No True Scotsman
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2012, 05:38 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(19-03-2012 11:50 AM)Denicio Wrote:  So as a full blown outspoken atheist..i still meddle in the christian rock industry. Hell last year i finished up 2 gospel CD's!!! HA!!

Don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to profit from the delusions of the masses any less than their preachers who don't believe the shit they're feeding their congregations either. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2012, 07:37 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(19-03-2012 01:28 PM)Denicio Wrote:  The Apostle Steve Martin spoke about similar things too. In his letter..known as 2nd Jerk, chapter 2 verse twelve he speaks about "My Speical Purpose" and the Saint Patty who helped show him his Special Purpose!
Lucky for us, we have video of this blessed event.
Start watching at about 1:50 to see Saint Patty reveal the Special Purpose.

Ah, yes. It brings back such memories...

Memories of the movie, I mean. I can't remember what my special purpose is for. Undecided

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2012, 08:07 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(16-03-2012 07:38 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Many of you are probably already familiar with this logical fallacy. As Wikipedia defines it, a person who is faced with a counterexample to their claim will change the claim so that the counterexample no longer fits the claim. The example it's based on goes like this:

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

The point that I'm making here on an atheist/theist thread is this: when you try to make a statement about Christians to a Christian, it's almost certain that they will say you're straw-manning their position because the Christians you're referring to aren't real Christians.

I face this argument mainly when I tell Christians that I was once a Christian but am now an atheist. "I believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, but now I do not". And that's when I'm told that I must not have been a true Christian, because no true Christian de-converts.

Do any of you ever face the same argument? Have you had experiences where people claimed that your religious belief isn't real, even including being told that you're not a real atheist?
No True Scotsman: As concerning Christians.

First and foremost, if your talking about Christians the only source that is valid is the bible for reference purposes. So anything I add comes strictly in that context.

For the sake of argument: let us presume the bible to be true, whether that is debatable or not.

The bible teaches that there are true Christians as well as false, so the No True Scotsman fallacy would only apply to those who are false. Only the bible can define what a true Christian is. The bible is not open to private interpretation but simply states the truth. The truth of the bible is objective but is addressed by those who come to it with a subjective point of view. Being a Christian is partaking in a process of having your subjective reality conformed to the objective reality that God has set forth in his word. It is a process that one begins in a place contrary to the way God is and thinks, and leads to having ones thoughts in line with Gods.

The bible teaches that honest to God true believers can and do loose their faith and become atheists. To those here to claim to have that position, they have my full support concerning their claim to have once followed as a disciple but since departed.

The single most important claim the bible makes concerns the fall of man. According to the bible, man was created in the image of God in all but one area. That area being faced with the need to make moral judgments. But upon the act of disobedience, man acquired this new ability. What was once a single objective truth was thrown into the position of being subjective as there was suddenly more than one view on everything. What follows is human history of infighting over who is right and who is wrong about any given matter.

No True Scotsman when applied to Christianity rests in those who maintain that they are the ones who truly know, but not as has been revealed by God. They are those who define God using their intellect through subjective thinking rather than by revelation of objectivity set forth by God.

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 08:49 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: No True Scotsman
(28-03-2012 08:07 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  The bible teaches that honest to God true believers can and do loose their faith and become atheists. To those here to claim to have that position, they have my full support concerning their claim to have once followed as a disciple but since departed.

I'm really, really going to have to disagree with you. Please show me where in the Bible it says this. Also if this is true, please explain these verses:

Romans 8:38-39
38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


2 Thess 2:13-14
13But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.


In Thessalonians it shows us the love of Christ and in Romans it shows us that nothing can separate us from it. So, the only conclusion that you can come to is this: those that do not believe or fall away were never believers.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
29-03-2012, 09:22 AM
RE: No True Scotsman
(29-03-2012 08:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  2 Thess 2:13 because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
This, taken literally, would also indicate that atheist or not if you are chosen for salvation then your actions have no bearing on it. It also pretty much destroys any ideas about free will. Not that philosophy hasn't already done that.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 09:54 AM
RE: No True Scotsman
(28-03-2012 08:07 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  First and foremost, if your talking about Christians the only source that is valid is the bible for reference purposes. So anything I add comes strictly in that context.

For the sake of argument: let us presume the bible to be true, whether that is debatable or not.

The bible teaches that there are true Christians as well as false, so the No True Scotsman fallacy would only apply to those who are false. Only the bible can define what a true Christian is. The bible is not open to private interpretation but simply states the truth. The truth of the bible is objective but is addressed by those who come to it with a subjective point of view. Being a Christian is partaking in a process of having your subjective reality conformed to the objective reality that God has set forth in his word. It is a process that one begins in a place contrary to the way God is and thinks, and leads to having ones thoughts in line with Gods.

The bible teaches that honest to God true believers can and do loose their faith and become atheists. To those here to claim to have that position, they have my full support concerning their claim to have once followed as a disciple but since departed.

The single most important claim the bible makes concerns the fall of man. According to the bible, man was created in the image of God in all but one area. That area being faced with the need to make moral judgments. But upon the act of disobedience, man acquired this new ability. What was once a single objective truth was thrown into the position of being subjective as there was suddenly more than one view on everything. What follows is human history of infighting over who is right and who is wrong about any given matter.

No True Scotsman when applied to Christianity rests in those who maintain that they are the ones who truly know, but not as has been revealed by God. They are those who define God using their intellect through subjective thinking rather than by revelation of objectivity set forth by God.

Gary
The term "Christian" shows up in the bible a total of 3 times: Acts 11:26 , Acts 26:28 , and 1 Peter 4:16 . None of these passages are about how to become a Christian, and they certainly don't speak about "false" Christians. You didn't cite any scripture to back up your claim that there is a mention of "false Christians" and I didn't find any on my own. I think you're making it up. Are you confusing it with "false prophets"? Even if you are, the indicators of a "false prophet" are not listed and even though there's a warning to look out for them, there's no explanation of how one would do so.

The word usually used by the bible is "saved"/"salvation", and there are plenty of passages about that... but they don't necessarily coincide. I mentioned "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved", and I think many people accept this definition... but you don't because you said that some Christians "believe" but don't "follow". Not only that, but the verse goes on to say that one's household will also be saved , and I have yet to meet a Christian that actually accepts that as true. There is also the famous passage where a rich man asks Jesus how to be saved, and Jesus tells him nothing about belief ... he first tells the man to follow the commandments (naming 5 of the 10 commandments and one that isn't one of the 10) and when the man professes that he has already done that then Jesus tells him to get rid of his possessions and give them to the poor. Does any Christian subscribe to this concept? Why did Jesus, upon being asked about how to become "saved" quite literally, mention nothing about faith or belief but instead instructs him on what actions to perform (none of which involve prayer)?

You say that salvation has been "revealed by God", but here's the problem with that... Christians of varying denominations all claim to be in communication with God. How come God hasn't told either Protestants or Catholics "the way that you thought you became saved was all wrong"? Why hasn't God, who you believe is communicating with his people, corrected those who are mis-following him or mis-interpreting his bible? My answer would be that obviously nobody is communicating with God, and the ambiguity of his "answers" could lead people to think that God never corrects those who talk to it but rather always confirms that the believer is right on track.

You throw around the word "objective", but with many different interpretations of scripture, how exactly does one evaluate it "objectively"? Is there someone who can translate scripture that doesn't have a biased interest in how it's translated? Even if you got your answer "straight from God's mouth", do you really think that would be an "objective" answer? I know that many Christians think that objective means "not from a human subjectivity" rather than "not from subjectivity", but the dictionary doesn't define it that way... and the dictionary is the one tool that is unbiased on such a subject, or in other words, an objective source.


(29-03-2012 08:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Romans 8:38-39
38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


2 Thess 2:13-14
13But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I would also add John 10:28
Quote:
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.


This is why there are many Christians that have an interest in proving that I was not, at one time, Christian.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
29-03-2012, 08:17 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(29-03-2012 09:54 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(28-03-2012 08:07 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  First and foremost, if your talking about Christians the only source that is valid is the bible for reference purposes. So anything I add comes strictly in that context.

For the sake of argument: let us presume the bible to be true, whether that is debatable or not.

The bible teaches that there are true Christians as well as false, so the No True Scotsman fallacy would only apply to those who are false. Only the bible can define what a true Christian is. The bible is not open to private interpretation but simply states the truth. The truth of the bible is objective but is addressed by those who come to it with a subjective point of view. Being a Christian is partaking in a process of having your subjective reality conformed to the objective reality that God has set forth in his word. It is a process that one begins in a place contrary to the way God is and thinks, and leads to having ones thoughts in line with Gods.

