No true scotsman

[South Bound]

I don't expect you to listen to me and accept my definition.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you have the authority to just make up your own definitions.

I only ask that you not expect me to adopt a Christian view of the religion.

I don't. I only ask that you would not impose your made up definitions on our religion.

If the gospels were an autobiography or a manifesto, it'd be a different story. They're just a collection of what early members of Christian communities wanted to say. Being an atheist means that I don't believe in their infallibility or divine inspiration.

I'm not asking you to believe in their infallibility or inspiration. I'm asking you not to impose your made up definitions on our religion.

 

[Huntun]

Yeah, the canon wasn't officially defined at Nicaea. Many of the local Churches that accepted Nicaea continued to have their own differing canons and still do to this day. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, The Roman Catholic Church, and Greek Orthodox Church, all of whom accepted Nicaea, have differing canons of scriptures. The Ethiopian Church even differs in regards to the New Testament as well as the Old. The Protestant denominations like Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc... that came about later also accept Nicaea and have a different canon still.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yeah, the canon wasn't officially defined at Nicaea. Many of the local Churches that accepted Nicaea continued to have their own differing canons and still do to this day. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, The Roman Catholic Church, and Greek Orthodox Church, all of whom accepted Nicaea, have differing canons of scriptures. The Ethiopian Church even differs in regards to the New Testament as well as the Old. The Protestant denominations like Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc... that came about later also accept Nicaea and have a different canon still.

NOBODY had their canon decided at Nicea. Constantine called it to bang heads together, and to get the bishops to stop quarreling over the doctrine of the Trinity. Once that had been settled, he pushed off, and they went on to decide the date of Easter. The canon was not something which was even mentioned.

There was broad agreement about what should be in the canon by the end of the second century, but it would be another two centuries before anything resembling an official list was drawn up.

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you have the authority to just make up your own definitions.

It seems you're unable to understand what it means to be objective. You all have different definitions. I can't choose one of you as an authority and still claim to be objective, so I therefore respect the religious labels that people give themselves. If I were to choose one of you to tell me who's Christian and who's not, I would indeed be claiming to have too much authority. I don't pretend to have that authority, so I leave it in the hands of people who identify as Christian. I'm not sure why you want to claim all that power for yourself and tell me that I shouldn't be respecting anyone without your permission.

I don't. I only ask that you would not impose your made up definitions on our religion.

I'm not asking you to believe in their infallibility or inspiration. I'm asking you not to impose your made up definitions on our religion.

I'm not. I respect your desire to identify as Christian. I also will continue to respect the right of every other person to identify as Christian, regardless of your sense of superiority.

 

[South Bound]

It seems you're unable to understand what it means to be objective. You all have different definitions. I can't choose one of you as an authority and still claim to be objective, so I therefore respect the religious labels that people give themselves. If I were to choose one of you to tell me who's Christian and who's not, I would indeed be claiming to have too much authority. I don't pretend to have that authority, so I leave it in the hands of people who identify as Christian. I'm not sure why you want to claim all that power for yourself and tell me that I shouldn't be respecting anyone without your permission.

Irrelevant. Our definition comes from scripture, not from man. Now, could you please answer the question you're trying so desperately to avoid?

I'm not.

Actually, when you insist that you have the authority to declare someone who doesn't meet the Biblical definition of "Christian" a Christian, you're doing just that.

I respect your desire to identify as Christian. I also will continue to respect the right of every other person to identify as Christian, regardless of your sense of superiority.

First of all, you're right. I do believe Christ's definition is not only superior, but authoritative.

Second, you still haven't explained why you believe you have the authority to impose your misunderstanding on our religion.

Then I will continue to call you out.

 

[Huntun]

That the council didn't define the canon was precisely the point I was making. Not sure why you would quote me and then yell "nobody" as if you were taking me to task for implying otherwise.

I disagree about the "broad agreement" by the 2nd century theory though. There is still to this very day disagreement among the orthodox or Nicaean churches. In the 2nd Century the scene was even more diverse. The proto - orthodox didn't totally dominate the field then. Christians of the so called Marcionite school were all over the place from Antioch to Rome and they rejected the Old Testament in total. So called Valentinian Christians had a much larger NT. The orthodox in Persia still used the Diatessaron of Tatian rather than four separate Gospels. Etc...

 

[Huntun]

I think people are prone to conflate "There were individual church fathers, or local churches, in the 2nd century who accepted roughly the same selection of books my church uses" with "The matter was already settled by the 2nd century. "

 

[lesliedellow]

I think people are prone to conflate "There were individual church fathers, or local churches, in the 2nd century who accepted roughly the same selection of books my church uses" with "The matter was already settled by the 2nd century. "

That Marcion got himself into trouble for drawing up a heretical canon implies that there was already some notion of what an orthodox canon ought to look like.

 

[KCfromNC]

That Marcion got himself into trouble for drawing up a heretical canon implies that there was already some notion of what an orthodox canon ought to look like.

Or more evidence that history is written by the victors.

 

[Mediate]

The two statements you provide are true Scotsman fallacies, given a basic definition of Christians and Muslims. They are dodges to avoid taking on the baggage of moral crazies who definitely fall into the "Christian" and "Muslim" categories.

However, they are statements usually made in response to other true Scotsman fallacies, such as "all Christians kill homosexuals" and "all Muslims are terrorists". This is why they seem like valid claims to make. In order for them to be true, all Christians must attempt to kill homosexuals and all Muslims must be terrorists as part of their category. If they don't, it becomes like the Scotsman example from Wikipedia: an overgeneralization of a category of people who only a part of which truly represent the proposition. . Now, it is true that "some Christians kill homosexuals" and "some Muslims are terrorists", but this is most likely a subcategory.

We would have to define what makes one a Muslim and what makes one a Christian before we can make any statements about them.

Great points.

If christianity can be defined as the 'following of Jesus' Christ and his teachings', then it would logically proceed 'Jesus said love your enemies' and 'pray for those who persecute you' and 'consider others as yourself'. Thus, a christian who inflicts suffering on another person would be considered not a 'true christian'.

The no true scotsman fallacy is only technically a no true scotsman when there cannot be established a base for there being a 'true scotsman'.

Ie. 'there's no definitive definition of what a christian is' cannot logically be followed by 'oh, he's not a real christian'.

But, if the definition of what christianity inherently is, or at least of what character a christian is mean to cultivate, can be established then there is in fact a basis for the argument 'they aren't true christians'.

The issue is that so many christians will say christianity is so many different things dependant on their outlooks and personal conditionings and so unless an inherent basis is established then the Westboro Baptists are every bit as christian as the kind old man down the street who gives 80% of his wages to feed orphans and helps down the homeless shelter four times a week.

But that would be an absurdly overdone intellectualism. It isn't hard to see parallels between Jesus' character and this old man's.

 

[Cearbhall]

Irrelevant. Our definition comes from scripture, not from man. Now, could you please answer the question you're trying so desperately to avoid?

If you would be so kind as to tell me what question I'm supposedly avoiding, I'd be happy to.

Actually, when you insist that you have the authority to declare someone who doesn't meet the Biblical definition of "Christian" a Christian, you're doing just that.

I can see that this isn't going anywhere. I'm getting sick of repeating that I'm not claiming to have this authority. I'm simply respecting the right of each and every person to have authority over his or her own religious identity rather than caring about your strange desire to have authority over the identities of others. I really couldn't care less how people identify or whether they heed my opinions of different religious identities. I only balk at people like you who would expect them to self-identity according to someone else's opinions.

First of all, you're right. I do believe Christ's definition is not only superior, but authoritative.

That's absolutely fine. No one else has to feel that way or agree with your interpretation of Jesus' words as recorded in the gospels.

 

[South Bound]

That's absolutely fine. No one else has to feel that way or agree with Jesus' words as recorded in the gospels.

There. Fixed it for you.

 

[quatona]

There. Fixed it for you.

Can you show us where Jesus did away with the notion that everyone was a sinner and falling short of the mark?
Because if he didn´t - there is not one single "TrueChristian" (in your use of the word), by virtue of the Christian doctrine.

 

[South Bound]

Can you show us where Jesus did away with the notion that everyone was a sinner and falling short of the mark?
Because if he didn´t - there is not one single "TrueChristian" by virtue of the Christian doctrine.

Sorry, but 1 John and the doctrine of simul justus et peccator refute your claim that one is not a "true Christian" because he sins. If no one sinned, then there would be no need for a Savior.

 

[Cearbhall]

There. Fixed it for you.

Ooh, throwin' shade on the D&D board.

I appreciate your interpretation of my post.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, but 1 John and the doctrine of simul justus et peccator refute your claim that one is not a "true Christian" because he sins. If no one sinned, then there would be no need for a Savior.

Exactly my point.

 

[Cearbhall]

Sorry, but 1 John and the doctrine of simul justus et peccator refute your claim that one is not a "true Christian" because he sins. If no one sinned, then there would be no need for a Savior.

'K. So which sins preclude a person from being a Christian if he or she identifies as such and has belief, and who gets to decide this, in your opinion?

On the other end of the spectrum, I've been told on here that I'll be Catholic for life whether I like it or not, since I was baptized.

 

[Kylie]

'K. So which sins preclude a person from being a Christian if he or she identifies as such and has belief, and who gets to decide this, in your opinion?

On the other end of the spectrum, I've been told on here that I'll be Catholic for life whether I like it or not, since I was baptized.

Very often, people just pick and choose...