The No true Scotsman Fallacy

[A New Dawn]

If ISIS is Islam then the Lord's Resistance Army is Christianity.

I have a PhD in the history of Islam. I teach courses on it! How many years have you studied it? How many books have you read on it? (books by Christian apologists don't count) How many times have you read the Qur'an? Muhammad authorized jihads after Muslims had fled from Mecca to Medina. That was twelve years after he first received his revelation. The reason he authorized jihad is because in Medina he had a community to protect. Jesus would have done the same. And Moses was in his position he did do the same.

No. Jesus wouldn't have done the same. The Jews were slaves to Rome the entire time Jesus was alive on earth, and He never once ordered jihad. In fact, Jesus told his people to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". Jesus restored the guard's ear after Peter cut it off when Jesus was arrested. Jesus would have done NOTHING similar. Nothing.

 

[bhsmte]

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

Agree, most people do hear what they want to hear.

Furthermore, if a God does exist anyone claiming to have a definitive answer on what this God wants and what he says, and uses the same to judge those who disagree, may not be making this God all too happy.

 

[smaneck]

No. Jesus wouldn't have done the same. The Jews were slaves to Rome the entire time Jesus was alive on earth, and He never once ordered jihad. In fact, Jesus told his people to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". Jesus restored the guard's ear after Peter cut it off when Jesus was arrested. Jesus would have done NOTHING similar. Nothing.

Exactly my point. Jesus wasn't in the same situation. If Jesus had done what the Jews (and the Tanakh) expected the Messiah to do it would simply have led to a massacre. That doesn't mean if they had grabbed Peter instead of Jesus in the Garden he would have stood by quietly and allowed Peter to be crucified.

If you are complete pacifist who doesn't believe in war under any circumstances whatsoever then your opinion is justified. Otherwise it is hypocritical to criticize what Muhammad did to protect his people.

 

[seekingsolace]

54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”

55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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.

This is all very easy to answer. One knows if Person A is a Christian if Person A has faith in Jesus Christ. Having faith implies a life of fidelity to the teaching of Christ.

Deliberate persistent and habitual lack of fidelity to the teaching of Christ in the life of Person A (who professes to be a Christian) demonstrates an absence of faith in Jesus Christ and hence demonstrates that Person A is not a Christian even if Person A professes to be a Christian.

 

[bhsmte]

This is all very easy to answer. One knows if Person A is a Christian if Person A has faith in Jesus Christ. Having faith implies a life of fidelity to the teaching of Christ.

Deliberate persistent and habitual lack of fidelity to the teaching of Christ in the life of Person A (who professes to be a Christian) demonstrates an absence of faith in Jesus Christ and hence demonstrates that Person A is not a Christian even if Person A professes to be a Christian.

Quite subjective.

When is the line crossed between having fidelity to the teachings of Christ and not having fidelity towards the same?

Since everyone sins, according to Christian theology, how does one test whether person A is a Christian?

 

[smaneck]

54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”

55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.

Muhammad and his followers endured the worst kind of persecution imaginable in Mecca and they did so for twelve years. But when he became the governor of Medina he had very different responsibilities. Again, if you are a total pacifist you can object to what Muhammad did. But not many Christians are.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Quite subjective.

When is the line crossed between having fidelity to the teachings of Christ and not having fidelity towards the same?

Since everyone sins, according to Christian theology, how does one test whether person A is a Christian?

Well of course it is subjective with the professed Christian as the subject of the examination. What else can it be? People are subjects rather than objects because they make unpredictable decisions. So what is your objection intended to say? Surely it can't be that people must behave like billiard balls in a Newtonian physics model of their lives. As for when the line is crossed, that is ultimately up to God not to us. But when somebody asks "is it Christian to do such and such" then the only possible (and meaningful) answers are either "I have no idea because I am not the ultimate judge of their behaviour" which is an answer that many will give or "No, that is not what Christ teaches Christians to do and if Person A does it then Person A's behaviour in that matter is not consistent with his/her profession of Christian faith".

 

[A New Dawn]

Exactly my point. Jesus wasn't in the same situation. If Jesus had done what the Jews (and the Tanakh) expected the Messiah to do it would simply have led to a massacre. That doesn't mean if they had grabbed Peter instead of Jesus in the Garden he would have stood by quietly and allowed Peter to be crucified.

If you are complete pacifist who doesn't believe in war under any circumstances whatsoever then your opinion is justified. Otherwise it is hypocritical to criticize what Muhammad did to protect his people.

So tell me who Mohammed had to protect his people from in Medina? Medina was established as a Jewish city over 200 years before Mohammed was born. But at the time of Mohammed, it was ruled by two Arab groups that frequently fought amongst themselves, and they invited Mohammed to Medina to negotiate a treaty. It wasn't even a Muslim stronghold.

 

[A New Dawn]

Muhammad and his followers endured the worst kind of persecution imaginable in Mecca and they did so for twelve years. But when he became the governor of Medina he had very different responsibilities. Again, if you are a total pacifist you can object to what Muhammad did. But not many Christians are.

From what I"ve read, there was no persecution. He was just upset about being exiled from Mecca, so he got revenge.

 

[bhsmte]

Well of course it is subjective with the professed Christian as the subject of the examination. What else can it be? People are subjects rather than objects because they make unpredictable decisions. So what is your objection intended to say? Surely it can't be that people must behave like billiard balls in a Newtonian physics model of their lives. As for when the line is crossed, that is ultimately up to God not to us. But when somebody asks "is it Christian to do such and such" then the only possible (and meaningful) answers are either "I have no idea because I am not the ultimate judge of their behaviour" which is an answer that many will give or "No, that is not what Christ teaches Christians to do and if Person A does it then Person A's behaviour in that matter is not consistent with his/her profession of Christian faith".

