The No true Scotsman Fallacy

[awitch]

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".

And I don't contest the scientific explanations for natural phenomena at all, just in case any one actually thought that. (cough cough creationists cough).

Not believing can't be rebellion. It would be like me saying that you're rebelling against the invisible purple unicorn that lives on Jupiter. Why do you hate the unicorn so much?

Even if you did acknowledge the existence of my gods, I would not say you're rebelling against them. But they don't punish people for non-belief. How about yours?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

You seem to be saying then, that people who do not believe your God exists, really believe your God exists, but they are simply denying this existence.

Is this what you are saying?

 

[awitch]

When I think rebellion, I'm thinking a Christian who acknowledges Jesus as the Lord and Savior who goes through a rough patch in life and blames god for it and intentionally commits sins out of spite.

 

[awitch]

Since I don't believe Satan exists either, does that mean I'm rebelling against Satan? That would mean I'm actually neutral and my soul is in no danger.

 

[morningstar2651]

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.

You can no more prove your god exists than I can prove my gods exist. If we both assume that each other's gods don't exist, we're at an impasse. Nothing that you tell me that your god demands of me carries any weight if I don't believe he exists. I could tell you all the things you should do to honor Aphrodite, but you wouldn't do them because you don't believe she exists. We can preach at each other about religious doctrine all you want, but neither of us will persuade the other that the rules of our god should be followed.

Rebellion is a conscious action - it is an act of violent or open resistance to an established ruler or the action of resisting authority. There are no accidental rebels or passive rebels. You can't rebel against something if you don't even believe it exists. By your own admission - you would only rebel against my deities if they exist.

We are not rebels, we are infidels - people who do not believe in religion or adhere to a religion other than one's own. We are not your god's enemies and we do not rebel against your god - we just don't believe the same things you do.

 

[WirSindBettler]

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).

 

[PaladinValer]

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.

In Christianity, or at least in historically-verified primary documents, a Christian is defined by his or her agreement with the theology found in the Nicene Creed. That has been the case de jure since 325ce and de facto since its inception.

The worst of sinners, if they adhere to that theology, are Christians, full stop. The most benevolent of people, if they don't adhere to that theology, are not.

While there are many Christians who like to say otherwise, their opinion is proven wrong by the primary sources in the historical record. Don't pay any attention to such accusations.

 

[morningstar2651]

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).

You're adding doctrines that are not fundamental to Christianity. Were there no Christians before these creeds? If not...who wrote them?
Trinitarianism wasn't formal doctrine until the 4th century.
The Nicene Creed was written in 325 AD.

The above may describe the definition of a particular denomination, but Christianity is much more broad than what doctrines a person accepts or rejects.

 

[smaneck]

In Christianity, or at least in historically-verified primary documents, a Christian is defined by his or her agreement with the theology found in the Nicene Creed. That has been the case de jure since 325ce and de facto since its inception.

When the Trinity was first articulated towards the end of the second century, it was considered heretical.

 

[derGroßmütige]

I'll stop saying saying certain people aren't true Christians, when people in favor of Republics stop saying every time a Republic goes bad that it's not a "true Republic".
(Hitler's Weimar Republic, Lenin's Soviet Republic, Mao's People Republic, Robespierre's Republic, the Roman Republic, etc.)

It makes more sense with Christianity because it is a spiritual thing. So someone is not adhering to that otherworldly standard.

It only doesn't make sense like in the case of Republics, where it is an EARTHLY ideal, which constantly produces failing results but does not acknowledge that it is a failed idea. Christianity ACKNOWLEDGES that humans are failing, sinful creatures, but states that those who do not repent are not Christian because they have rejected Christ's gift of forgiveness which requires us to repent to receive it.

The main reason it's only Christianity that apologizes is because we are the only religion under major attack which chooses to respond with Apologia, i.e. verbally defending our faith. If you attack Islam, they don't bother with Apologia, they respond with more physical...well you know what happened in Paris and nearby where I live in Garland, TX just a few days ago they tried to kill people badmouthing their religion, but failed. Other religions don't get much attention these days and it's not P.C. to attack them (i.e. Hinduism, Buddhism) even though many of their members do commit atrocities their religion is never pointed out because no one views their religions as a threat in the West.

Our religion holds people to a high standard and is one of the few religions which only cares about (if you are Protestant) your "faith" and not your works. Many other religions care about how much you donate or if you perform the chanting, rituals, etc. Our religion is about your heart and faith, so a person who does the wrong things doesn't have the "heart and faith" that our religion demands as the price of entry to Heaven, at least not at the moment they committed the act.

 

[WirSindBettler]

When the Trinity was first articulated towards the end of the second century, it was considered heretical.

And your proof is where?

 

[WirSindBettler]

You're adding doctrines that are not fundamental to Christianity. Were there no Christians before these creeds? If not...who wrote them?
Trinitarianism wasn't formal doctrine until the 4th century.
The Nicene Creed was written in 325 AD.

The above may describe the definition of a particular denomination, but Christianity is much more broad than what doctrines a person accepts or rejects.

No, I'm not.

 

[PaladinValer]

When the Trinity was first articulated towards the end of the second century, it was considered heretical.

No proof offered. Author, title, and date.

 

[Red Fox]

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.

 

[morningstar2651]

No, I'm not.

Were all pre-trinitarians not really Christians despite following Christ? Is belief in the trinity a requirement to believe in Christ?

Were there no Christians before the Nicene Creed?

 

[smaneck]

I'll stop saying saying certain people aren't true Christians, when people in favor of Republics stop saying every time a Republic goes bad that it's not a "true Republic". <snip>

The main reason it's only Christianity that apologizes is because we are the only religion under major attack which chooses to respond with Apologia, i.e. verbally defending our faith. If you attack Islam, they don't bother with Apologia, they respond with more physical...well you know what happened in Paris and nearby where I live in Garland, TX just a few days ago they tried to kill people badmouthing their religion, but failed.

Personally, I've never heard anyone utter such nonsense about republics. As for whether Islam has apologetics, of course they have apologetics, it is called radd literature in Arabic. And no, they did not get physical when anyone badmouths their religion. A handful of Muslims attacked people in Garland and Paris because they felt it was blasphemous to depict the Prophet, whether it is a good depiction or a bad one. It is not like Christians haven't done similar things. Have you forgotten the violent reactions Christians had to the Last Temptation?

 

[smaneck]

No proof offered. Author, title, and date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#History

Not the best source, I agree. But the best I could lay my hands on easily. This is pretty much common knowledge.

 

[PaladinValer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#History

Not the best source, I agree. But the best I could lay my hands on easily. This is pretty much common knowledge.

I'm a historian. I have the copies of the primary resources in my own library. So give author, title, and date.

Oh, and your claim is falsified by your cited "reference." It says St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was never condemned.

Remember: primary resources trump everything.

 

[A New Dawn]

Personally, I've never heard anyone utter such nonsense about republics. As for whether Islam has apologetics, of course they have apologetics, it is called radd literature in Arabic. And no, they did not get physical when anyone badmouths their religion. A handful of Muslims attacked people in Garland and Paris because they felt it was blasphemous to depict the Prophet, whether it is a good depiction or a bad one. It is not like Christians haven't done similar things. Have you forgotten the violent reactions Christians had to the Last Temptation?

You keep bringing up that incident surrounding the Last Temptation. I had to google it because I had never heard of it, and it was a fairly isolated reaction in a city in France where molotov cocktails were thrown at a theatre that showed it, and a few other theatres were graffitied. 14 people were injured in the incident with the molotov cocktails, nobody died.

But all that is beside the point. You have trashed Christianity because you were persecuted by some Christians you knew growing up, yet you freely, FREELY, defend the Islamic extremists who do much worse than injure a few people and graffiti a building. It is the disconnect there that shows that you have a bias against a much more tolerant group than you do against extremists. What it shows is that you believe in the No True Scotsman fallacy while denying others the right to believe in it, too.

 

[smaneck]

I'm a historian. I have the copies of the primary resources in my own library. So give author, title, and date.

Oh, and your claim is falsified by your cited "reference." It says St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was never condemned.

Remember: primary resources trump everything.

LOL. I thought you were asking me for evidence that the term does not appear until the end of the second century. In any case, St. Ignatius never uses the term Trinity. I believe Tertullian was the first, though some would say the concept was first articulated by Valentius "The Father uncovers his bosom, which is the Holy Spirit, revealing his secret. His secret is his Son!" (Valentinus. Gospel of Truth. Verse 17. English translation by Patterson Brown). Both Tertullian and Valentinus were considered heretics. Valentinus is condemned in Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4 and Tertullian articulated his views of the Trinity after he became a Montanist, which was also considered heretical.