True Christian (tm) / No True Scotsman card, Ethical and Moral?

[Wednesday]

Ok, I'm sick and tired or certain people pulling out True Christians (tm) card. When there is an argument between a fundie/conservative and liberal/moderate Christians, fundies tend to resort to No True Scotsman.

Now, please tell me who exactly is that True Christian, and is it ethical and moral to throw that at random, just because a person disagrees with you?

 

[Verv]

It is a rational and proper act and because Christianity should never be perverted, it is ethical and moral.

Christians who back away from statements about homosexuality and pretend i tis not a sin, Christians who act as if a lot of the contemporary sins we have today like divorce etc. are not truly against the Bible are wrong.

The liberalization of Christianity is the wrong path.

On the same hand, the people who interpret the Bible to such utterly strict ends also take it out of context and are wrong but this is more on a different level.

For instance, I think the Bible does not condemn technology and the fact that the Amish do not use it is not morally wrong by any means, but rather is just a quirky, doctrinal error. It is not a sin.

Liberal Christianity commits the flaw of turning sins into normal activities more often than not and that is why it is so vehemently attacked.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Quite frankly that's all a load of bs. To be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ, and since the bible is unsurprisingly vague on more than I'd like it to be, what exactly constitutes Christ is up in the air.

 

[Verv]

Quite frankly that's all a load of bs. To be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ, and since the bible is unsurprisingly vague on more than I'd like it to be, what exactly constitutes Christ is up in the air.

The Bible is vague in some areas. But it is not vague when it comes to drunkenness, violence, sexual impropriety, vanity, divorce and some other moral topics.

Liberal Christians often back out a lot on some of these. Overly conservative Christians often violate some of these principles as well.

 

[TheManeki]

The Bible is vague in some areas. But it is not vague when it comes to drunkenness, violence, sexual impropriety, vanity, divorce and some other moral topics.

I'm sure most Christians can agree on generalities. The issue arises when we address the specifics.

• Drunkenness -- Where does it occur? Is it the same for everybody? And I know some Christians who believe even a taste of alcohol induces drunkenness (and that the wine Jesus created was actually grape juice).
• Violence -- Sure, murder is bad. But what about killing in self defense or war? Christianity runs the gamut from pacifists to war hawks. And then there's capital punishment.
• Sexual impropriety -- That's a rather large catch-all term, and again, there is a lack of agreement on the specifics. Masturbation, non-procreative sex, non-missionary position sex, same-sex marriage, birth control -- there's no consensus on these topics.
• Divorce -- Heck, when you look at the changing prohibitions on divorce in the New Testament over time, you can see even the early church couldn't agree on this one. And we still can't. Is it ok in cases of abuse? What about remarriage?

Since the specifics are what cause the controversies, the important thing is to actually talk about these subjects. Playing the "No True Christian" card is just a feeble attempt to squash discussion, usually because the person playing the card is having trouble defending his or her position.

 

[HannahBanana]

Personally, I think that the fact that there are thousands of different denominations of Christianity, each claiming that they're the "true" form of Christianity, speaks loads about how unlikely it is that there actually is a "true" form of Christianity.

 

[MikeMcK]

The Bible is clear that there will be many who profess to be Christians but are not. It goes on to tell us that we'll know them by the fruit they produce, just as we know that an apple tree is an apple tree because it produces apples.

1 John tells us that those who continue to live their lives serving sin are not Christians.

In 2 John, we're told that those who don't hold to sound Biblical doctrine are not Christians.

We're told about false converts, tares, imposters, anti-Christs

Jesus said that there would be people who would call on His name, claiming to be Christians, but whom He will turn away saying "I never knew you" and Paul calls false Christians out several times.

So, from a Biblical point of view, the question isn't "is it ethical to point out that someone is not a true Christian" but "is it ethical not to point out that someone is not a true Christian."

I don't believe it is.

 

[HannahBanana]

The Bible is clear that there will be many who profess to be Christians but are not. It goes on to tell us that we'll know them by the fruit they produce, just as we know that an apple tree is an apple tree because it produces apples.

1 John tells us that those who continue to live their lives serving sin are not Christians.

In 2 John, we're told that those who don't hold to sound Biblical doctrine are not Christians.

We're told about false converts, tares, imposters, anti-Christs

Jesus said that there would be people who would call on His name, claiming to be Christians, but whom He will turn away saying "I never knew you" and Paul calls false Christians out several times.

So, from a Biblical point of view, the question isn't "is it ethical to point out that someone is not a true Christian" but "is it ethical not to point out that someone is not a true Christian."

I don't believe it is.

So what makes your interpretation of the Bible any more "correct" than, say, an Amish person's interpretation of the Bible? Heck, what makes your interpretation of the Bible correct at all? After all, you do realize that thousands of other Christians from different denominations than yours all claim that their interpretation of the Bible is correct, too, don't you?

 

[TheManeki]

The Bible is clear that there will be many who profess to be Christians but are not. It goes on to tell us that we'll know them by the fruit they produce, just as we know that an apple tree is an apple tree because it produces apples.

1 John tells us that those who continue to live their lives serving sin are not Christians.

In 2 John, we're told that those who don't hold to sound Biblical doctrine are not Christians.

We're told about false converts, tares, imposters, anti-Christs

Jesus said that there would be people who would call on His name, claiming to be Christians, but whom He will turn away saying "I never knew you" and Paul calls false Christians out several times.

So, from a Biblical point of view, the question isn't "is it ethical to point out that someone is not a true Christian" but "is it ethical not to point out that someone is not a true Christian."

I don't believe it is.

