The No true Scotsman Fallacy

[Hetta]

So is the name misleading? To me it sounds like a person looking to discover Christianity, not a Christian.

If you are considering leaving Christianity because of persons, does that make you an established Christian, or a seeker?

I don't actually see the need to answer more of your questions.

 

[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.

I strongly suspect that the Paraclete was not originally a reference to the Holy Spirit.

The text is explicit so your post's stated suspicion is not verified by the text. "The Spirit of truth" is addressed using he and his because in Greek a masculine pronoun is used despite the feminine gender of the noun (Spirit) thus there's evidence for the Spirit of God being masculine according to the teaching of Jesus Christ. For Christians there is no higher authority for doctrine and practise than the Lord Jesus Christ thus for Christians the words of the Lord settle any matter about which they speak.

 

[Hetta]

IMO, politicians and especially national level politicians would fall into this category. In the United States, it is extremely difficult to get elected to a prominent office, if you are not a Christian. For that reason, I would imagine there are quite a few politicians who claim to be Christian, for political reasons and appeal.

For your everyday person, I would agree with you though.

True, like those Christian politicians I keep hearing about who preach against gay sex because they are so straight and they are caught soliciting male prostitutes. Were they never Christians?

Religion should have nothing to do with politics. I would sooner vote for a candidate who said that he/she did not believe in God than someone who was lying about believing in God so he/she could just get my vote. In fact, I would actively look for that candidate, so long as they met my other requirements.

 

[A New Dawn]

So is the name misleading? To me it sounds like a person looking to discover Christianity, not a Christian.

If you are considering leaving Christianity because of persons, does that make you an established Christian, or a seeker?

According to CF, a Christian seeker is a Christian who is sort of between churches. One who was, say, Methodist who is starting to question specific Methodist teachings, and is seeking to find out what other denominations teach where they might be more in agreement with their beliefs. It is not someone who is questioning whether or not they believe in Christ.

 

[A New Dawn]

Why would anyone do that? What is the purpose in a person convincing others that they are Christians? What kind of brownie points does that get for anyone? I could imagine better that someone would deny being a Christian than pretend that they were a Christian.

To appear more mainstream, to attract more people who would not consider joining a church that overtly taught things not in accordance with the Bible.

 

[Hetta]

To appear more mainstream, to attract more people who would not consider joining a church that overtly taught things not in accordance with the Bible.

So are you suggesting that some churches/denoms are pretending to be Christian?

 

[seekingsolace]

According to CF, a Christian seeker is a Christian who is sort of between churches. One who was, say, Methodist who is starting to question specific Methodist teachings, and is seeking to find out what other denominations teach where they might be more in agreement with their beliefs. It is not someone who is questioning whether or not they believe in Christ.

Thank you for the CF description.

 

[drstevej]

To appear more mainstream, to attract more people who would not consider joining a church that overtly taught things not in accordance with the Bible.

Absolutely.

 

[Hetta]

Thank you for the CF description.

Which is exactly the same description that I gave you - twice.

 

[Hetta]

Let me ask again: is this a suggestion that some churches are pretending to be Christian? In which case, please name those churches/denominations.

 

[A New Dawn]

Nobody said anything about what was not in the Bible. I specifically mentioned scripture and the different interpretations of same.

If you follow the conversation, I clearly stated as much in my post that I responded to Morningstar in, which you then responded to. Here is the flow of the conversation.

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 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.

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.

If something isn't in the Bible, it isn't in the Bible, no matter who's interpretation you are using. There is a difference between interpreting a scriptural passage differently, and having a teaching based on nothing in the Bible.

As you can see, I DID state that I was talking about teachings that were never part of the Bible. You jumped in and tried to change the goalposts.

 

[Hetta]

If you follow the conversation, I clearly stated as much in my post that I responded to Morningstar in, which you then responded to. Here is the flow of the conversation.

As you can see, I DID state that I was talking about teachings that were never part of the Bible. You jumped in and tried to change the goalposts.

What I see is that you were the only one bringing up teachings outside of scripture.

 

[A New Dawn]

Well, they have a belief, so they must hear something. It just happens to be a different hearing than some.

The Nicene creed was developed by fallible men and it has even been changed over the years and was originated long after Jesus death (about 200 years). I can see how it is possible people can come to differing conclusions, considering the creed was made by man and has been changed by man.

Most people hear what they want to hear. Only people whose hearts are turned to God by Christ hear what HE says.

 

[Red Fox]

So are you suggesting that some churches/denoms are pretending to be Christian?