The bible teaches that honest to God true believers can and do loose their faith and become atheists. To those here to claim to have that position, they have my full support concerning their claim to have once followed as a disciple but since departed.

The single most important claim the bible makes concerns the fall of man. According to the bible, man was created in the image of God in all but one area. That area being faced with the need to make moral judgments. But upon the act of disobedience, man acquired this new ability. What was once a single objective truth was thrown into the position of being subjective as there was suddenly more than one view on everything. What follows is human history of infighting over who is right and who is wrong about any given matter.

No True Scotsman when applied to Christianity rests in those who maintain that they are the ones who truly know, but not as has been revealed by God. They are those who define God using their intellect through subjective thinking rather than by revelation of objectivity set forth by God.

Gary
The term "Christian" shows up in the bible a total of 3 times: Acts 11:26 , Acts 26:28 , and 1 Peter 4:16 . None of these passages are about how to become a Christian, and they certainly don't speak about "false" Christians. You didn't cite any scripture to back up your claim that there is a mention of "false Christians" and I didn't find any on my own. I think you're making it up. Are you confusing it with "false prophets"? Even if you are, the indicators of a "false prophet" are not listed and even though there's a warning to look out for them, there's no explanation of how one would do so.

Is this reply serious? You look for the word Christian in the bible and expect to find instructions on how to be one? You expect to find the term false Christian in order to understand what one of them is? If you would like to go over the scriptures that describe false Christians, I'd be happy to dig them up but only if your serious.

Quote:The word usually used by the bible is "saved"/"salvation", and there are plenty of passages about that... but they don't necessarily coincide. I mentioned "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved", and I think many people accept this definition... but you don't because you said that some Christians "believe" but don't "follow". Not only that, but the verse goes on to say that one's household will also be saved , and I have yet to meet a Christian that actually accepts that as true.

I do accept that definition, albeit not necessarily what many think it means. The bible interprets and defines itself quite nicely but people reject the bibles teaching over their own decisions of what words or phrases mean. To believe does not mean to merely give mental assent to that which is spoken. Biblical faith that ends in receiving the imputed righteousness of Christ is stated elsewhere such as Romans 4 when referring to Abraham.

I accept the scriptures as true, even this one about a persons household being saved. What exactly it is stating, I am not sure of. I understand what it appears to be saying but do not have sufficient other biblical texts to support the apparent meaning of the verse.

Quote: There is also the famous passage where a rich man asks Jesus how to be saved, and Jesus tells him nothing about belief ... he first tells the man to follow the commandments (naming 5 of the 10 commandments and one that isn't one of the 10) and when the man professes that he has already done that then Jesus tells him to get rid of his possessions and give them to the poor. Does any Christian subscribe to this concept? Why did Jesus, upon being asked about how to become "saved" quite literally, mention nothing about faith or belief but instead instructs him on what actions to perform (none of which involve prayer)?

This is an excellent point, yet your having difficulty seeing what is actually being said there. You say that Jesus says nothing about faith but clearly it is a matter of faith to follow the commandments of God instead of just doing things your own way. Faith is about works/deeds which is a very biblical concept that most who profess to be Christians don't believe.

Yes there are Christians who subscribe to the concept spoken of as far as possessions go. To understand it as one cannot own anything would be error but to understand it as one should not possess things is different. This is yet another concept that can be found in other places in scripture that deal with the proper use of Gods things here on earth while we are yet stewards. I would be more than happy to go over all of these too, if your interested in learning how to live according to Gods standard for yourself. Just to debate the point is rather useless though.
Quote:You say that salvation has been "revealed by God", but here's the problem with that... Christians of varying denominations all claim to be in communication with God. How come God hasn't told either Protestants or Catholics "the way that you thought you became saved was all wrong"? Why hasn't God, who you believe is communicating with his people, corrected those who are mis-following him or mis-interpreting his bible? My answer would be that obviously nobody is communicating with God, and the ambiguity of his "answers" could lead people to think that God never corrects those who talk to it but rather always confirms that the believer is right on track.

