No True Scotsman
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2012, 04:45 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(31-03-2012 06:32 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 08:17 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

For one who believes there needs to be evidence. You claim that I have contradicted myself multiple times but have given nothing for evidence. It is just an assertion.

Quote: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?

Yes, all scripture must be understood in light of what the whole says on any subject. "For all have sinned and fallen short the glory of God" means nothing without the rest of scripture giving understanding to what that means. Especially the immediate context. What you seem to be eluding to is that we should somehow already know what the glory of God is through this verse alone much less what it is to fall short of it by sinning.

My trouble with KC's approach is that he took 2 verses to try to conclude that one 'must' come to only one conclusion based upon them. He stated that one verse defined the love of God and that the other explained that nothing can separate us from that. This type of verse snip it doctrinal positioning is why we have so many denominations today. It is as I said, I can do the same thing and come to a different conclusion through subjective reasoning. For example:

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

So then I guess it must be said that a believer must obey Jesus to have eternal salvation and that means that if you disobey just one time you might as well forget it because you are done in. This is worthless reasoning based upon looking at a single scripture. True doctrines must be built upon a solid foundation of exegesis of scripture that are revealed by the Holy Spirit as truth.

Quote: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.

How do you conclude the point of the book? I look at the book itself and the testimony the author gave for his reason for writing it. It was written because he couldn't make a trip to Rome work out. He had a desire to share his understanding with them. No where in the book does he condemn them or say that they are wrong in their position about anything.

Lets look at the verses from chapter 8 previously mentioned for a moment.

38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

You refute my claim that we need to keep this in context to properly understand it because I did not give evidence to support my claim. He is my evidence. The first verse begins with 'For' which is a connecting term that ties in any meaning of these verses to the one immediately preceding it at a minimum. Next we have the word 'I'. Who? These verses do not tell us. Then we have a list of things mentioned that are said to not be able to separate 'us' (who?) from the 'love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord'. Of course much of this can be understood within the context of the book of Romans as a whole but not just in these simple verses. To assume that Paul is stating the 'us' to mean anyone who 'believes' is a very big mistake as the 'us' was defined over the course of the entire book as he sorted out who is and who isn't included in the 'us' mentioned here.

Romans 8:28 is another verse commonly taken out of context to soothe the worries of people who really should be worried and not soothed. What sometimes appears to be straight forward and simple really is not. When Peter was writing to gentile believers who were scattered throughout Asia, he stated that Paul had also written to them about the same things and that some of what Paul wrote was difficult to understand and easily twisted to ones own destruction. That is what I proclaim happens when someone tries to take a couple verses here and a couple verses there to support a statement that once one believes they cannot not believe. It just isn't true. If you would like a thesis on how someone who once believed but now does not happens, I guess I could begin a new thread over in the Atheist/theist section for discussion.

Quote: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.

True, I did not cite it. In order to do so we would need to define "false Christians" because your not going to find the words in scripture to describe them that way. False is defined as not according with truth or fact. And Christian is defined as one professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. A simple verse referring directly about someone who is a false Christian is one who teaches that Jesus did not become a man.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Of course this verse as all verses must be understood within its context to determine if what it appears to be saying is what it is actually saying. 1 John chapter 4 begins by telling those he is writing too (we haven't established who they are yet and will need to if we are to further define how we should understand things written to them in a letter) that they are not to believe every spirit that comes preaching to them via a prophet as some are false. As we read through the rest of the context, which I encourage you to do on your own if you truly wish to understand more about true/false Christians, we see John make several more references to identifying true believers. One of them being by understanding that one cannot love God without loving his brother also so if one confesses to love God by does not love his brother he is a false Christian. There is much more contained in the book of 1 John concerning this topic that can be extracted when carefully considered under the tutor of the Holy Spirit. Especially the claim that truth may only be known by revelation of the Holy Spirit. Which is why all of these false Christians had so much trouble with error.

Quote: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:

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 .

Yes, I understand why your conclusion would be such as you must from your vantage point consider my view to be subjective also. I confess that one can only begin to research the bible from a subjective viewpoint as that is all he has to begin with but upon receiving the Holy Spirit and sharpening ones hearing to tune into his voice, one's truth becomes objective and not subjective. Of course you cannot believe that as you are an atheist.

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 10:09 PM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2012 10:12 PM by whateverist.)
RE: No True Scotsman
(02-04-2012 04:45 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  Yes, I understand why your conclusion would be such as you must from your vantage point consider my view to be subjective also. I confess that one can only begin to research the bible from a subjective viewpoint as that is all he has to begin with but upon receiving the Holy Spirit and sharpening ones hearing to tune into his voice, one's truth becomes objective and not subjective. Of course you cannot believe that as you are an atheist.

Gary
Gary I fear I must play devil's advocate here and ask how exactly you discriminate between the Holy Spirit and a demon? Have you experience of both? How is one different from the other I wonder. I can see where you would want to believe you were in touch with the Holy Spirit but wouldn't someone who is sometimes called "the great deceiver" be capable of taking you in?

I'd suggest that you can't possibly tell them apart. In the end, you are in no better or worse position to judge the worth of any claims than I am. I can't disprove God but I know and accept that. You can't prove God but I wonder if you know that. While you are obviously convinced from your subjective experience that God exists, do you realize you have no objective proof to offer?

This is not to say I think you should abandon your belief if you lack such proof. I have nothing invested in what you believe one way or the other. I do think it would be cool if you were able to hold on to your beliefs even while copping to the same limited epistemic foundation that all men share.