There are Catholics who tell Protestants they aren't Christian. I'm sure there are Catholics who may tell other Catholics they aren't Christian. There are Protestants who tell Catholics they aren't Christian. And then, there are Protestants who tell other Protestants they aren't Christian. So, round and round we go... where we stop, nobody knows... In all honesty, with the immense plethora of all the various Christian beliefs, teachings, and scripture interpretations out there, I have no idea how anyone can keep them all straight and not be completely confused, least of all, be 100% certain of which ones are correct and which ones aren't. All these different Christians claim to be right, but they continuously argue and debate with each other, all pining to prove themselves right and some times trying to prove other Christians wrong. There are so many varying ideas concerning Christian beliefs and scripture interpretations and they can't all be right at the same time. It's all very confusing and I can't figure it out.

 

[seekingsolace]

There are Catholics who tell Protestants they aren't Christian. There are Protestants who tell Catholics they aren't Christian. And then, there are Protestants who tell other Protestants they aren't Christian. So, round and round we go... where we stop, nobody knows... In all honesty, with the plethora of all the various Christian beliefs, teachings, and scripture interpretations out there, I have no idea how anyone can keep them all straight and not be completely confused, least of all, be 100% certain of which ones are correct and which ones aren't. There are so many different ideas concerning Christian beliefs and scripture interpretations and they can't all be right at the same time.

Personal agenda?

 

[Hetta]

Most people hear what they want to hear. Only people whose hearts are turned to God by Christ hear what HE says.

But that's you speaking as a Calvanist. Which is an entirely different way to all the other non-Calvanists believe. So, in your faith beliefs, God only chooses a select few, and people cannot themselves choose to follow Christ. I'm sure that, to your way of thinking, I am not a Christian. But you don't have to answer that because I know it's against the rules to say so and I'm not trying to goad you into breaking rules.

 

[smaneck]

The text is explicit so your post's stated suspicion is not verified by the text. "The Spirit of truth" is addressed using he and his because in Greek a masculine pronoun is used despite the feminine gender of the noun (Spirit) thus there's evidence for the Spirit of God being masculine according to the teaching of Jesus Christ. For Christians there is no higher authority for doctrine and practise than the Lord Jesus Christ thus for Christians the words of the Lord settle any matter about which they speak.

Uh, you realize Jesus didn't speak Greek?

 

[Hetta]

Personal agenda?

I think you're intending to annoy people at this point so I think I'll just ignore any further posts. However, you should know that there is no individual, "personal" agenda within an institution as massive as the Catholic church. I have met Catholics who are liberal, and Catholics who were utterly conservative. Some get along with Protestants and love them as brothers and sisters, others believe that all Protestants are utterly misguided and outcast from heaven. It is the same way with Protestants and their attitude towards Catholics. However, as you know, what Catholics and Protestants believe is very different in many respects. I don't read that as "personal agenda". But at this point, I believe this is off topic to the OP. And I don't see the point in continuing to have this debate. You are of course welcome to pursue it!

 

[A New Dawn]

Sorry, you are projecting. This is the attitude you were taking towards Muslims and why the issue of Christians doing the same thing was brought up in the first place.

Actually, it isn't the attitude I was taking towards Muslims here. I have always spoken about Muslim extremists.

And who exactly defended ISIS. No one here. I merely refuted your trying to blame Islam for the actions of ISIS.

ISIS is Islam. ISIS devoutly follows Mohammed, who started jihadding mere years after founding Islam. Read the history of Islam and see who follows him more closely. I'm glad that moderate Muslims have emerged over time, but Islam was, and still is, in places, a hateful barbaric religion. One can only hope that the moderate Muslims learn to stand up for what they believe and demonstrate the peacefulness that Islam is now claiming to possess.

 

[seekingsolace]

I think you're intending to annoy people at this point so I think I'll just ignore any further posts. However, you should know that there is no individual, "personal" agenda within an institution as massive as the Catholic church. I have met Catholics who are liberal, and Catholics who were utterly conservative. Some get along with Protestants and love them as brothers and sisters, others believe that all Protestants are utterly misguided and outcast from heaven. It is the same way with Protestants and their attitude towards Catholics. However, as you know, what Catholics and Protestants believe is very different in many respects. I don't read that as "personal agenda". But at this point, I believe this is off topic to the OP. And I don't see the point in continuing to have this debate. You are of course welcome to pursue it!

Who mentioned Catholics having a personal agenda?