How can you say that God hasn't told them and they just aren't hearing it? How can you say that it isn't a repeat of Israel all over again but just with the gentile church instead of a nation? You have a good premise but your conclusion is to believe that God is the one not communicating instead of maybe those he has spoken to have ignored him like their forefathers did. The bible states that in the ever 'ambiguous' end times that their will be many coming in the name of Jesus who are wrong and that they will be following doctrines of devils. This is what I see when I look at the church.

Quote:You throw around the word "objective", but with many different interpretations of scripture, how exactly does one evaluate it "objectively"? Is there someone who can translate scripture that doesn't have a biased interest in how it's translated? Even if you got your answer "straight from God's mouth", do you really think that would be an "objective" answer? I know that many Christians think that objective means "not from a human subjectivity" rather than "not from subjectivity", but the dictionary doesn't define it that way... and the dictionary is the one tool that is unbiased on such a subject, or in other words, an objective source.
Are you saying that all dictionaries agree on how to define a word? Or that you know which one is right? How do you decide whom to believe? I am one who takes the standpoint that subjectivity comes from human perspective due to his being faced with moral dilemma. Even when Webster was putting together his 1828 dictionary he was biased in the way he defined words. I have no reason to believe any works of human hands are not somewhat skewed by the writers own bias, including dictionaries.

I don't claim to be completely unbiased myself as I am only as close to understanding the complete objective truth about God and his word as I am has been revealed to me as I submit to that which I have been given. I don't think I have arrived at the fullness of the maturity that is in Jesus. Unlike many, I do believe it to be possible to achieve but I am not there yet.

The difficulty I have with having a serious conversation with someone who was once a believer but turned atheist is that your desire isn't to seek answers but to work to show error in what is shown to you. The problem with this can be seen in your approach to a topical view of the bible by using a concordance/website to look up words to try to understand what the bible says about a subject. The bible is a work that must be eaten and digested so to speak, just as Jesus said you must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to be saved. Understanding comes by revelation only. Those who rely on intellect are left in the dark.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 10:07 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(29-03-2012 08:17 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  I have no reason to believe any works of human hands are not somewhat
skewed by the writers own bias, including dictionaries.


I don't claim to
be completely unbiased myself as I am only as close to understanding the
complete objective truth about God and his word as I am has been
revealed to me as I submit to that which I have been given. I don't
think I have arrived at the fullness of the maturity that is in Jesus.
Unlike many, I do believe it to be possible to achieve but I am not
there yet.

The difficulty I have with having a serious conversation with someone who was once a believer but turned atheist is that your desire isn't to seek answers but to work to show error in what is shown to you. The problem with this can be seen in your approach to a topical view of the bible by using a concordance/website to look up words to try to understand what the bible says about a subject. The bible is a work that must be eaten and digested so to speak, just as Jesus said you must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to be saved. Understanding comes by revelation only. Those who rely on intellect are left in the dark.
I am very curious that you chose to say you believe that any work of human hands could show bias. What is your idea bout that with the bible in that regard? Due to the countless translations and clear human hand alterations in a bible (Of which the very well known are written as known issues in most every modern published bible, such as the ending of Mark for a clear example.)

It's pretty interesting to see people talk about the bible's message or presumptuously objective truth, although, the little details of how that is capitulated through countless rewrites and translations makes it a conundrum. I know the Torah and some other ancient texts lasted great many a years with the same exact wording as studied from discovered old versions. The earliest manuscripts of various new testament gospels on the other hand don't all go hand in hand.

I see you think faith is a strong virtue and the best way to getting the word of God. It just seems vary unfair to most of us who doubt that God would want people to go by this faith method when nearly every other aspect of life we are taking in information via the observation and questioning method(scientific method) which you dissed in being a method to looking into bible questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2012, 05:29 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2012 05:50 PM by gdemoss.)
RE: No True Scotsman
(29-03-2012 10:07 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 08:17 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  I have no reason to believe any works of human hands are not somewhat
skewed by the writers own bias, including dictionaries.


I don't claim to
be completely unbiased myself as I am only as close to understanding the
complete objective truth about God and his word as I am has been
revealed to me as I submit to that which I have been given. I don't
think I have arrived at the fullness of the maturity that is in Jesus.
Unlike many, I do believe it to be possible to achieve but I am not
there yet.

The difficulty I have with having a serious conversation with someone who was once a believer but turned atheist is that your desire isn't to seek answers but to work to show error in what is shown to you. The problem with this can be seen in your approach to a topical view of the bible by using a concordance/website to look up words to try to understand what the bible says about a subject. The bible is a work that must be eaten and digested so to speak, just as Jesus said you must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to be saved. Understanding comes by revelation only. Those who rely on intellect are left in the dark.

I am very curious that you chose to say you believe that any work of human hands could show bias. What is your idea bout that with the bible in that regard? Due to the countless translations and clear human hand alterations in a bible (Of which the very well known are written as known issues in most every modern published bible, such as the ending of Mark for a clear example.)

It's pretty interesting to see people talk about the bible's message or presumptuously objective truth, although, the little details of how that is capitulated through countless rewrites and translations makes it a conundrum. I know the Torah and some other ancient texts lasted great many a years with the same exact wording as studied from discovered old versions. The earliest manuscripts of various new testament gospels on the other hand don't all go hand in hand.

I see you think faith is a strong virtue and the best way to getting the word of God. It just seems vary unfair to most of us who doubt that God would want people to go by this faith method when nearly every other aspect of life we are taking in information via the observation and questioning method(scientific method) which you dissed in being a method to looking into bible questions.





I can appreciate your curiosity for sure.

How does one know that what they are reading in the bible is not tainted by human hands?

The simple answer is, they don't. I believe in empirical evidence, things that can be observed and experienced, when it comes to matters of faith. I came to God without a bible. Walked with him without a bible for 5 years only understanding him through prayer and watching his interactions with me. I was introduced to him as the God of the bible after that. Since then he has been guiding me to understand the matters that you speak of here. I have been led to look at a lot of evidence concerning the manuscript histories and their preservation or lack thereof. My conclusion has always been the same. I have been relying upon the guidance of that which answered me when I prayed originally and not what someone said. None of the studies that I have conducted have caused me to come to the conclusion that the water was too murky to see the truth in. Even the vast difference between the Westcot and Hort text versus the Textus Receptus don't seem to change any doctrinal position.

In the New Testament I find that the writer of Hebrews quotes the Septuagint word for word but when the Septuagint is put up against the original Hebrew there is a remarkable difference in what was said. One of two conclusions seems possible. One - it is a gross error proving the Septuagint and the New Testament a fraud or Two - even during translations God has given new revelation. I lean toward the latter as it goes hand in hand with how God operates. Since mans intellect is the problem separating him from God, God makes things impossible for him to come to proper conclusions using it. God resists the proud but gives grace unto the humble. The proud think they have it all figured out when they encounter such a seeming inconsistency while the humble goes to God and asks for help understanding why it seems so.

Again, I don't believe in blind faith. God must provide evidence if he expects me to believe and follow him. So far in my case he has. More than enough for me to continue seeking to understand more and more. The only other possibility is that I am a complete mental defect who has a seriously over active imagination that connects dots that shouldn't be connected, while not being able to connect those that should be. In that case there is no way for me to know. I'll just keep believing that God is leading me as it seems the most reasonable explanation. If you think the earlier is true, my hope is that your at least kind to mentally defective people.

Gary

(29-03-2012 08:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(28-03-2012 08:07 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  The bible teaches that honest to God true believers can and do loose their faith and become atheists. To those here to claim to have that position, they have my full support concerning their claim to have once followed as a disciple but since departed.

I'm really, really going to have to disagree with you. Please show me where in the Bible it says this. Also if this is true, please explain these verses:

Romans 8:38-39
38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


2 Thess 2:13-14
13But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.


In Thessalonians it shows us the love of Christ and in Romans it shows us that nothing can separate us from it. So, the only conclusion that you can come to is this: those that do not believe or fall away were never believers.

Hi KC, to me, two single scriptures say very little about any doctrinal position I keep concerning God and his word. This particular doctrine has been argued everywhere I have been and neither side ever concedes to being incorrect. Due to the subjective nature that man comes to scripture with, he ends up with all kinds of links that ought not be made and unable to link those together that should. I could pull out a verse here or there and say there you go, here's my proof but that won't do much good as you will look at them and say it isn't so. I rely more upon complete context of a letter or book along with that understanding compared to the overall revelation of God in his word before coming to a conclusion on any doctrinal position. Verse snip its aren't worth debating without context. Romans is an extensive letter to believers that builds upon a foundation that begins in chapter 1 and continues throughout. Two verses from chapter 8 taken out of context to display some doctrinal position that someone holds isn't very convincing.

