/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>647608

Depends on your translation of the Bible.

The answer to your question is the Nicene Creed.

>>647608

The No True Scotsman fallacy is only concerned with people trying to go beyond the actual definition of something.

For example, if a man were to say that only true Scotsmen have tea in the morning, he'd be wrong. By technicality, anyone who is born in Scotland and is ethnically Scottish is a true Scotsman, tastes can vary.

As for Christianity, there is certainly a robust, complete definition of what it is to be a Christian, far more detailed than qualifications for belonging to a particular ethnic group.

If the argument is "only true Christians read their Scriptures during meals" or something akin to that, then yes the fallacy applies.

If the argument is "only true Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God," then that's not fallacious, because that's encoded in the definition of Christianity.

>>647608

Depends how you define Christian. Atheists define everyone who claims to be a Christian as a Christian so they're quick to pull out the 'no true Scotsman'. Most (true) Christians would define it with the Nicene creed.

>>647620

this. Nice explanation on the fallacy

Found this on plebbit and it seemed helpful:

No True Scotsman is committed when you try to use a criteria irrelevant to the category in order to exclude someone from the category by creating a new category using the modifier "true." It's often used as a rescuing device when confronted by a fact that the person doesn't like.

For example:

Person A: "No Scotsman would be caught dead wearing pants instead of a kilt"

Person B: "But my friend Sean was born in Edinburgh, and he wears pants."

Person A: "Well, if he doesn't wear a kilt, he isn't a "True Scotsman.""

One of the difficulties in discussing this fallacy is that there is a difference between a true Scotsman and a "True Scotsman." What I mean is that a Scotsman is a person born in or naturalized to Scotland, and in that sense is true. That's just a Scotsman, no need to append "True". However, when talking about members of a religious community, you run into the problem of conflicting standards of membership.

For example, let's examine a few definitions of "Christian":

A person baptized into the Catholic Church.

A person who is a member in good standing of a Christian church.

A person who has asked Jesus into their heart and repented of their sin.

Those aren't the only definitions, there are others. However, you can see how a person who holds to definition 1 might exclude people who don't meet that standard, even though they do meet the criteria for 2 or 3.

The big thing that marks a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, in cases where there is a conflict of definitions, is whether the person using it is being consistent with their own definition.

Lets say an evangelical says that a woman who has an abortion is "No True Christian". In this case, they are being inconsistent with their own definition. The evangelical definition is going to be something close to 3, which means that this evangelical is now adding an irrelevant criteria to their already stated definition to try to exclude this woman.

One more point I'd like to add is that the presence of conflicting definitions does not lead to the conclusion that there is no proper definition that excludes some of the others. One of the reasons this fallacy is sometimes claimed inappropriately is that, in a case of conflicting definitions, the word "true" may be used in order to draw attention to the one the speaker honestly believes is the only proper definition. This is not fallacious use, fallacious use is a dishonest exclusion due to irrelevant criteria.

No. No true scotsman was born out of Scotland.

No true Christian doesn't follow the teachings of Christ.

>>647620

The true Scotsmen fallacy is often misunderstood, and your post is an example.

The issue is not a definition, it is changing the definition mid-argument when a counter example is presented.

The "true Scotsman" fallacy can only occur when the definition of Scotsman was actually agreed upon before the debate began.

Scotsman is easy, since, the definition is basically one born and reared in Scotland.

However, what it means to be Christian has been hotly in debate for 2000 years.

Once you and your opponent agrees, for the purposes of your argument, what a Christian is- then you can't change the definition again during said argument- or you would be committing the "true Scotsman" fallacy.

>>647644

>what it means to be Christian has been hotly in debate for 2000 years

The braying of heretics hardly counts as debate

>>647649

It totally does count.

I agree that the heretics are totally wrong but Christ's message was so true and powerful that evil men have been attempting to co-opt it (and always eventually failing) since the beginning.

With such theological argument out there, anyone who drops into a debate with first defining what they mean by "Christian" are just two folks talking past each other. The true scotsman fallacy wouldn't apply in that case though.

The No True Scotsman is an informal fallacy in which someone, when confronted with contrary evidence, constantly shifts his definition of what something is in order to remain consistent. Pseudointellectuals will claim that for a Christian to deny that a self-proclaimed Christian is actually a Christian (or at least to claim that he is a bad Christian) is an instance of this informal fallacy, but this is ridiculous, since historically Christians have always defined "Christian" as, in part, someone who acts in a way consistent with Christian belief. In fact, the general Christian populace's view of what constitutes a Christian has, if anything, become more lax in recent times.

Anyway, in general I would not pay much attention to internet atheists and their rhetorical devices. The No True Scotsman "fallacy" and most other informal "fallacies" were invented by internet atheists or some other relatively recent equivalent, and exist for dumb people to make themselves feel smart; there is a persistent belief among pseudointellectuals that putting a name on something makes their argument stronger, even if the name is unfitting or redundant.

>>647675

>since historically Christians have always defined "Christian" as, in part, someone who acts in a way consistent with Christian belief.

You could just use the biblical definition of christian in acts 11:26

>And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

A disciple of Christ is a synonym for Christian biblically speaking. The disciples were simply followers of Christ. So is a Christian, a follower of Christ.

>or at least to claim that he is a bad Christian) is an instance of this informal fallacy

matthew 19:17

>And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.