what being apart from the law means.

[Drich]

He will keep using versions of the No True Scotsman fallacy until he realises he could be wrong. For now though, clearly none of us knew how to A/S/K properly because it's not like we dedicated our time, skills & money to Bible God during our sincere time as Christians. Clearly we were closet atheists all along.

That is to say, technically a "No True Scotsman" is an attempt to retain a previously unreasoned assertion. If such an assertion is missing, then the fallacy cannot be committed in its most strict interpretation. This isn't to say that other fallacies aren't being committed, as for instance the statement "No true vegetarian would eat broccoli" is quite obviously invalid. Perhaps a simpler way of explaining this would be to note that the "No True Scotsman" is a type of equivocation fallacy; a fallacy where more than one definition of a word is used in order to switch definition mid-argument. Thus, when a person has started off by stating "No true X...", a "No True Scotsman" fallacy hasn't been committed, because only one definition is being used.

There are of course numerous statements which use the "No true..." prefix and are perfectly valid:

"No true vegetarian would eat meat."
"No true atheist believes in God."
"No true Christian believes that Jesus isn't the son of God."

...etc.

None of these are examples of the fallacy, nor do they become examples of the fallacy if you add in the two neccessary preceding steps. For example, the following argument is not an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

A: No vegetarian would eat meat.
B: My friend is a vegetarian and eats meat regularly.
A: Well, no true vegetarian would eat meat.

In this instance, A is perfectly justified in their claim that no true vegetarians would eat meat. Why? Because the very definition of a vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat. This is an important factor to consider before charging someone with committing a "No True Scotsman"; that if the definition of the word contains some restriction on people who use it to describe themselves, anyone who has some attribute which is contrary to that restriction cannot logically justify themselves with that definition.

In other words, pertaining to my example, the true fallacy lies with the friend of B, who is claiming to be a vegetarian and yet eats meat. This is logically impossible, and so we can deduce (as A does) that B's friend is not a true vegetarian, despite claiming to be such.

-Tiberius
http://atheistforums.org/thread-8414.html

---

Are you now denying the fact that you said you did not continually knock? That "you could not find the door?"

If you did not know where to knock, then one would ask how could you have knocked? Not to mention you did not even understand what it was to knock till we just now (two or three posts ago) Cleared up the primise of knocking was just repeating the whole process. So I ask again if you did not know what the third step in the process was, then how could you possiable say that you completed every step?

I have no doubt you have very sincerly approached God doing everything a given church told you to do. No question. What I am showing you here is not a given denomination's approach to God. I am showing what Christ Himself said. This is What God the Son said do, IF you want to know God no filter no multiple quote theology. I took what was on page in context and explained it when you asked what was meant. Meaning if you want to know God then you will have to submit yourself and do what He Himself said do.

You said knocking on the door is just looking and searching until you find him? I looked, I searched, and I told you outright I'm not doing it all my life just to get years of silence from a seemingly uncaring god. How am I to know that this is just silence, or if I'm making futile efforts? That's what I said, I haven't changed it.

Unless I misunderstood what you meant by "knocking on the door", I don't see how you can say I didn't do what you said.

Let me put it to you also that I read the bible, I read what Jesus said about it all, the sermon on the mount I think being where he put down this sort of thing. It hasn't worked, and I understand why you as a christian can't accept that, but it's the truth.

To ask: This is directly asking God for the Holy Spirit. In other words to pray.

To Seek: To read your bible, to ask another christian to help you answer your questions, To study these are all examples of seeking.

To knock. To repeat this process till you find what it is you have been asking and seeking after. (A measure of the Holy Spirit.)

---

None of my story changed. I tried this method years ago, and I tried it again when we got into this thread, to your specifications when you told me the particulars of how your type of christianity does it.

There seems to be a missing element in all this: contrition. I'm not saying you did this, but a person cannot just demand a King obey one' summons. All the knocking and asking must follow after true repentance and the request must be made from a humble heart. And I'm not saying this applies to you either, but an arrogant request will be met with silence. Only you know if that applies to you or not.

I use to think so too.

But, after working with people who do not know God I realized that true repentance is not possiable,(Too many years of justification, which causes the heart to become callous to sin) unless one first is convicted of sin, true repentance is hopless. This level of conviction is not possiable unless the Holy Spirit convicts. Which Brings us back to what Chirst told us to A/S/K for in Luke 11 starting at verse 5.

When one A/S/K like the model Christ lays out in Luke 11 'Conviction' or an acute awareness of one's sin of choice becomes an issue that has to be dealt with. Either one repents or ignores the urgings of the Spirit. If one learns to repent then that person will be blessed with a larger portion of the Spirit. If he does not, then what he was given will be taken away and given to someone else.

---

You guys are trying to hold conversations with a brain damaged chimp and a retarded vegetable.

Esquilax does not like to be called names.