S
STT
Guest
I didn’t say that it is possible. I meant it is impossible that a war between nations occurs if they are true Christian.
- Status
S
STT
Guest
They were not true Christian then.
N
neonblue
Guest
It all comes down to conscience and the authority of God’s word, a true Christian would know the authority of God’s Word and then of course God becomes his conscience or I should the Holy Spirit of God becomes his conscience.
I won’t give an example, I been a Christian for 30yrs. and most of those yrs. were spent in reading the Scriptures ,well perhaps I will give one example if I put myself in the shoes of those “true Christians” you talked about I rather obey the authority of God’s Word and let His peace reign in my conscience.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I was asking STT to give the example. It was STT’s post I was responding to.
N
neonblue
Guest
Fair Enough.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
So, tell me, is this a “true” whale or a “true” shark?
It is known as a whale shark.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
How would you know?
So, if I were to claim it wasn’t a true whale but it was a “true” shark, what would you say? Am I invoking a True Scotsman fallacy by doing so? Why wouldn’t I be, according to your standards?
P
PRmerger
Guest
And I’m certain it wasn’t a satisfactory answer for your children.
“Danny suffered and died at age 12, and that’s just the way it is, Son.”
That doesn’t answer the question, at all.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I suppose that just as Christians have fought against each other, so too have various fish and aquatic animals fought against each other. The battles are fought regardless of which one is the true specimen. Living creatures smell by God. The label “true” smells by man.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I suppose changing the subject counts as answering the question.
So you are not really interested in defending your point, then?
I
inocente
Guest
Seemed to me the point was that it’s a logical fallacy to make the ad hoc generalization that no true Christian would go to war.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
T
tonyrey
Guest
Precisely. It is a form of fatalism which implies we have no power to change anything, even the way we think - which is obviously self-contradictory. Our conclusions are more likely to be false than true if we cannot choose what to believe. There are far more ways of being wrong than right…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Precisely. It is a form of fatalism which implies we have no power to change anything, even the way we think - which is obviously self-contradictory. Our conclusions are more likely to be false than true if we cannot choose what to believe. There are far more ways of being wrong than right… and the burden of proof is still on non-believers to prove God doesn’t exist… Why else have so many atheists tried to prove “that’s just the way it is”? Determinism is only a human theory (which doesn’t correspond to the way any sane person lives).
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep.
Not to mention, it’s such a peculiar paradigm for an atheist to leave such an important question essentially unanswered.
For no other scientific pursuit would “that’s just the way it is” be an acceptable answer.
That is, in fact, the antithesis of science.
Why, then, is it sufficient for this question?
T
tonyrey
Guest
That is a formidable challenge to the coherence of atheism which seems based on aversion to religion rather a rational objection. Perhaps it is a case of wishful thinking because belief in the existence of God dramatically revolutionises our attitude to life. It strips us of our independence in one respect but at a deeper level gives it a logical foundation. Physical energy certainly doesn’t explain personal autonomy…
P
PRmerger
Guest
And this aversion is manifested, subtly, by the atheist’s “sometimes I’m ok with not knowing the why”.
Rather than pursue the logical direction a question leads (towards Theism), the atheist will, peculiarly, say, “Hey, I don’t need to know all the answers”.
And we all know why there is this sudden tolerance of lack of knowledge.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
While that may be true, it is equally correct to point out that when the No True Scotsman fallacy is invoked in an argument, it is typically invoked by those who balk at clearly defining what a “Scotsman” is in the first place. Ergo, you are damned if you do AND damned if you don’t.
Would a “true” shark ever be a filter feeder surviving on plankton? Well, that depends upon how “shark” is defined, I suppose. When a scientifically precise definition of “shark” exists, clearly sharks need not be sharp-toothed killers of the deep. The No True Shark fallacy cannot be invoked in this instance BECAUSE a well-developed and precise definition of shark exists. The ONLY reason that the No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy is because the one invoking it does not permit a well-defined definition of “Scotsman.” If they did, the fallacy wouldn’t exist.
Same with no true Christian. My guess is that anyone who invokes No True Christian in order to call out what they say is a fallacious claim will not permit the word “Christian” to be well-defined in the first place. They will argue against any definition in order to appeal to the No True Scotsman fallacy to dismiss any claim they don’t like with reference to Christians.
I recently listened to Richard Carrier attempting to argue that Hitler was a specific kind of neo-Christian even though he didn’t accept the divinity of Christ and rejected pretty much everything else Christianity teaches. When it was pointed out by Richard Weikart that Muslims, too, believe what Hitler believed about Christ and, therefore, by Carrier’s method of determining who can be identified as Christians, Muslims would be. He never got the point. He simply argued that Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons had similar beliefs as Hitler about Christ and he, Carrier, would classify them as “Christians.”
The point being that if we are going to be sloppy with regard to defining the meaning of words, everything and anything we have to say will just be one big fallacy. It starts with the refusal by would-be discussers to be precise, which is why philosophy is the art of making distinctions.
Before we make any claims about “true” Christians, we need to arrive at a proper definition of what it means to be “Christian” in the first place. Absent that, nothing we have to say will be worth discussing.
- Status