Well, you said it was easy to accomplish correct?

If it was easy, that would infer a reliable test, that would reveal reliable results.

As it is, if you put 10 people together to determine if a person is demonstrating the proper level of fidelity towards Christ, you could get a variety of subjective conclusions. That would tell me, it isn't easy, but is essentially the subjective opinion of the person doing the judging.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, you said it was easy to accomplish correct?

If it was easy, that would infer a reliable test, that would reveal reliable results.

As it is, if you put 10 people together to determine if a person is demonstrating the proper level of fidelity towards Christ, you could get a variety of subjective conclusions. That would tell me, it isn't easy, but is essentially the subjective opinion of the person doing the judging.

Yes, it is easy, and yes, it does imply a reliable test. The reliable test is the teaching of Christ. A Christian need not be shy about affirming that Christ actually did teach explicit things about human behaviour and that when a person (Person A) acts contrary to the teaching of Christ then their action is not a Christian act. What more do you need?

 

[Hetta]

Yes, it is easy, and yes, it does imply a reliable test. The reliable test is the teaching of Christ. A Christian need not be shy about affirming that Christ actually did teach explicit things about human behaviour and that when a person (Person A) acts contrary to the teaching of Christ then their action is not a Christian act. What more do you need?

But those teachings are interpreted differently by every different denomination of Christianity. So which of those denominations and their teachings is correct?

If I say that the only true baptism is immersion, and that you are not a true Christian because you were not immersed, that's what I believe to be the teaching of Christ, but you do not. So am I right or are you?

(I don't believe any of this.)

 

[Hetta]

This is all very easy to answer. One knows if Person A is a Christian if Person A has faith in Jesus Christ. Having faith implies a life of fidelity to the teaching of Christ.

Deliberate persistent and habitual lack of fidelity to the teaching of Christ in the life of Person A (who professes to be a Christian) demonstrates an absence of faith in Jesus Christ and hence demonstrates that Person A is not a Christian even if Person A professes to be a Christian.

And yet Paul said: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and "I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out." If Paul couldn't carry it out, despite being personally chosen and spoken to by God, who can?

I don't care much for Paul, but at least he showed some humility.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But those teachings are interpreted differently by every different denomination of Christianity. So which of those denominations and their teachings is correct?

If I say that the only true baptism is immersion, and that you are not a true Christian because you were not immersed, that's what I believe to be the teaching of Christ, but you do not. So am I right or are you?

(I don't believe any of this.)

I do not think that every denomination interprets differently the teaching of Christ about morals and the way one ought to live. Sure there are some differences on some matters but the core matters such as justice and mercy are not where the differences are. Of course some prominent TV evangelists preach health & wealth without any apparent reference to moral living and good treatment of other people. When a teacher fails to teach what Christ taught then don't pay too much attention to them. Their message is not coming from Christ. If you want to know the truth about what Jesus taught then read the gospels in the new testament. See for yourself what is there. Don't rely solely on what other people say.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And yet Paul said: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and "I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out." If Paul couldn't carry it out, despite being personally chosen and spoken to by God, who can?

I don't care much for Paul, but at least he showed some humility.

Falling into specific sins is quite different from deliberate persistent and habitual lack of fidelity to the teaching of Christ, right?

 

[Hetta]

I do not think that every denomination interprets differently the teaching of Christ about morals and the way one ought to live. Sure there are some differences on some matters but the core matters such as justice and mercy are not where the differences are. Of course some prominent TV evangelists preach health & wealth without any apparent reference to moral living and good treatment of other people. When a teacher fails to teach what Christ taught then don't pay too much attention to them. Their message is not coming from Christ. If you want to know the truth about what Jesus taught then read the gospels in the new testament. See for yourself what is there. Don't rely solely on what other people say.

But then I'm making my own interpretation. Oh, and I don't watch tv evangelists. Never have, never will.

 

[Hetta]

Falling into specific sins is quite different from deliberate persistent and habitual lack of fidelity to the teaching of Christ, right?

Why? Isn't Paul saying that he can't stop sinning? That he wants to but fails?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why? Isn't Paul saying that he can't stop sinning? That he wants to but fails?

Your post is referring to Romans chapter seven I presume. Saint Paul's comments do not say that he deliberately disobeys the teaching of Christ, quite the contrary he asserts that he wishes to obey but fails to obey even when he intends obedience. The passage is not affirming that a person who lives a life of deliberate persistent and habitual lack of fidelity to the teaching of Christ is doing well. If you like I can reproduce the passage here, but I presume that you have a bible available and can read Romans chapter seven without it being posted in here.

 

[Hetta]

Your post is referring to Romans chapter seven I presume. Saint Paul's comments do not say that he deliberately disobeys the teaching of Christ, quite the contrary he asserts that he wishes to obey but fails to obey even when he intends obedience. The passage is not affirming that a person who lives a life of deliberate persistent and habitual lack of fidelity to the teaching of Christ is doing well. If you like I can reproduce the passage here, but I presume that you have a bible available and can read Romans chapter seven without it being posted in here.

But now you're changing the goalposts. Fidelity = faithfulness. Why wasn't Paul faithful to Christ's teachings? Why did he fail? Because we are all faulty and we all fail, perhaps? Yet so many judge on the basis of their own perfection (not naming you as one of those.)

I kinda have the internet, I don't need anyone to post scripture.