The overall teaching I see in scripture as I read is that a person can definitely be secure in their salvation provided they have responded to the truth and continue to do so without becoming apostate. The whole of scripture supports this view from Genesis to Revelation being taught over and over again. One must believe God and have it accounted to him for righteousness, that said belief being evidenced by works that justify said faith. Why it seems impossible to have once believed that Jesus is the Son of God but to become persuaded that it isn't so is a mystery to me as another thing taught in scripture is that if you do not obey that which you are given, even that which you seem to understand will be taken away from you.

You on the other hand read the scripture and see something completely different. I am curious. Do you follow the image of Christ that you have? Are you walking as you believe he walked? Or do your works not matter at all?

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2012, 06:32 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2012 06:36 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: No True Scotsman
(29-03-2012 08:17 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 09:54 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  The term "Christian" shows up in the bible a total of 3 times: Acts 11:26 , Acts 26:28 , and 1 Peter 4:16 . None of these passages are about how to become a Christian, and they certainly don't speak about "false" Christians. You didn't cite any scripture to back up your claim that there is a mention of "false Christians" and I didn't find any on my own. I think you're making it up. Are you confusing it with "false prophets"? Even if you are, the indicators of a "false prophet" are not listed and even though there's a warning to look out for them, there's no explanation of how one would do so.

Is this reply serious? You look for the word Christian in the bible and expect to find instructions on how to be one? You expect to find the term false Christian in order to understand what one of them is? If you would like to go over the scriptures that describe false Christians, I'd be happy to dig them up but only if your serious.

Quote:The word usually used by the bible is "saved"/"salvation", and there are plenty of passages about that... but they don't necessarily coincide. I mentioned "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved", and I think many people accept this definition... but you don't because you said that some Christians "believe" but don't "follow". Not only that, but the verse goes on to say that one's household will also be saved , and I have yet to meet a Christian that actually accepts that as true.

I do accept that definition, albeit not necessarily what many think it means. The bible interprets and defines itself quite nicely but people reject the bibles teaching over their own decisions of what words or phrases mean. To believe does not mean to merely give mental assent to that which is spoken. Biblical faith that ends in receiving the imputed righteousness of Christ is stated elsewhere such as Romans 4 when referring to Abraham.

I accept the scriptures as true, even this one about a persons household being saved. What exactly it is stating, I am not sure of. I understand what it appears to be saying but do not have sufficient other biblical texts to support the apparent meaning of the verse.

Quote: There is also the famous passage where a rich man asks Jesus how to be saved, and Jesus tells him nothing about belief ... he first tells the man to follow the commandments (naming 5 of the 10 commandments and one that isn't one of the 10) and when the man professes that he has already done that then Jesus tells him to get rid of his possessions and give them to the poor. Does any Christian subscribe to this concept? Why did Jesus, upon being asked about how to become "saved" quite literally, mention nothing about faith or belief but instead instructs him on what actions to perform (none of which involve prayer)?

This is an excellent point, yet your having difficulty seeing what is actually being said there. You say that Jesus says nothing about faith but clearly it is a matter of faith to follow the commandments of God instead of just doing things your own way. Faith is about works/deeds which is a very biblical concept that most who profess to be Christians don't believe.

Yes there are Christians who subscribe to the concept spoken of as far as possessions go. To understand it as one cannot own anything would be error but to understand it as one should not possess things is different. This is yet another concept that can be found in other places in scripture that deal with the proper use of Gods things here on earth while we are yet stewards. I would be more than happy to go over all of these too, if your interested in learning how to live according to Gods standard for yourself. Just to debate the point is rather useless though.
Quote:You say that salvation has been "revealed by God", but here's the problem with that... Christians of varying denominations all claim to be in communication with God. How come God hasn't told either Protestants or Catholics "the way that you thought you became saved was all wrong"? Why hasn't God, who you believe is communicating with his people, corrected those who are mis-following him or mis-interpreting his bible? My answer would be that obviously nobody is communicating with God, and the ambiguity of his "answers" could lead people to think that God never corrects those who talk to it but rather always confirms that the believer is right on track.

