The No true Scotsman Fallacy

[smaneck]

There are no contradictions.

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.

 

[smaneck]

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.

Yes, however, Paul also talks about fruits of the spirit and he does have the believers in mind.

 

[HexidecimalInput]

Yes, however, Paul also talks about fruits of the spirit and he does have the believers in mind.

The fruits (some of them at least) that Paul refers to aren't unique to Christians. They can be found among people of all types of religions or no religion at times in their lives. That being said, it really isn't fair (and this applies to any literary work) to take one person's quote out of context and filter it through another person's quote as if that original context did not exist. A lot of Christians misuse this verse completely out of it's proper context.

 

[dzheremi]

Uh oh! It looks like this thread is about to turn into a...

 

[Red Fox]

Never mind... self-edited

 

[smaneck]

The fruits (some of them at least) that Paul refers to aren't unique to Christians. They can be found among people of all types of religions or no religion at times in their lives.

I agree.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy involves rejecting commonly accepted definitions with out providing a reason.

So saying "X is not a true Christian" you avoid a No True Scotsman fallacy by explaining why he is not a true Christian. This means providing a definition of Christian that excludes X. Do that, you might still be wrong, but you haven't committed a No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[WirSindBettler]

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?

Is Christianity about not going to hell?

Yes.

Is that the core of the religion?

Yes.

Avoiding punishment for believing the wrong thing or believing the wrong way?

No.

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.

"'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?' And He said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.'"
Matthew 22:36-40

"We love because He first loved us."
1 John 4:19

"In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
1 John 4:10

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16

"But God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:8

"Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends."
John 15:13

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
John 10:11

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."
John 14:34

"He died upon a cross of wood, yet made the hill on which it stood"​

"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly."
Romans 5:6

"By this we know love, that He laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers."
1 John 3:16

Morningstar2651, Christianity is not about what I can do for God. It's not about what I was commanded to do. It isn't about offering sacrifices to God, offering Him food, or thinking about ourselves and our own salvation. Christianity is not about us. Christianity is about Him. It's about Jesus, the Creator of all things, who knows you, and your heart, and your mind, and your soul, who formed you individually before you were born, who knew all of the days of your life before you took your first breath, and who made each and every thing in this Earth. And He loved us so much, that He died for us. Christianity isn't about what you do. It's about what Christ does for us.

"In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent His only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him."
1 John 4:9

"For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:38-39

"Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."
Ephesians 5:1-2

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."
Galatians 2:20

"But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."
Galatians 6:14​

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.

Accepting Jesus as Savior will not save you? And is being born something that you do? Or is it something that God does for you? Are you denying that God is Almighty?

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8

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.

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Mark 16:16

"Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
John 3:18

"And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief."
Hebrews 3:18-19

So what is the condemning sin?

"Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit."
1 Corinthians 12:3

"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."
Matthew 12:31

 

[MoreCoffee]

Uh oh! It looks like this thread is about to turn into a...

Bible fights are such fun; they are weighted in favour of the ancient churches

 

[LoAmmi]

Bible fights are such fun; they are weighted in favour of the ancient churches

Depends on what's being debated.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Depends on what's being debated.

The ancient churches have heavier bibles

 

[Niblo]

The ancient churches have heavier bibles

And nice long chains so you can swing 'em around.

 

[Architeuthus]

I believe that God, the Creator, can be worshiped in many different ways, even outside the confines of Christianity.

Obviously, people "outside the confines of Christianity," whatever they may be, are not Christians.

 

[PaladinValer]

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.'

Nothing of the sort, and that's a Straw Man

There's no proof offered that he thought Wisdom was female. Unless we wish to think all Spanish-speaking folk think desks are inherently female, your point is null and void. That especially is true, and very intellectually dishonest, when all the pronouns in the passage where the word "Trinity" is used are all masculine, and that, since only the Gnostics thought Wisdom to be female, and Theophilus had a positive view of Creation, the idea that he would have treated the term like Gnostics is off since Gnostics had a decidedly negative view on the subject.

In short, your actual arguments are proven wrong: Trinitarian theology existed earlier than the word "Trinity", the word "Trinity" was used earlier than your claimed date, and your claim that its first use was heretical is also wrong and your claim that the first use of its theology is also wrong.

But no admittance of that fact; just an illogical barb and a wink that is technically a violation. That's the very kind of response the OP is all about and despises.

 

[Hammster]

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?

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

 

[Hammster]

Where does the Bible say that?

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:18-20

 

[MoreCoffee]

And nice long chains so you can swing 'em around.

Do you mean the chain on their breast crosses?

Obviously, people "outside the confines of Christianity," whatever they may be, are not Christians.

Quite true. Many people appear to desire non-christians to be counted as honorary christians as far as salvation is concerned. It isn't true however, an atheist, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew, an agnostic, or any other religion or lack of religion is not a Christians.

 

[MoreCoffee]

When a pronoun is applied to the Holy Spirit it is a masculine pronoun; this is the case in saint John's gospel.

John 16:12-16 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. (13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. (14) He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare [it] unto you. (15) All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he taketh of mine, and shall declare [it] unto you. (16) A little while, and ye behold me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see me.​

So while it is true that in Greek "wisdom" is a feminine noun it is not true that the Spirit of God is therefore feminine.

 

[Architeuthus]

Obviously, people "outside the confines of Christianity," whatever they may be, are not Christians.

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.

 

[A New Dawn]

It's pronounced Hey-Zeus.

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.

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.

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...

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.