The No true Scotsman Fallacy

A New Dawn · May 21, 2015

A New Dawn said:
Most of the Muslims in the country that attacked Americans weren't charged with terrorism, they were charged with "workplace violence". It's a double standard.

And no one was killed in the theatre that had the molotov cocktails thrown into it, and nobody died from tear gas, and nobody died from the car being driven into the theatre lobby. So tell me, again, how they are so similar? I guess it goes to show that Christians (if they were all Christians) make horrible terrorists. Sheesh.

You do know what 'targeting' means, right? I have to ask because none of those attacks surrounding the Last Temptation movie "targeted" human beings. They targeted theatres. No people were killed. The Muslim extremists (I have used that word each time) target people. They kidnap people and behead them, or stone them, or throw them off buildings.

smaneck said:
If your argument is that Christians are some how better than Muslims because Christian terrorists only attempted murder whereas Muslim terrorists actually carried it out, then I would say all that proves is that the Muslim terrorists were more competent,. And if you want to talk about a 'double standard' then we might talk about why it is Doggart wasn't charged with terrorism. Instead he was allowed to plead guilty to "interstate communication of threats." Never mind when they picked him up he was headed for NY to carry out a reconnaissance on the mosque, school and cafeteria he planned to burn. He said he was bringing along his M-4 just in case.
And why talk about Muslims in this country as apart from Americans and attacking them? Most of these Muslims are Americans. If most of them that commit acts of violence get charged with 'workplace' violence rather than terrorism, it is likely because like every American who gets violent it is more likely to happen at home or in the workplace. In other words, those ones are not terrorists. But a guy who plans an attack on a Muslim enclave more than a thousand miles away and then moves to carry it out, he's a terrorist!

You do know what 'targeting' means, right? I have to ask because none of those attacks surrounding the Last Temptation movie "targeted" human beings. They targeted theatres. No people were killed. The Muslim extremists (I have used that word each time (you, however, just assume that all Christians are terrorists, it seems)) target people. They kidnap people and behead them, or stone them, or throw them off buildings.

So tell me why Doggert should have been charged as a terrorist when the others weren't? This is how I'm trying to figure out where your double standard is.

GoingByzantine · May 21, 2015

The biggest issue in Christianity seems to be this idea of bible vs. traditions, wherein one side believes that the compilation that is the Bible is the sole depository of truth, and the other believes and uses the word of God but has traditions that they claim were passed on via apostolic succession and unwritten word. Sometimes "ancient Christians" rely too much on traditions, but the "bible only" christians likewise won't admit that they have made traditions of their own.

The way to solve this problem is to find similarities, and build from those.

A New Dawn · May 21, 2015

HexidecimalInput said:
"By their fruits you shall know them" is one of the most misused and taken out of context verses in the New Testament. So to the original thread starter, I encourage you to read it for yourself in it's context to find out exactly WHO Jesus is talking about.

It really isn't taken out of context. This specific wording was used to determine who was a false prophet, but it has much further reaching implications. Christ talked about good and bad fruits all the time. Remember? Pruning the tree and making the fruit good?

Matthew 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Luke 8:15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

And the fruits of the spirit? Remember them?

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Galatians 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

A New Dawn · May 21, 2015

smaneck said:
The problem in making such categorical statements is that one just has to find a single contradiction to prove you wrong. So here is one:

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

if you don't like that one, I'll find you another.

Eli was Mary's father, so he was Joseph's father by marriage. You'll find that in the genealogy of Mary.

Hetta · May 21, 2015

WirSindBettler said:
Criteria to be considered a Christian:

1) Must be Trinitarian

2) Must have faith in Christ as Lord God and Savior

3) Must profess the beliefs of the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds (either by professing the creeds or agreeing with the tenets).

That sounds SO simple, but then you will find that people will add numerous other stipulations. ("Must be c/Conservative, must read this scripture as I read it ... etc.)

Hetta · May 21, 2015

Red Fox said:
I honestly think that the no true Scotsman's fallacy is nothing more than a farce and a lousy excuse to explain away the ill behavior of certain Christians. What I'm about to say isn't intended to be inflammatory or insulting to the Christians present in this forum, but it's an honest observation from someone who was emotional traumatized from many years being involved in the Christian church. The majority of Christians I have met over the years have been the most rudest, most arrogant, most pious, and most obnoxious people I have ever met, and many of them would refer to Native Americans or other minorities with racist and derogatory remarks. Considering everything I have experienced and from what I have been observing since I joined Christian Forums, I feel I have to reject any notion that those people weren't Christian and they don't represent Christianity. However, I think that the Christians who don't behave as I described are the exception and not the rule. I have yet to be proven wrong, especially with the recent occurrences happening in this forum and what I have observed over time in the theology forums and in other sub-forums of this site.

Hmmm, on another thread I have posted on, a Christian is defending white supremacism. Sigh. It's what God wants for us ya know.

Hammster · May 21, 2015

smaneck said:
The problem in making such categorical statements is that one just has to find a single contradiction to prove you wrong. So here is one:

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

if you don't like that one, I'll find you another.

There were words used for grandparents. To be the "son of" you just need to be in the lineage.

