The No true Scotsman Fallacy

[A New Dawn]

Kind of how you rebel against my gods, I guess.

What gods are those? And how am I rebelling against them?

 

[awitch]

What gods are those? And how am I rebelling against them?

The Tuatha Dé Danann (mostly).

I guess you "rebel" against them the same way I "rebel" against yours. Remind me again how I do that?

 

[morningstar2651]

Without the constant attention of the Holy Spirit to guide us, we could never hope to emulate Christ. We wouldn't even want to emulate Christ.

I have met non-Christians that were far more Christ-like than most Christians I've met, so I doubt this.

What gods are those? And how am I rebelling against them?

I can't speak for awitch, but I think the same might apply for my gods. I primarily work with the Greek pantheon (specifically Aphrodite and Hermes). How would you describe your relationship to the gods of ancient Greece?

 

[A New Dawn]

I can't speak for awitch, but I think the same might apply for my gods. I primarily work with the Greek pantheon (specifically Aphrodite and Hermes). How would you describe your relationship to the gods of ancient Greece?

I don't believe they exist. Just like awitch's gods.

 

[A New Dawn]

The Tuatha Dé Danann (mostly).

I guess you "rebel" against them the same way I "rebel" against yours. Remind me again how I do that?

By being part of a fallen world.

 

[awitch]

I don't believe they exist. Just like awitch's gods.

Do you deny rebelling against them?

 

[A New Dawn]

Do you deny rebelling against them?

No. If they really existed, I'd probably be rebelling against them.

 

[Red Fox]

I have met non-Christians that were far more Christ-like than most Christians I've met, so I doubt this.

Sadly, this has been my experience since I was a small child, especially during my 24 years in the Christian faith as an adult.

And that's one of the main reasons why I find it so incredibly hard to believe all the assertions that these people weren't really Christian in the first place.

 

[awitch]

No. If they really existed, I'd probably be rebelling against them.

OK. So would you say that it's nonsensical to be rebelling against something you don't even believe exists?

 

[morningstar2651]

No. If they really existed, I'd probably be rebelling against them.

Look at your own religion from the perspective of an outsider.

How does one rebel against something they don't believe exists?

Is my disbelief in your concept of deity an act of rebellion, or simply a disagreement?

 

[A New Dawn]

OK. So would you say that it's nonsensical to be rebelling against something you don't even believe exists?

No. Something doesn't exist because you believe it exists, and conversely, something doesn't cease to exist because you disbelieve. So if it exists, and you do not believe in it (for whatever reason), you are in rebellion.

 

[Hetta]

But do you see their point? They don't believe in God, and so they can just as easily say "something doesn't exist because YOU believe it exists either." It's the same argument over "gods" or "God".

 

[seekingsolace]

I'm a Baha'i and whenever my mother is in town I take her to church. I wouldn't be surprised if Niblo doesn't go to church now and then. Yasser Arafat, after the Palestinian Authority was set up would go to church in Bethlehem every Easter with his wife. Didn't stop him from being a Muslim (his wife was Christian.)

Bah, I'll use a better analogy next time!

 

[A New Dawn]

But do you see their point? They don't believe in God, and so they can just as easily say "something doesn't exist because YOU believe it exists either." It's the same argument over "gods" or "God".

I do see their point, hence my comment that if their gods did exist, I'd be in rebellion to them. I'm just pointing out that somethings existence is not dependent on someone's belief of it.

 

[awitch]

I do see their point, hence my comment that if their gods did exist, I'd be in rebellion to them. I'm just pointing out that somethings existence is not dependent on someone's belief of it.

So you're not rebelling against my gods because you don't think they exist exactly like I can't rebel against your god because I don't think he exists.

 

[Hetta]

I would like to discuss the No true Scotsman Fallacy. I don't have experiences with this fallacy being used in different religions, other than in Christianity, though I'm sure it probably is. I noted this fallacy being used several times in my previous discussions of the mistreatment I received over the years by certain Christians. I heard assertions like, "They weren't real Christians," "so-called Christians," and "They don't represent Christianity at all!" But are these assertions actually true? And for the record, I know there is a scripture which says that not everyone who names Christ is a Christian, however.... my question is, how does Christian A determine that Christian B isn't a real Christian? Furthermore, does Christian A have the moral authority to tell Christian B that they aren't a real Christian? And how can Christian A be certain that they are a real Christian?

