3 ms·

This kind of seems like a no true scotsman fallacy. I'm not even sure what an "actual christian" would be because the books that make up the christian faith co

by pfisch 10y ago

This kind of seems like a no true scotsman fallacy. I'm not even sure what an "actual christian" would be because the books that make up the christian faith contradict themselves all over the place. You could even make arguments that some of the books are false or that some of the apocryphal books are real. Because there is no factual bedrock underlying religion there is no truth to be found and anyone can just claim anything and ascribe it to whatever religion they want for the most part.

GavinMcG 10y ago
No True Scotsman isn't a formal fallacy, and simply saying "here's a line, and these so-called examples are on the wrong side of it" isn't No True Scotsman. Rather, No True Scotsman requires that someone change their definition to exclude counterexamples while maintaining that they're keeping an untainted definition. It's entirely legitimate to say "There are people who call themselves Christians but do not act in accordance with X, Y, and Z teachings of Christ. Therefore, I don't accept their claim." That's definition, not redefinition.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jessaustin 10y ago
  This comment is so meta.
- vacri 10y ago
  The response in question misrepresented the OP saying "A lot of Trump supported identify as Christian" as "Christians only voted for Trump", and then goes on to say "no actual christian" in the rebuttals, which is pretty close to verbatim "no true scotsman". As in "yeah, those people only _claim_ to be christian, they're not _actual_ christians". It's a textbook example of No True Scotsman. The idea that there is only one kind of christian died the moment that Mr Iscariot did his friend a bad one. Ever since then, there's been schism after schism after schism. Even Peter and Paul saw and did things differently. In the modern day, we're talking about rivalries so deep that even moving a ladder[1] is proven impossible, so how "they're only _claiming_ to be christians, and aren't _actually_ christians" passes muster, I don't know. These are the heads of christian sects going back more than a millenium, who disagree on what it means to be christian. Folks who are in charge of multiple large houses of worship, with large congregations that see them as their christian guides... but somehow "oh, I don't think they see it right, therefore 'not christian'"? "No True Scotsman" is perfectly appropriate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immovable_Ladder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immovable_Ladder
ekianjo 10y ago
> contradict themselves all over the place There are some contradictions but claiming that it's all over the place is a blanket statement. And do not forget that while the Bible contains the ancient scriptures, they should be seen in the light of the Gospel (i.e. what Jesus supposedly said about them) rather than on their own, in Christianism.
nvahalik 10y ago
> I'm not even sure what an "actual christian" would be because the books that make up the christian faith contradict themselves all over the place. Seemingly contradict. Have you reviewed what the other side has to say[1] on this matter? Ever had something that didn't seem to make sense until you saw a different perspective on it? > You could even make arguments that some of the books are false or that some of the apocryphal books are real. Physical presence of a book doesn't make it scripture. And that's exactly what Christians believe the Bible is: scripture. And it is held to a very different set of standards than what is not scripture. > Because there is no factual bedrock underlying religion there is no truth to be found and anyone can just claim anything and ascribe it to whatever religion they want for the most part. I suppose that depends on what you mean by "no factual bedrock". You and I exist. We have these things called "logic", "reason", and "truth" which cannot be explained in a solely materialistic fashion. There are things such as "ethics" and "morality" which not only exist but a surprising amount of people adhere to. Christians make the claim that the only reason any of this makes sense is because we are created by God and that it is His design and decree which allow us to understand the world around us. No secular/nontheistic worldview can truly offer a response to this that doesn't look to itself. [1]: http://defendinginerrancy.com/contradictions-inerrancy/ http://defendinginerrancy.com/contradictions-inerrancy/
- flukus 10y ago
  > Physical presence of a book doesn't make it scripture. And that's exactly what Christians believe the Bible is: scripture. And it is held to a very different set of standards than what is not scripture. Not all christians agree on what is and isn't in the bible. There is no single Christian bible. I have no doubt there are some sects out there that don't have a bible, for a couple of hundred years no christians did.
  - nvahalik 10y ago
    I'd suggest you check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqcwcxoxoUo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqcwcxoxoUo And then we could probably have a reasonable conversation about it.

by pfisch 10y ago

GavinMcG 10y ago

No True Scotsman isn't a formal fallacy, and simply saying "here's a line, and these so-called examples are on the wrong side of it" isn't No True Scotsman. Rather, No True Scotsman requires that someone change their definition to exclude counterexamples while maintaining that they're keeping an untainted definition. It's entirely legitimate to say "There are people who call themselves Christians but do not act in accordance with X, Y, and Z teachings of Christ. Therefore, I don't accept their claim." That's definition, not redefinition.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jessaustin 10y ago
This comment is so meta.
vacri 10y ago
The response in question misrepresented the OP saying "A lot of Trump supported identify as Christian" as "Christians only voted for Trump", and then goes on to say "no actual christian" in the rebuttals, which is pretty close to verbatim "no true scotsman". As in "yeah, those people only _claim_ to be christian, they're not _actual_ christians". It's a textbook example of No True Scotsman. The idea that there is only one kind of christian died the moment that Mr Iscariot did his friend a bad one. Ever since then, there's been schism after schism after schism. Even Peter and Paul saw and did things differently. In the modern day, we're talking about rivalries so deep that even moving a ladder[1] is proven impossible, so how "they're only _claiming_ to be christians, and aren't _actually_ christians" passes muster, I don't know. These are the heads of christian sects going back more than a millenium, who disagree on what it means to be christian. Folks who are in charge of multiple large houses of worship, with large congregations that see them as their christian guides... but somehow "oh, I don't think they see it right, therefore 'not christian'"? "No True Scotsman" is perfectly appropriate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immovable_Ladder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immovable_Ladder

ekianjo 10y ago

> contradict themselves all over the place There are some contradictions but claiming that it's all over the place is a blanket statement. And do not forget that while the Bible contains the ancient scriptures, they should be seen in the light of the Gospel (i.e. what Jesus supposedly said about them) rather than on their own, in Christianism.

nvahalik 10y ago

> I'm not even sure what an "actual christian" would be because the books that make up the christian faith contradict themselves all over the place. Seemingly contradict. Have you reviewed what the other side has to say[1] on this matter? Ever had something that didn't seem to make sense until you saw a different perspective on it? > You could even make arguments that some of the books are false or that some of the apocryphal books are real. Physical presence of a book doesn't make it scripture. And that's exactly what Christians believe the Bible is: scripture. And it is held to a very different set of standards than what is not scripture. > Because there is no factual bedrock underlying religion there is no truth to be found and anyone can just claim anything and ascribe it to whatever religion they want for the most part. I suppose that depends on what you mean by "no factual bedrock". You and I exist. We have these things called "logic", "reason", and "truth" which cannot be explained in a solely materialistic fashion. There are things such as "ethics" and "morality" which not only exist but a surprising amount of people adhere to. Christians make the claim that the only reason any of this makes sense is because we are created by God and that it is His design and decree which allow us to understand the world around us. No secular/nontheistic worldview can truly offer a response to this that doesn't look to itself. [1]: http://defendinginerrancy.com/contradictions-inerrancy/ http://defendinginerrancy.com/contradictions-inerrancy/

flukus 10y ago
> Physical presence of a book doesn't make it scripture. And that's exactly what Christians believe the Bible is: scripture. And it is held to a very different set of standards than what is not scripture. Not all christians agree on what is and isn't in the bible. There is no single Christian bible. I have no doubt there are some sects out there that don't have a bible, for a couple of hundred years no christians did.
- nvahalik 10y ago
  I'd suggest you check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqcwcxoxoUo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqcwcxoxoUo And then we could probably have a reasonable conversation about it.