A New Dawn · May 21, 2015

Hetta said:
Hmmm, on another thread I have posted on, a Christian is defending white supremacism. Sigh. It's what God wants for us ya know.

If it is on this forum, it is a violation of the rules and can be reported.

Niblo · May 21, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
Do you mean the chain on their breast crosses?

No. It was a joke reference to the chained bibles that used to be kept in some older Welsh Chapels when I was a boy. Adults used to tell us that these Bibles could be used as clubs to beat the devil

These same adults assured us that a local factory turned naughty boys into pasties!

Hetta · May 21, 2015

A New Dawn said:
I think you are missing the point. WE don't declare that someone is or isn't Christian. We declare that they have teachings that were never taught in the Bible ...

But whose interpretation of scripture are *we* using? Because there are multiple interpretations of well, really, all scripture. So "we" over here believe that this scripture means this and "we" over there hugely disagree and "we" others completely disagree with you both. That IS "we" declaring that someone is or isn't a Christian. It's not scripture. Scripture can't get up and speak for itself. It's the interpretation of other humans of what scripture means, and it is framed by that human's worldview, prejudices, concepts, education, etc.

seekingsolace · May 21, 2015

Niblo said:
No. It was a joke reference to the chained bibles that used to be kept in some older Welsh Chapels when I was a boy. Adults used to tell us that these Bibles could be used as clubs to beat the devil

These same adults assured us that a local factory turned naughty boys into pasties!

You want to be careful in the valleys.

bhsmte · May 21, 2015

Hammster said:
Everyone who is born again believes wrongly. That's one of the things that changes when one is born again.

Well, doesn't address the question I posed, but that's ok.

In the end, everyone on earth believes wrongly, according to groups of people who hold up their theology, as the correct belief.

As long as there is religion, this reality will never change.

Hetta · May 21, 2015

bhsmte said:
Well, doesn't address the question I posed, but that's ok.

In the end, everyone on earth believes wrongly, according to groups of people who hold up their theology, as the correct belief.

As long as there is religion, this reality will never change.

This, so much.

bhsmte · May 21, 2015

A New Dawn said:
As you noted "It's pronounced Hey-Zeus", there are lots of people named Jesus. Not all of them are the Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God. Just worshiping anyone named Jesus is not the same as worshiping the Son of God. Someone with my name who might look similar to me but has different characteristics than me, isn't me. Someone saying they knew someone who they thought looked like me with the same name as me, but went to a different college and was an accountant instead of a nurse, didn't know me.

I think you are missing the point. WE don't declare that someone is or isn't Christian. We declare that they have teachings that were never taught in the Bible, and God declares whether they are Christian when we all stand before Him at the end.

You can declare whatever you like, people of different denominations and or different religions do it all the time. They do it out of necessity in most cases, a necessity in convincing themselves they have it right.

seekingsolace · May 21, 2015

bhsmte said:
They do it out of necessity in most cases, a necessity in convincing themselves they have it right.

That's not denominations, it's mankind, religion has nothing to do with disagreement.

bhsmte · May 21, 2015

seekingsolace said:
That's not denominations, it's mankind, religion has nothing to do with disagreement.

Since mankind developed religions, I would strongly disagree with you.

seekingsolace · May 21, 2015

bhsmte said:
Since mankind developed religions, I would strongly disagree with you.

I rest my case, you disagree. Nothing to do with religion, it's person a disagreeing with person b.

You believe the world is flat, I don't, thus must be religion.

Niblo · May 21, 2015

seekingsolace said:
You want to be careful in the valleys.

Tell me about it

RDKirk · May 21, 2015

Architeuthus said:
To quote C.S. Lewis:

Far deeper objections may be felt -- and have been expressed -- against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?" or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said -- so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully -- "Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?"

They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object.

The problem CS Lewis faces with this, however, is the apostle Paul:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. -- Romans 2

For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, "To the unknown god." What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. -- Acts 17

And CS Lewis belies his own argument at the conclusion of his Narnia Chronicles "The Last Battle." Aslan (the Christ-type of the series) appears to a soldier of the long-time enemy Calormenes and says:

"I take to me the services which thou hast done to Tash [the false God]... if any man swear by him and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me [Christ] that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him."

Lewis himself explained this as "I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god, or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him. For He is present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the parable of the Sheep and Goats those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ."

Now, I understand that all this is actually speaking of salvation, not being Christian per se. It asserts that one can be saved without being per se Christian. What this means, if true (and I believe it is true), that salvation itself is not the point of being Christian. Rather, IMO from what I read in the New Testament, the point of being Christian--particularly the point of being organized as a church-- is to locate and support in this world those who are saved.

bhsmte · May 21, 2015

seekingsolace said:
I rest my case, you disagree. Nothing to do with religion, it's person a disagreeing with person b.

You believe the world is flat, I don't, thus must be religion.

Yes, a person disagreeing with another person, in regards to religion.

The No true Scotsman Fallacy

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Seeking the Narrow Road

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

I'll find my way home

I'll find my way home

Carpe Chaos

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Muslim

I'll find my way home

Bah

Newbie

I'll find my way home

Newbie

Bah

Newbie

Bah

Muslim

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency