The No true Scotsman Fallacy

[bhsmte]

After listening to the "Four Horsemen" video clip of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and some other USA guy I can't accept the claim that there's no faith beliefs in atheism even if their faith beliefs are opposed to any gods and goddesses they know about.

That's your choice.

 

[Hammster]

Better than the three requirements previously listed, but vague. This requirement is in Evangelese, but most of us read English instead of Evangelese.

Fair enough. [emoji1]

14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,
15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
Mark 1:14-15

1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."
3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
John 3:1-8

 

[Hammster]

It's pronounced Hey-Zeus.

In all seriousness, you're running into the same problem I pointed out previously - relying upon the right interpretation, the right doctrine, accepting the right testimony, etc. as requirements to being Christian. It's not about being right.

In reality it's far simpler - do you follow the teachings of Jesus and do you worship the God of the Christians? If you answer yes to these two questions - you're a Christian.

It takes a lot of arrogance to declare other people aren't real Christians because they disagree with you on some doctrine or scripture, or because they don't believe in Jesus the way you believe in Jesus.

I don't think you realize how absurd your statement I quoted was...I hope gardener Jesus opens your eyes to the absurdity of telling people they don't have the right Jesus...

This isn't just a doctrinal issue. In the same manner MoreCoffee stated, there are things I disagree with concerning Catholicism. But that doesn't mean that a Catholic cannot be a brother.

Mormons may use the same language and call their deity God, and worship someone called Jesus. But it's not the Jesus of orthodox Christianity. Jesus isn't the created spirit brother of Lucifer. He's the uncreated Creator. That's a gulf so wide between views that it cannot be crossed.

 

[Hammster]

Last I checked, accepting Jesus as savior but denying His equality with the Father and divinity will send you straight down.

Accepting Jesus as Savior and affirming equality will not save you. But being born again will. And then you will accept that He's equal and divine.

 

[Hammster]

Is Christianity about not going to Hell? Is that the core of the religion - avoiding punishment for believing the wrong thing or believing the wrong way?

That sounds like the worst religion possible - refusing to question the accepted beliefs for fear of Hell and focusing on believing the right things instead of simply worshiping God and doing what Jesus commanded. It also sounds nothing like what Jesus talked about in the gospels.

Remember that Jesus guy? He said some good stuff. You appear to have forgotten about that stuff because you're too busy arguing about the nature of god or how many angels can fit on the head of a pin - stuff that doesn't matter unless...what if you get it wrong!? What if Jesus sends you to Hell because you didn't believe in the him that believes in you believing in him!?

People don't go to hell for believing the wrong thing. People go to hell for sinning against a holy and righteous God. Unbelief is just one sin among many.

 

[bhsmte]

People don't go to hell for believing the wrong thing. People go to hell for sinning against a holy and righteous God. Unbelief is just one sin among many.

Would this mean, Hindu's and Muslims wouldn't go to hell, because they don't accept Jesus as God?

 

[Hammster]

Would this mean, Hindu's and Muslims wouldn't go to hell, because they don't accept Jesus as God?

They would go to hell for sinning against a holy and righteous God.

 

[bhsmte]

They would go to hell for sinning against a holy and righteous God.

That would mean believing in the wrong things sends them to hell, because according to your theology, if they believed in the right thing they wouldn't be sinning against your God.

 

[Hammster]

That would mean believing in the wrong things sends them to hell, because according to your theology, if they believed in the right thing they wouldn't be sinning against your God.

No, if they were born again they would be saved.

 

[RDKirk]

That isn't what is being said. If a man commits a robbery, that was the actions of a man. It wasn't the actions of a lion, or a bird, or a woman. If someone says they are Christian, than their actions are the actions of a Christian.

No. If that robber is shot and autopsied, it can be determined scientifically and positively that he was a man, not a lion, or a bird, or a woman. What you can't tell by his autopsy is whether he was a robber. Nor can you tell from his autopsy whether he was a Christian.

Externally, "Christian is as Christian does" and how a Christian does is defined in scripture. Externally, Morningstar's five fundamentals are the proof and the test. I would argue that there is also a certain level of theological belief needed, but depending on what a person has been told, IMO, that amount is questionable. But without a doubt, the external evidence of Christianity is Morningstar's five fundamentals, despite his professed theology.

 

[bhsmte]

No, if they were born again they would be saved.

Please bear with me, as I try and wrap my head around your statements.

You stated that people don't go to hell for believing in the wrong things, they go to hell for sinning against a certain God.

I then asked, if a Hindu or Muslim wouldn't go to hell then, because they believe in the wrong thing (according to your theology) and you stated they would go to hell for sinning against a certain God, but if they were born again, they would be saved.

So, can the Hindu or Muslim who does not believe Jesus was God and they believe in different theologies, be born again, while still adhering to their current beliefs?

 

[smaneck]

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.

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!

 

[smaneck]

That's what scripture says. So, yes.

Where does the Bible say that?

 

[smaneck]

Tertullian was orthodox before his downfall, and it wasn't due to his Trinitarian theology but due to other things; he was Trinitarian in his orthodox years.

No evidence of that. He doesn't speak of the Trinity until he becomes a Montanist.

And the first use of the word "Trinity" wasn't by Tertullian. It was by Theophilius, Patriarch of Antioch, who was around earlier.

Apparently he did, in reference to the "God, his Word (Logos) and his Wisdom (Sophia)." Glad someone recognized that the Holy Spirit is a 'she.'

 

[Red Fox]

You believe things about God that are not supported in scripture.

Isn't this the same kind of argument that protestants use against Catholics? I also know protestants have used this same kind of argument against other protestants who don't hold to the same doctrinal beliefs or scripture interpretation. I find it all very confusing with the endless arguments and debates among Christians.

 

[HexidecimalInput]

This is an interesting topic, and I admit that initially I viewed it only because it was a popular thread AND I saw a member named "True Scotsman" was online, lol, and I wondered if they were a participant. So far I've only skimmed it, but this grabbed my attention:

As far as Christianity is concerned, Christ said "By their fruits you shall know them". Jesus said "This is the greatest commandment, that you love the Lord with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul, and the second is like unto it. You shall love your brother as yourself/as I have loved you". So in giving these commandments, Christ was telling us how someone who truly follows Him will act. While I, personally, can't see into someone's heart to know if their heart was turned, and maybe they are just having a bad day, I can judge their actions over time to know if they represent a changed heart.

"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.

 

[smaneck]

. Jesus isn't the created spirit brother of Lucifer. He's the uncreated Creator. That's a gulf so wide between views that it cannot be crossed.

Correct. The figure of Lucifer is a consequence of a mistranslation of the Vulgate Bible. The person referred to in Isaiah 14 is clearly the king of Babylon who presumably is not Jesus' brother.

So I will agree with you there.

 

[smaneck]

"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.

My recollection is that Jesus uses this as the touchstone for distinguishing true prophets from false ones.

 

[HexidecimalInput]

My recollection is that Jesus uses this as the touchstone for distinguishing true prophets from false ones.

Yes, that is the exact context. It is not meant to be used to make judgements on those who do not make the claim of prophet.

 

[smaneck]

Nope. You are not born again. You don't have the right Jesus.

You have no idea whether or not they are 'born again.'