RE: Two possibilities...
October 1, 2015 at 10:53 am
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2015 at 10:58 am by TheRocketSurgeon.
Edit Reason: Originally wrote, "Jesus the Savor", which is funny but inaccurate.
)
(October 1, 2015 at 9:44 am)Drich Wrote:(October 1, 2015 at 9:10 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
did you read those definations?
Because the 'No true scots' fallacy center around not being able to disqualify a person from being apart of a social grouping when their are no rules governing that particular objection/attempted disqualification.
The example being 'no true Scotsman' would put sugar in his porage... well their aren't any rules concerning being a Scotsman and sugar in porage. however one could indeed say no scot could be born in Germany from a strictly German decent. why? Because a Scotsman in this case would be referring to one's country of origin, and as such where and to whom one is born defines one's country of orgin.
Like wise Their are terms and conditions that make one Christian. If one charges that another can not be a Christian, and conduct something like the Spanish Inquision then yes we can look at those acts and see where they were in direct violation of the laws governing Christianity.
Now I will concede their are times when people say a true Christian won't XYZ and XYZ is not in the bible. Yes that would be an example of a no true scots fallacy applied to Christianity. However the No true Scots fallacy does not refer to the term 'No true christian' never being used. Because clearly their are times when behavior exceeds the boundries of a given social group that would disqualify a given person or who group of people from said group because their actions clearly breaks the rules of said group.
We understand what you mean when you give your definition of Christian, because we recognize you as a Bible Idolator.
However, the point remains that a person can be a Christian without ever having seen, read, or even heard of a Bible.
All they have to do is be told of Jesus the Savior, and accept that Jesus died to atone for our sins so we can go to heaven to be with God.
That's a Christian, period. All the Bible does is record the various stories that make up Christianity's lore-set and alleged history.
So when you Bible Idolators tell us your various versions of what is and isn't in the Bible, and say this particular version (or that one) is the Only Right Way To Be A Christian™, that's the No True Scotsman.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