I encountered the accusation of not being a real Christian many times of the years. If I didn't believe in a particular doctrine or teaching or accept a particular interpretation of scripture, then this accusation would usually be brought up against me. So, here is my personal take on this, as far as I am aware, and I could be mistaken, God isn't limited within the walls of a particular denomination or within the confines of a church doctrine or within certain worship styles or prayers. In other words, I don't believe that God can be put into a box and be held captive or be limited by His own creation. I believe that God, the Creator, can be worshiped in many different ways, even outside the confines of Christianity. Also, I would like to discuss this topic in a civil and respectful manner, without any assertions that non-Christians don't really understand Christianity, therefore, their opinions aren't considered to be valid. Thank you for your time and I look forward to what I hope will be a fruitful discussion.

I literally do wish I had $5 for every time I have heard that someone did something (wrong) "because they weren't really a Christian." In that case, I wonder, who IS really a Christian, if it is accepted that none is without sin? KWIM? It's one of the reasons that I switched from Christian to "seeker" because I can't ever be perfect, and aspiring for perfection is a foolish (imo) aim in life, particularly if one reads scripture. If even Paul who was personally touched by God could not become righteous, and still struggled with sin, what hope is there that anyone else can be this perfect person?

I'm not putting it very well (for some reason I'm struggling with English language today, lol) but I just do think that Christians can't on one hand say that of course we sin, sin is a part of life, but oh no not THAT sin, that sin makes you not a Christian. <eye roll>

 

[A New Dawn]

So you're not rebelling against my gods because you don't think they exist exactly like I can't rebel against your god because I don't think he exists.

My God doesn't need your permission to exist, is the point. Not believing in Him is part of the rebellion. Most primitive cultures invented gods to explain what to them was unexplainable. God of lightning, god of love, god of the sea, etc. Now that we know about what controls those phenomena, we don't need to assign a god to it. The difference between those gods and Christianity's God is that there is nothing that science has discovered that "explains away God".

 

[A New Dawn]

I literally do wish I had $5 for every time I have heard that someone did something (wrong) "because they weren't really a Christian." In that case, I wonder, who IS really a Christian, if it is accepted that none is without sin? KWIM? It's one of the reasons that I switched from Christian to "seeker" because I can't ever be perfect, and aspiring for perfection is a foolish (imo) aim in life, particularly if one reads scripture. If even Paul who was personally touched by God could not become righteous, and still struggled with sin, what hope is there that anyone else can be this perfect person?

I'm not putting it very well (for some reason I'm struggling with English language today, lol) but I just do think that Christians can't on one hand say that of course we sin, sin is a part of life, but oh no not THAT sin, that sin makes you not a Christian. <eye roll>

You actually don't have a seeker icon, you have chosen a Christian seeker icon, which means that you are still claiming to be a Christian, but are "between churches" so to speak.

Christ said it isn't what goes into a person that makes him unclean, it is what comes out of a person that makes him unclean. While no one is (or can be) perfect, the Bible is clear that those whose hearts are turned to Christ will strive to put off the old man. It will be an imperfect striving, but it will be a striving, none-the-less. If someone doesn't strive for that, then their fruits are there to be judged. That is all I judge, is someone's fruits, I do not judge them. That is not my job.

 

[Hetta]

Judging "fruits" is still judging a person.

And I will amend my icon as I see that isn't perfect either. No surprise.

 

[A New Dawn]

Judging "fruits" is still judging a person.

And I will amend my icon as I see that isn't perfect either. No surprise.

Actually it doesn't mean anything of the sort.

And you don't have to amend your icon, I was just pointing out that there is a difference between the two icons. And this is part of the problem that people have about "judging". Most often they assume that someone is judging them when they may just be making an observation. I made the observation, based on what you said in your post, that there are two different seeker icons, and one identifies you as Christian and one doesn't . Not a judgment, just an observation.