I'm of the opinion that the "no true Scotsman" is one of the most misused logical fallacies in the history of critical thought, people who use it can often fall into the trap of some form of "guilt by association" or deem that the person defining themselves as x has some authority over the definition of x.
It entirely depends on the rigidity of the definition, not what a person believes they are or labels themselves as, but on whether or not they meet the criteria established.
In you define "Christian" as a person who believes in Jesus then any person who believes is a Christian, I'm not so sure that it's a good enough definition, for instance; A satanist who believes in Jesus but worships Satan and does not take as an authoritative moral source any of the content of the New Testament. Suppose for the sake of argument that a "Christian" is a person who not only believes in Jesus as the son of god, but also believes him to be a moral authority who's moral teachings are expressed in the New Testament - That I feel is a better definition. So a person who believes in Jesus and believes the NT is a source of moral authority may be justifiably called a Christian.
This is where the "No true Scotsman" may be applicable (if the definition is sufficient), suppose a person is a Christian but acts in a way that is contrary to the instructions present in the NT, would one be justified in saying he is not a "True Christian"(TC)? No, not if the definition of Christian is as I presented above.
This is why it seems some Christians believe that to be "Christian" is to be "Christ like" a definition that encompasses the aforementioned definition and requires that one behaves at all times as Jesus would given the same circumstance, it is not simply a matter of belief but one of action. Given this definition of "Christian" you would very much be justified in calling someone who behaves in a way that is not prescribed in the NT as "Not a true Christian".
That however also raises problem, or more frankly, an absurdity. Suppose someone is a Christian in the sense of the second definition, does their committing an act or series of acts that are forbidden in the NT make them a "False Christian" (FC) for the period of time in which they committed these acts? It seems bizarre to me that you could be TC up until a point in time where you coveted another mans car where you would become a FC, and then once you stop coveting his car you are a TC again.
Perhaps you are a FC until such point in time as you repent for your sins. Well suppose a TC is a pedophile, he rapes little altar boys and is therefore a FC, then asks for forgiveness and becomes a TC again, then rapes another altar boy and once again becomes an FC and so on and so forth, this juggling of TC and FC is not only bizarre but makes it clear that the Christians who insist on such a definition as "Christ like" do so in such a way that absolutely wreaks of intellectual spinelessness.
So for now I stand that a TC is a person who "Believes that Jesus is the son of god and that the NT is a source of moral authority", though it would be interesting to see what some of our Christian members think of these terms.
It entirely depends on the rigidity of the definition, not what a person believes they are or labels themselves as, but on whether or not they meet the criteria established.
In you define "Christian" as a person who believes in Jesus then any person who believes is a Christian, I'm not so sure that it's a good enough definition, for instance; A satanist who believes in Jesus but worships Satan and does not take as an authoritative moral source any of the content of the New Testament. Suppose for the sake of argument that a "Christian" is a person who not only believes in Jesus as the son of god, but also believes him to be a moral authority who's moral teachings are expressed in the New Testament - That I feel is a better definition. So a person who believes in Jesus and believes the NT is a source of moral authority may be justifiably called a Christian.
This is where the "No true Scotsman" may be applicable (if the definition is sufficient), suppose a person is a Christian but acts in a way that is contrary to the instructions present in the NT, would one be justified in saying he is not a "True Christian"(TC)? No, not if the definition of Christian is as I presented above.
This is why it seems some Christians believe that to be "Christian" is to be "Christ like" a definition that encompasses the aforementioned definition and requires that one behaves at all times as Jesus would given the same circumstance, it is not simply a matter of belief but one of action. Given this definition of "Christian" you would very much be justified in calling someone who behaves in a way that is not prescribed in the NT as "Not a true Christian".
That however also raises problem, or more frankly, an absurdity. Suppose someone is a Christian in the sense of the second definition, does their committing an act or series of acts that are forbidden in the NT make them a "False Christian" (FC) for the period of time in which they committed these acts? It seems bizarre to me that you could be TC up until a point in time where you coveted another mans car where you would become a FC, and then once you stop coveting his car you are a TC again.
Perhaps you are a FC until such point in time as you repent for your sins. Well suppose a TC is a pedophile, he rapes little altar boys and is therefore a FC, then asks for forgiveness and becomes a TC again, then rapes another altar boy and once again becomes an FC and so on and so forth, this juggling of TC and FC is not only bizarre but makes it clear that the Christians who insist on such a definition as "Christ like" do so in such a way that absolutely wreaks of intellectual spinelessness.
So for now I stand that a TC is a person who "Believes that Jesus is the son of god and that the NT is a source of moral authority", though it would be interesting to see what some of our Christian members think of these terms.
.
