No True Scotsman Fallacy and Religion

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

If you are disinterested in even the most basic tenets of Christ's teachings, then I would disagree.

Who would both believe Christian teachings, but at the same time be disinterested in them? People can preform the most extreme and disgusting actions, but still consider themselves a Christian, as they believe that the Bible justifies their actions.

Originally Posted by CVN-76

Who would both believe Christian teachings, but at the same time be disinterested in them? People can preform the most extreme and disgusting actions, but still consider themselves a Christian, as they believe that the Bible justifies their actions.

I could never even see India or be related to anyone from there and consider myself Indian if I'm crazy enough; it doesn't make it so. All the people who prefer Old Testament teachings to Christ's teachings would be better off converting to Judaism. Christians listen to Christ. And Christ NEVER, EVER, advocated violence. EVER.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

I could never even see India or be related to anyone from there and consider myself Indian if I'm crazy enough; it doesn't make it so. All the people who prefer Old Testament teachings to Christ's teachings would be better off converting to Judaism. Christians listen to Christ. And Christ NEVER, EVER, advocated violence. EVER.

So the majority of US is actually Jewish?

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

I could never even see India or be related to anyone from there and consider myself Indian if I'm crazy enough; it doesn't make it so. All the people who prefer Old Testament teachings to Christ's teachings would be better off converting to Judaism. Christians listen to Christ. And Christ NEVER, EVER, advocated violence. EVER.

So? If I've learned one thing about religion, it's that hardly anyone really follows the scripture it was based upon. Religion today has become much more about personal belief. Really if Christians think that the Old Testament doesn't count anymore, then why do they keep it in the Bible?

Originally Posted by CVN-76

So? If I've learned one thing about religion, it's that hardly anyone really follows the scripture it was based upon. Religion today has become much more about personal belief. Really if Christians think that the Old Testament doesn't count anymore, then why do they keep it in the Bible?

Some denominations don't.

Originally Posted by fratey

So the majority of US is actually Jewish?

Given that whenever Old Testament and New Testament conflict they go with the Old Testament rules (There are a lot more people who cite 'an eye for an eye' than 'turn the other cheek'), then kinda, yeah. But I wouldn't restrict that to just Americans.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Some denominations don't.

But most do.

Given that whenever Old Testament and New Testament conflict they go with the Old Testament rules (There are a lot more people who cite 'an eye for an eye' than 'turn the other cheek'), then kinda, yeah. But I wouldn't restrict that to just Americans.

But Jews don't consider Jesus to be divine, nor do they celebrate Christmas. These people do, and they don't celebrate Hanukkah or Passover. By your definitions of what qualifies a person to be a member of a certain religion, these people cannot be considered Jews.

Originally Posted by CVN-76

But Jews don't consider Jesus to be divine, nor do they celebrate Christmas. These people do, and they don't celebrate Hanukkah or Passover. By your definitions of what qualifies a person to be a member of a certain religion, these people cannot be considered Jews.

If they consider him to be God, then why don't they listen to him over a prophet who God admonished on a couple of occasions? Lipservice is not belief.

The reason the Fallacy doesn't apply is this: You can't stop being a Scottsman (at least genetically, you could move to another country but thats beside the point). You can stop being religious. What makes you religious is only ones personal set of moral codes. Once you cast aside those codes you aren't following the religion anymore, so it could be said you are not a true member. Much like it is accurate to say that an AA member who got smashed the previous night is no longer a true AA member.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

If they consider him to be God, then why don't they listen to him over a prophet who God admonished on a couple of occasions? Lipservice is not belief.

It could be possible that they're just ignorant of their religion. Bring up the Nazis again, I doubt they were ever told the parts about turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor.

I think it just comes down to a personal disagreement between you and me, about what qualifies a person to be a Christian. It means different things to different people. It's also why I rarely talk about religion. Nothing about religion is set in stone, as even it's founding morals can come into question, and be interpreted in many different ways.

Originally Posted by CVN-76

It could be possible that they're just ignorant of their religion. Bring up the Nazis again, I doubt they were ever told the parts about turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor.

In the end I think it just comes down to a personal disagreement between you and me, about what qualifies a person to be a Christian. It means different things to different people.

If one doesn't know what Christianity's even about, then how can one be a Christian? That'd be like if I said I believe in the teachings of Confucius without knowing anything about him. I'd be believing in a name, not a man.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

If one doesn't know what Christianity's even about, then how can one be a Christian? That'd be like if I said I believe in the teachings of Confucius without knowing anything about him. I'd be believing in a name, not a man.

And for some that's really the only qualification. Like I said what it means to be Christian means different things to different people.

Originally Posted by CVN-76

And for some that's really the only qualification. Like I said what it means to be Christian means different things to different people.

Touché. However, some definitions are so clearly bonkers that it's not unreasonable for others to classify them as 'not true Christians'.

Originally Posted by CVN-76

If you believe in the Christian god, and in the story of Christ, you're a Christian. Those are the only requirements of Christianity. Hitler may have not followed the teachings of the Bible, but the same is true of most Christians.

Belief is not the same as mere mental ascent. Faith/belief entails some degree of adherence to the principles of the belief system. Ultimately it's up to the community of the faithful to decide who's an adherent and who is wayward. (I'll give you a hint: Most Christians would consider Hitler to be quite wayward at best. )

Originally Posted by Rew

Belief is not the same as mere mental ascent. Faith/belief entails some degree of adherence to the principles of the belief system. Ultimately it's up to the community of the faithful to decide who's an adherent and who is wayward. (I'll give you a hint: Most Christians would consider Hitler to be quite wayward at best. )

That's your idea of belief, Hitler could've(and probably did) had an entirely different one. There are probably some that don't care what the community thinks of them and consider themselves Christians anyway. You see how people define belief can be VERY different from one person to another. It's not set in stone.

Originally Posted by CVN-76

That's your idea of belief, Hitler could've(and probably did) had an entirely different one. There are probably some that don't care what the community thinks of them and consider themselves Christians anyway. You see how people define belief can be VERY different from one person to another. It's not set in stone.

How people define 'purple' is different as well, but if a person points to green and says it's purple, then it's just wrong. There's a wide line between what's a difference of opinion and what's just completely out of touch with any kind of reality.

Originally Posted by CVN-76

That's your idea of belief, Hitler could've(and probably did) had an entirely different one. There are probably some that don't care what the community thinks of them and consider themselves Christians anyway. You see how people define belief can be VERY different from one person to another. It's not set in stone.

Which, in a way, proves my point even more.

Anyway, those who don't care what the greater Christian community thinks of them and go on spouting whatever they wish anyway are generally referred to as heretics and are thus generally accepted to be outside the bounds of Christian tradition.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

And Christ NEVER, EVER, advocated violence. EVER.

What about that time he used it to kick people out of a temple because he was angry, or even his claim that he carried a sword around?

Originally Posted by Rew

Which, in a way, proves my point even more.

Anyway, those who don't care what the greater Christian community thinks of them and go on spouting whatever they wish anyway are generally referred to as heretics and are thus generally accepted to be outside the bounds of Christian tradition.

But the fact that the scriptures are either interpreted differently based on who reads them means that unless people adhere to one interpretation, which may not be so obvious upon reading, they will not be considered Christians by their peers, when to anyone who actually reads the Bible they may be more "Christian" than perhaps yourself. Like how many atheists say that the fundamentalists are the only ones who are actually doing it right because they follow the rules word for word, whereas many Christians are the kind who says "as long as you follow the rules to some degree I'm sure you can get away with it". Plus, given the fact that the New Testament is pretty contradictory in relation to the Old Testament many Christians claim that the rules of the Old Testament no longer apply, but I've never once seen any quotes from the Bible that state, expressly or impliedly, that the old rules are repealed. All you have is that the figure of Christ, claiming that he is God himself, saying things that are quite contradictory to the old rules, not the character of God himself doing it.

The point I'm making is that though you may distance your own brand of Christianity from an extreme Christian's brand, neither you nor he can correctly say that the other is not a Christian, and so if an objective claim must be made, we must accept that both of you at the very least believe that you are Christians and leave the debate as to who is right to theology. Otherwise it's a case of "I'm right, he's wrong, that's all there is to it" despite both of you being able to back up your opinions, which is arrogant and therefore contradictory to the requirement of humility in Christianity, and thus neither of you are Christians according to your own rules.

the reason that the No True Scotsman fallacy applies to "true Christians" is because of the definition of "Christian." Anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. That is the only requirement. If I claim to be a Christian, and then go around killing people in the name of God and Jesus Christ, I don't suddenly lose my Christianity. There is no set definition of "Christian" that excludes murderers. There is no specific list of requirements that one can use to classify who counts as a real Christian and who doesn't.

therefore, it is fallacious to state that members of denomination A are not True Christians, since they condone homosexuality or some other thing that denomination B disagrees with and believes to be non-Christian. (This specific fallacy is most noted in the way so many Protestant churches believe that Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or even Catholics are not "true Christians" for whatever reason.) Now it might be fair to say that a Christian who goes around killing people is being hypocritical, since surely Jesus Christ would never kill anyone, but you cannot say that he is not a Christian, because as long as he believes he is a Christian, he is.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

But the fact that the scriptures are either interpreted differently based on who reads them means that unless people adhere to one interpretation, which may not be so obvious upon reading, they will not be considered Christians by their peers, when to anyone who actually reads the Bible they may be more "Christian" than perhaps yourself. Like how many atheists say that the fundamentalists are the only ones who are actually doing it right because they follow the rules word for word, whereas many Christians are the kind who says "as long as you follow the rules to some degree I'm sure you can get away with it". Plus, given the fact that the New Testament is pretty contradictory in relation to the Old Testament many Christians claim that the rules of the Old Testament no longer apply, but I've never once seen any quotes from the Bible that state, expressly or impliedly, that the old rules are repealed. All you have is that the figure of Christ, claiming that he is God himself, saying things that are quite contradictory to the old rules, not the character of God himself doing it.

The point I'm making is that though you may distance your own brand of Christianity from an extreme Christian's brand, neither you nor he can correctly say that the other is not a Christian, and so if an objective claim must be made, we must accept that both of you at the very least believe that you are Christians and leave the debate as to who is right to theology. Otherwise it's a case of "I'm right, he's wrong, that's all there is to it" despite both of you being able to back up your opinions, which is arrogant and therefore contradictory to the requirement of humility in Christianity, and thus neither of you are Christians according to your own rules.

But you're missing the point that it's precisely because of such ambiguity that we can't make such sweeping claims about the religion as a whole--as those who would claim the No Scotsman Fallacy would like to say about us.

The best solution is to specify which group of Christians we're referring to when we're making statements about certain individual Christians or groups within the religion.

(Also, regarding the bit about Jesus advocating carrying a sword, most biblical scholars have interpreted that as sarcasm on Jesus' part. )

Originally Posted by Rew

But you're missing the point that it's precisely because of such ambiguity that we can't make such sweeping claims about the religion as a whole--as those who would claim the No Scotsman Fallacy would like to say about us.

The best solution is to specify which group of Christians we're referring to when we're making statements about certain individual Christians or groups within the religion.

I know what you're saying, but the idea is that a Christian who says "no TRUE Christian would do such a thing" can't make such a claim on the same basis, unless again he specifies which group of Christians he is talking about.

(Also, regarding the bit about Jesus advocating carrying a sword, most biblical scholars have interpreted that as sarcasm on Jesus' part. )

I can see how, but that still leaves the issue of how Jesus totally raged all over these people using a temple as a marketplace.