[Image: rSJ3y4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 10:38 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
Im a Scotsman, I both like and enjoy haggis. The trick is catching them, theyre damn cunning wee beasties.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Humakt's post
10-04-2012, 12:41 AM
RE: No True Scotsman
(09-04-2012 10:38 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Im a Scotsman, I both like and enjoy haggis. The trick is catching them, theyre damn cunning wee beasties.
The haggis or the Scotsmen?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
10-04-2012, 01:00 AM
RE: No True Scotsman
Both.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Humakt's post
10-04-2012, 03:05 AM
RE: No True Scotsman
I just don't get it. Why is it that when you argue with a Christian, no matter how much you demolish their argument, rather than the Christian actually saying "your know what, I think your right", the Christian will make up some absolutely ridiculous excuse that proves nothing or storm out of the room?

As for the "you were not a TRUE Christian" arguement, I think it's just another way for the Christian to make a petty excuse, once again not admitting that they are wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Magoo's post
10-04-2012, 05:10 AM
RE: No True Scotsman
I dont get, how you dont get that you cant demolish there arguement. You cant reason your way past faith its just not possable. I also dont get that you cant get that they find there beliefs as credible as you find yours. Simple as.

Using reason on a faith based view is like using a fork to loosen lug nuts.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Humakt's post
10-04-2012, 11:47 AM
RE: No True Scotsman
(10-04-2012 05:10 AM)Humakt Wrote:  I dont get, how you dont get that you cant demolish there arguement. You cant reason your way past faith its just not possable. I also dont get that you cant get that they find there beliefs as credible as you find yours. Simple as.

Using reason on a faith based view is like using a fork to loosen lug nuts.

Are you a actually saying the arguments for the existence of God are good?! The only evidence they have a a book written 2 thousands years ago that is extremely contradictory and was written during the time of the ignorance man, has story's that make no sense and had no historical evidence to back it up. And you say you can't even demolish the Noah's ark story!?

Of course you cant beat faith, but if all you need is faith then you can bloody well worship anything, a slice of bread if you want to.

My beliefs are based on reason and logic about things not some supernatural being that was wrote about in the bible, which is what I have already explained above. I do not believe in God because there is minuscule evidence to support it. Chistians believe in God even though there is minuscule evidence. That's why I think my beliefs are more credible then theirs. It's not like I'm making up my own crazy storys.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 08:32 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(10-04-2012 11:47 AM)Magoo Wrote:  My beliefs are based on reason and logic about things not some supernatural being that was wrote about in the bible, which is what I have already explained above. I do not believe in God because there is minuscule evidence to support it. Chistians believe in God even though there is minuscule evidence. That's why I think my beliefs are more credible then theirs. It's not like I'm making up my own crazy storys.
Of course a Christian can counter that they aren't making up their own crazy stories either. They get them from the bible.

It seems as though one of your beliefs is that people are capable of living their lives based on logic and reason alone. You might be right but what reason do we have to think so? Wouldn't it be a kick if the basis for the belief in the superiority of living a live based on rationality was itself an irrational notion? It may well be that while we would like to identify with logic and reason that we are inextricably more and than that.

[Image: rSJ3y4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 11:26 PM
RE: No True Scotsman
(10-04-2012 11:47 AM)Magoo Wrote:  
(10-04-2012 05:10 AM)Humakt Wrote:  I dont get, how you dont get that you cant demolish there arguement. You cant reason your way past faith its just not possable. I also dont get that you cant get that they find there beliefs as credible as you find yours. Simple as.

Using reason on a faith based view is like using a fork to loosen lug nuts.

Are you a actually saying the arguments for the existence of God are good?! The only evidence they have a a book written 2 thousands years ago that is extremely contradictory and was written during the time of the ignorance man, has story's that make no sense and had no historical evidence to back it up. And you say you can't even demolish the Noah's ark story!?

Of course you cant beat faith, but if all you need is faith then you can bloody well worship anything, a slice of bread if you want to.

My beliefs are based on reason and logic about things not some supernatural being that was wrote about in the bible, which is what I have already explained above. I do not believe in God because there is minuscule evidence to support it. Chistians believe in God even though there is minuscule evidence. That's why I think my beliefs are more credible then theirs. It's not like I'm making up my own crazy storys.
No, Im not in any sense saying that the arguements for the existence of any God are good, although Id tend to avoid using good and use compelling. But thats not the issue Im addressing, Im addressing the concept of respecting the right of others to have differing views. Not only is it a matter of good manners, but I would assume (I havent checked your profile) in both of our countries a concept that is enshrined in law. Also as I have no direct evidence to refute a claim that God exists, I prefer not to on the grounds such a claim is without value. I dont prescribe to a faith based view of reality, but I understand what that view entails, evidence to that view is or as much weight to them as unfounded assumptions are to us. If we cant accept those differences and all agree to discuss the issue at hand having accepted our differing view, all we can do is repeat your wrong at each other til we go hoarse. Begging your pardon, but I dod say you cant demolish, again Id use the term refute, as it less inflammitory, I have'nt mentioned Noah at anytime in any post in this forum. I have elsewhere said, you cant use science to disprove God, but science has no buisness try to and on the whole no interest in trying to, despite the protestation of many of the faithful.

Your last sentence is certainly beyond refutation, and if someone wants to worship bread thats there choice and thats fine with me. Til they start trying to toast non breadies theyre just a facet of the diversity meme pool.

But, to cut to chase all Im saying is I find it hard to credit that you do not know these thing, and given that you know these thing your willingness to ignore and disrespect both there legal and moral right to do so is just poor form. Especially as you profess to champion a scientific view, your refusal to concede the above is also somewhat dishonest. Unless of course you are ignorant of this and what Im saying is new to you, which case I invite you to think on the differing stances of the two world views.

Stating that scientifically speaking there is no good evidence to support there view and in all likelhood the propability is low that there stated premise is valid - is far from demolishing.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: