(August 8, 2014 at 5:12 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(August 8, 2014 at 4:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ...may not act as a Christian ought to, but that does not make them not Christian...

That's one of the dilemma's of orthodox Christianity is that you don't need to be a very good Christian to enjoy your "Get-Out-of-Hell-Free" card. People get sorted into two groups: saved and not-saved. It's a pass-fail test. Most other religions, and some Christian denominations like Swedenborgians (that's me), make allowances for how well you followed the specific practices and teachings of the faith.

The "saved" doctrine is followed by many Protestant denominations. I, and apparently you also, find this doctrine to be incorrect. I also believe it to be antichristian and blasphemous because, according to this doctrine, human beings decide that they are going to Heaven - and NOT God. In other words, these people are claiming that they are ABOVE God. According to this, they have no reason to be God-fearing if they are above Him.

And right on cue, you make Rhythm's point.

-and yet they are god fearing lovers of christ, same as yourself. You've misrepresented their position immensely, no surprise there. "They" don't decide, "god" decides - on the basis of faith. Sola fide and all that jazz.

@Whateverist
-But what does it mean to believe in God? Does embracing an allegorical conception of God make one a Christian? Would a person who conceptualizes gods as a potential of the psyche generally and who recognizes the Christian God as alive and well in his own psyche count as a true Christian? What counts as belief probably has to get parsed as well.
Well, I would leave these questions to be answered by the believer. The declarative statement of the individual in question usually is the final word. When someone calls himself a Christian, and claims to believe in God, I have no other choice but to put them under that category from my personal perspective.
Also, these "this is the true one" classifications are utter nonsense. All Christians are "true" Christians, there should be no debate over subjective requirements for a position of faith.

More and more, as outspoken atheists become more acknowledged and seen in the public sphere, I am noticing from my American friends a "No True Atheist" fallacy now being use.

I guess as atheism becomes more popular in the States, you will see more and more outspoken atheists being shunned for not being secular (educated, rational, logical) enough for other atheists.

At its heart, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is one of equivocation, using a single term in multiple senses in linked clauses of an argument.

Since who is a Christian is defined by beliefs, not actions, if you try to put limits on the term according to this or that Christian's behavior, you're likely to invoke the fallacy by implication, as you're now appealing to two different senses, the sense in which a Christian is someone who believes certain things, which is the default, and Christian as in the sense of "being Christian" or "behaving in a Christian manner." Thus you're appealing to two different senses of "Christian" in a way that is logically invalid. So even if all the pieces of Tibbs outline aren't necessarily there, in the cliched example, I don't think they necessarily have to be to sustain the charge.

I don't get the point of the OP's entire set up. It seems like a prelude to attempting to engage in the fallacy with weak philosophical justifications.

(August 9, 2014 at 2:27 am)orangebox21 Wrote: LOL. Well done, truly, well done.

Thank "q" thank "q"

I can't believe stimmy didn't snap that one up first.

(August 9, 2014 at 1:38 pm)Polaris Wrote: More and more, as outspoken atheists become more acknowledged and seen in the public sphere, I am noticing from my American friends a "No True Atheist" fallacy now being use.

I guess as atheism becomes more popular in the States, you will see more and more outspoken atheists being shunned for not being secular (educated, rational, logical) enough for other atheists.

It's an easier line to draw, though. If you're not a true atheist, then you're... a theist.

(August 9, 2014 at 2:27 am)orangebox21 Wrote: @Tonus, Rhythm, Baqal, Thumpalumpacus, Ryantology
So who is a Christian and what is a valid expression of Christianity?

"By the fruit shall ye judge the tree." I think all Christian actions, individually or in concert, speak to the nature of Christianity, for better or for worse.

As for "who is a Christian," I've already answered.

---

(August 9, 2014 at 2:27 am)orangebox21 Wrote: The Bible is the objective description of what a valid expression of Christianity is and who a Christian is.

Oddly enough, the "objective description" is subjective enough to cause murderous wars, amongst other disagreements.