many of you remember, Chick-Fil-A was a trending theme over the summer. Dan Cathy (the COO of Chick-Fil-A) made some questionable remarks about gay people and gay marriage. Many on the left reacted quite negatively and many on the right stood up for his First Amendment rights.
Fast forward three months. The issue is still brewing in the only place it can survive- academia. I'm on a college campus and there are some students within student government who want to sit down with the ownership of the local Chick-Fil-A and they have some demands. They want to present a letter to the ownership, and get them to sign it, that calls for Dan Cathy to apologize for his remarks, retract his remarks, and promise to stop funding anti-gay "hate groups" (I'm not saying Chick-Fil-A is completely innocent but they aren't as bad as some people make them out to be). They are also demanding that a "pride" flag be placed in the Chick-Fil-A store.
As far as I'm concerned the issue over Dan Cathy's remarks are a First Amendment issue. If this case were to go to court the petitioners would get laughed out. Thus, I think their demands are not only completely unrealistic, I think they should be called out on them. I understand that they are offended but there is absolutely no reason they should demand what they are demanding. How can I politely point out the problem here without sounding like a homophobe? I think they need to be taken down a notch. How can I put them in their place with class?
"Does anyone else find it odd that Books can't settle on whether to capitalize "Christianity"?"
Often it happens when I type too fast, or i'm typing on something other than a laptop. Other times it's to make a distinction between what I (IMHO) consider Real Christian or false christian. it's nothing to split the church over.
If you are simply arguing then, that there is an original Christianity which can be contrasted with modern Christianity and which defines these as somehow false - I can see the argument, though the specifics of distinguishing them may get fuzzy.
Here, the counterfeit does imply an original model.
We need to be cautious of assuming that original model represents truth though. It is what it is, an original form of Christianity, nothing more.
Unpossible. Jesus was a Jew. Born and raised.
So if I open a discussion about "fake" faries that means there are "real" fairies?
Daaaaang! Those two little girls were right!
But you didn't simply say "counterfeit", you included "false" in your original statement. To answer, yes you cannot have a counterfeit without an original; but you can have a false without a true, see my previous examples.
It is a false something. But not all false somethings are counterfeit - nor is something determined to be a counterfeit by assertion. This is the flaw in your argument.
If you assert that something is a counterfeit dollar, I would ask you to show me a real dollar, and show the differences which prove one to be real, and the other to be a counterfeit. In your argument, you have no objective test, no way to show that one is real. Without a test to prove the real/true, we cannot say one is a counterfeit, much less that one MUST be real because of the so called "counterfeit's" existence. We have only your assertion that one is, which is proof of nothing whatsoever.
Wow. That's what I said d:).
But the two words are not completely interchangeable are they. Counterfeit does mean fake or maybe false but fake/false do not, necessarily, mean counterfeit. That was the point being made.