Mike, it's rather interesting that you mentioned tares. I'm guessing you are referring to the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew 13. If so, you missed that Christians are not the ones charged with separating the Christians -- the "wheat" -- from non-Christians -- the "tares." That job is left to the reapers (Matthew 13:30) in the parable, who are angels (Matthew 13:39), not humans. That makes it seem rather presumptuous for fallible humans to try to proclaim who is and who isn't a Christian.

 

[MikeMcK]

Personally, I think that the fact that there are thousands of different denominations of Christianity, each claiming that they're the "true" form of Christianity, speaks loads about how unlikely it is that there actually is a "true" form of Christianity.

As far as I know, only Roman Catholicism does this but, since you say that there are "thousands" maybe you could give us four or five examples.

 

[Wednesday]

Ok, this is what irritates me. People like Mike, claiming that their interpretation is the Only Right One. How do you Know?

I believe there is a special page about Roman Catholics not being Xians. What's up with that?

 

[MikeMcK]

If so, you missed that Christians are not the ones charged with separating the Christians -- the "wheat" -- from non-Christians -- the "tares." That job is left to the reapers (Matthew 13:30) in the parable, who are angels (Matthew 13:39), not humans.

Read my post again. I never said otherwise. All I said is that the Bible states that not all who claim to be Christians are Christians and this passage backs that up.

That makes it seem rather presumptuous for fallible humans to try to proclaim who is and who isn't a Christian.

Evidently, God doesn't see it that way or else He wouldn't have given us a standard to tell who is and isn't a Christian.

 

[MikeMcK]

Ok, this is what irritates me. People like Mike, claiming that their interpretation is the Only Right One.

Actually, this is an outright lie on your part.

I've never claimed that my "interpretation" is the only right one, nor do I believe that.

Please keep your lies and false accusations to yourself.

How do you know that what you read in your Bible is exactly how it was written 2000 years ago? I mean it was written, re-written, translated and re-translated. There has been addition of some passages and adjustments. So how do you know?

Because we have enough of the original texts and hand copies of the original texts that we can compare them to the scriptures we have today and see that they are accurate.

Answer this and I won't talk about your lack of comrehension of Roman Catholicism

Already answered this question twice: once for you, above, and once for your illiterate friend.

Um why exactly are answering in your old posts, instead of posting a new one?

Good to see that you now admit that I do answer your questions.

 

[HannahBanana]

Ok, this is what irritates me. People like Mike, claiming that their interpretation is the Only Right One. How do you Know?

Good luck getting an answer out of him, or out of anyone who thinks like him. Believe me, I've tried asking that exact question before and have never gotten an answer to it.

I believe there is a special page about Roman Catholics not being Xians. What's up with that?

Hatred is up with that, sadly.

 

[HannahBanana]

As far as I know, only Roman Catholicism does this but, since you say that there are "thousands" maybe you could give us four or five examples.

So you don't claim that your brand of Christianity isn't the only "true" brand of Christianity? How do you explain post #7 in this thread, then?

 

[Wednesday]

How do you know that what you read in your Bible is exactly how it was written 2000 years ago? I mean it was written, re-written, translated and re-translated. There has been addition of some passages and adjustments. So how do you know?

 

[MikeMcK]

Good luck getting an answer out of him

What question has anybody ever asked me here that I didn't answer?

I always answer questions asked of me.

<staff edit>

 

[HannahBanana]

What question has anybody ever asked me here that I didn't answer?

I always answer questions asked of me.

<staff edit>

No, sometimes you just dance around questions without answering them.

And I do not feel like wading through all of your 8993 posts in order to point out each and every question that has been asked of you which you failed to answer. Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

 

[HannahBanana]

How do you know that what you read in your Bible is exactly how it was written 2000 years ago? I mean it was written, re-written, translated and re-translated. There has been addition of some passages and adjustments. So how do you know?

I, too, would like to know this, Mike. You aren't going to make this be the first question you haven't answered, are you?

 

[MikeMcK]

So you don't claim that your brand of Christianity isn't the only "true" brand of Christianity?

The only "brand" of Christianity that I know of is Christianity that is based on God's word.

How do you explain post #7 in this thread, then?

There's nothing to explain. Here is my post from post #7:

The Bible is clear that there will be many who profess to be Christians but are not. It goes on to tell us that we'll know them by the fruit they produce, just as we know that an apple tree is an apple tree because it produces apples.

1 John tells us that those who continue to live their lives serving sin are not Christians.

In 2 John, we're told that those who don't hold to sound Biblical doctrine are not Christians.

We're told about false converts, tares, imposters, anti-Christs

Jesus said that there would be people who would call on His name, claiming to be Christians, but whom He will turn away saying "I never knew you" and Paul calls false Christians out several times.

So, from a Biblical point of view, the question isn't "is it ethical to point out that someone is not a true Christian" but "is it ethical not to point out that someone is not a true Christian."

I don't believe it is.

So as you can see, I didn't say anything about my "interpretation" being "the only right one", nor did I say anything about my "brand of Christianity" being the only right one.

So, the problem here is not with my post, <staff edit>

No, sometimes you just dance around questions without answering them.

OK. Name one question I've "danced" around.

And I do not feel like wading through all of your 8993 posts in order to point out each and every question that has been asked of you which you failed to answer.

I'm not asking you to. I'm only asking you to name one.

Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

<staff edit>

I, too, would like to know this, Mike. You aren't going to make this be the first question you haven't answered, are you?

To repeat the answer I gave the first time this question was asked <staff edit>

Because we have enough of the original texts and hand copies of the original texts that we can compare them to the scriptures we have today and see that they are accurate.