How can you say that God hasn't told them and they just aren't hearing it? How can you say that it isn't a repeat of Israel all over again but just with the gentile church instead of a nation? You have a good premise but your conclusion is to believe that God is the one not communicating instead of maybe those he has spoken to have ignored him like their forefathers did. The bible states that in the ever 'ambiguous' end times that their will be many coming in the name of Jesus who are wrong and that they will be following doctrines of devils. This is what I see when I look at the church.

Quote:You throw around the word "objective", but with many different interpretations of scripture, how exactly does one evaluate it "objectively"? Is there someone who can translate scripture that doesn't have a biased interest in how it's translated? Even if you got your answer "straight from God's mouth", do you really think that would be an "objective" answer? I know that many Christians think that objective means "not from a human subjectivity" rather than "not from subjectivity", but the dictionary doesn't define it that way... and the dictionary is the one tool that is unbiased on such a subject, or in other words, an objective source.
Are you saying that all dictionaries agree on how to define a word? Or that you know which one is right? How do you decide whom to believe? I am one who takes the standpoint that subjectivity comes from human perspective due to his being faced with moral dilemma. Even when Webster was putting together his 1828 dictionary he was biased in the way he defined words. I have no reason to believe any works of human hands are not somewhat skewed by the writers own bias, including dictionaries.

I don't claim to be completely unbiased myself as I am only as close to understanding the complete objective truth about God and his word as I am has been revealed to me as I submit to that which I have been given. I don't think I have arrived at the fullness of the maturity that is in Jesus. Unlike many, I do believe it to be possible to achieve but I am not there yet.

The difficulty I have with having a serious conversation with someone who was once a believer but turned atheist is that your desire isn't to seek answers but to work to show error in what is shown to you. The problem with this can be seen in your approach to a topical view of the bible by using a concordance/website to look up words to try to understand what the bible says about a subject. The bible is a work that must be eaten and digested so to speak, just as Jesus said you must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to be saved. Understanding comes by revelation only. Those who rely on intellect are left in the dark.
I'm just not sure if debate with you has a point. You contradict yourself a few times and seem to have a dim view of evidence. This isn't just an assertion... because I think that claims need to be backed with evidence.

In your argument with KingsChosen about the "verse snips" that he uses to argue for Once Saved Always Saved, you claim that they are taken out of context. I don't know what your schedule is like, but you never seem to finish an argument by specifically debating it --- if you felt that his verses were out of context, the right argument would be to bring up the context and argue that he has it wrong, not suggest that they aren't "very convincing" simply because they might be out of context. And by context you suggest the entire book of Romans. Should we disregard "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" as meaning that perhaps not everyone has sinned or fallen short of God's glory because that is a "verse snip" that doesn't include the rest of Romans around it?

Speaking of Romans, the point of that book was that the Roman church (Catholic church?) had it wrong in their belief that works would get you to heaven and Paul suggested that instead faith was the solution... faith, not works. This book makes several references to the dichotomy and so does the new testament in general. You argue that works are a part of faith when rebutting the example of Jesus and the rich young man --- and it should be obvious why you didn't bother to cite it.

Nor did you cite your claim that the bible speaks of "false Christians". Yes, I was serious. I even went so far as to provide evidence to support that you won't be able to find such a reference. Again, it should be obvious why you didn't prove me wrong with a bible reference.

So evidence is not exactly your forte. We ask for it, and instead you make assertions that you expect us not to challenge. Why do I claim that you contradict yourself? Well, against KingsChosen you said:

[align=left]
Quote:Due to the subjective nature that man comes to scripture with, he ends up with all kinds of links that ought not be made and unable to link those together that should.


...which is exactly my argument against your belief in an "objective" reading of the scripture. I agree with this statement entirely, and this is what you should keep in mind when I suggest that not everyone reads the bible and comes up with the same definition of Christianity or the same understanding of how a person becomes saved. In fact, you question KC's Christianity at the end of your post. It is not necessarily wrong to do so (it's a skeptical position), but I find it striking that you don't "ask God" whether KC is a "true" Christian, since you have told me before that this is how one goes about finding the answer to such a question. It's obvious to us that he believes in God, but to you it's questionable. That's interesting. Anyway, you can't hold the position that "people" bring a subjectivity to interpretation of scripture and argue that you yourself as a person don't... that's just special pleading .

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: