Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Many Christians Lack Responsibility
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 121 of 138 (522997)
09-07-2009 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Granny Magda
09-07-2009 1:07 PM


Re: The Annoying Annointed
'I'm well aware that he knows better than that.'
Why is 'that' not a valid argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Granny Magda, posted 09-07-2009 1:07 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Granny Magda, posted 09-07-2009 2:03 PM ochaye has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 122 of 138 (522998)
09-07-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by ochaye
09-07-2009 1:49 PM


Re: The Annoying Annointed
Granny writes:
it usually means that they didn't truly accept the Holy Spirit in the first place.
ochaye writes:
Why is 'that' not a valid argument?
Because it's a blatant example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
quote:
‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
Explanation
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
Real-World Examples
An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.
Source
If an encounter with the Holy Spirit is supposed to improve a person, people are naturally going to object that Christians don't seem to be noticeably more moral than those of other religions or no religion. An all-too-easy answer would be that those Christians who lapse into immorality were "not true Christians" or "didn't truly accept the Holy Spirit" after all - a clear example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ochaye, posted 09-07-2009 1:49 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ochaye, posted 09-07-2009 5:32 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 123 of 138 (523015)
09-07-2009 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Granny Magda
09-07-2009 2:03 PM


Re: The Annoying Annointed
quote:
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
There are no doubt in Glasgow and elsewhere many Scotsmen who put sugar on porridge. There are possibly those, even of their own families, who look on this practice with disdain, and who regard it as un-Scottish; but they could not make serious claim that these maverick practitioners are not truly Scottish. There would be documentary evidence to prove their claims foolish, were they to do so.
Unless, of course, the perhaps jocular comment that a Scotsman who puts sugar on porridge is not a true Scotsman is taken seriously, as right and valid, but in a subtler way. If certain Scots should refuse to treat another as a true Scot on the basis of eating habits, then for those people, the 'no true Scotsman' rule would be no fallacy. It would be reality, and could lead to disinheritance and ostracism of sugar users.
A more likely, and apposite comparison might be that no true Scotsman could belong to a certain clan that had made secret treaties with the English- and that was indeed a claim made, and made vehemently, in past times. But even then, the 'traitors' had birth certificates etc. to prove their claim to Scottishness.
There is no legal document that proves anyone a Christian, as there is for nationality or other statuses. So Christian status may indeed be said to be dependent not on documentary evidence, but on behaviour, and this places definition of membership of this faith into the same category as the view that eating behaviour defines a Scotsman, or, more seriously, that loyalty to Scotland defines a Scotsman.
In view of the fact that some who call themselves Christians decline fellowship with those describing themselves as Christians whose behaviour is considered to be disloyal to Christianity, the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' would itself appear to be fallacious.
The difficulty presented by the original post is that it is claimed that all who call themselves Christians have the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit seems to be only selectively holy, a view that I, at least, have not come across before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Granny Magda, posted 09-07-2009 2:03 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Granny Magda, posted 09-07-2009 5:45 PM ochaye has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 124 of 138 (523017)
09-07-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ochaye
09-07-2009 5:32 PM


Re: The Annoying Annointed
There is no legal document that proves anyone a Christian, as there is for nationality or other statuses. So Christian status may indeed be said to be dependent not on documentary evidence, but on behaviour,
So someone who describes themselves as Christian and genuinely believes themselves to have accepted Jesus as their saviour, would cease to be Christian if they did something immoral? You seem to trying have your cake and eat it. You are simply trotting out the fallacious line, unaltered.
Like it or not, "Christian" is commonly applied as a noun. You seem to be trying to use it as an adjective, with a definition synonymous with "moral", a practise which I consider disingenuous. If you define "Christian" as "moral", then naturally, all Christians are moral. You are simply trying to define Christianity into a moral position, by dishonest use of terminology.
There is no legal document that proves anyone a Christian
And yet there is such a thing as a Christian. Yes or no?
If yes, do some of those Christians behave immorally? Yes or no?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ochaye, posted 09-07-2009 5:32 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by ochaye, posted 09-07-2009 6:50 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 125 of 138 (523024)
09-07-2009 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Granny Magda
09-07-2009 5:45 PM


Re: The Annoying Annointed
quote:
So someone who describes themselves as Christian and genuinely believes themselves to have accepted Jesus as their saviour, would cease to be Christian if they did something immoral?
That is not the criterion used by those mentioned. The criterion is more to do with attitude. A person holding the view, for instance, that stealing is acceptable would be deemed to be be unchristian, as would a person who habitually stole, and regarded Christianity wrongly, even if stealing was regarded as immoral by that person.
quote:
If yes, do some of those Christians behave immorally? Yes or no?
That would depend on one's definition of a Christian. If one defines a Christian as someone who self-identifies as a Christian, then history shows an abundance of the most immoral people as Christian, from the European medieval hierarchy whose behaviour was scandalous enough to stimulate the Reformation, to corrupt educational institutions, to televangelists, or even the Nazi experience, when Nazis supported certain species of people called Christian, while persecuting others called Christian. But one quite ignorant of history, though not of alleged churches, may conclude from personal experience that Christians are among the very worst people alive, and a good many have done exactly that. One could then decide that Christianity is pure invention, invention used by the worst people. But, whether gained from one perspective or another, this view makes the subject of Christianity unlikely as a genuine religion, and barely worth discussion as one such. Most of us are aware, from wider reading and from social contacts, that the infamies of history and the locally objectionable do not represent the whole truth about Christianity, which is why it is generally treated as a genuine religion.
One may at the opposite extreme suppose that Christianity, though widely claimed as personal belief, is rarely actually present, if present at all. This would be on the basis that 'handsome is as handsome does', and that Christianity rightly claims to produce that which is handsome; and those many who claim to follow the 'theory', but do not produce desirable results, have not actually applied the theory.
The original poster seems to have squared the circle by supposing that all who self-identify as Christians are Christians, and thus of legitimate religion, even holy, irrespective of their behaviour, which would make discussion (if not language itself) rather pointless, if morality as a product of belief counts for anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Granny Magda, posted 09-07-2009 5:45 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Granny Magda, posted 09-07-2009 9:02 PM ochaye has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 126 of 138 (523037)
09-07-2009 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by ochaye
09-07-2009 6:50 PM


Re: The Annoying Annointed
Listen ochaye, I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to talking past me. You keep talking about hypotheticals and about other people's views and about what one might suppose, without ever telling me what your own views are. I'm done for now. I'm off on holiday. See you in a week or so.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ochaye, posted 09-07-2009 6:50 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ochaye, posted 09-07-2009 9:32 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 127 of 138 (523039)
09-07-2009 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Granny Magda
09-07-2009 9:02 PM


Re: The Annoying Annointed
quote:
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Any reader who finds anything hard to understand is welcome to ask for assistance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Granny Magda, posted 09-07-2009 9:02 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 128 of 138 (523407)
09-10-2009 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Phat
09-05-2009 11:16 AM


I'm waiting for an answer, Phat.
With regard to your statement that, "Stealing is stealing. Sin is sin":
Always exactly the same way wrong in every single instance, no matter what, and thus every single person who commits theft should receive the exact same punishment? If I know that you're going to shoot somebody and I steal your gun so that you can't, I'm in the wrong? I should be punished as severely as, say, Bernie Madoff?
Can you show me anybody, anywhere who has ever followed their complete set of moral standards every single time?
Not even Jesus or the god of your holy book managed to do that.
If your god can't manage to be absolute regarding morality, why on earth are you complaining that mere mortals don't do it, either?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Phat, posted 09-05-2009 11:16 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 129 of 138 (523472)
09-10-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Rrhain
09-04-2009 4:34 AM


On Further Reflection
OK, you have a point. the punishment should fit the crime. A man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his kids is not as bad as someone who steals expensive vitamins to get a refund on and get money to support a crack habit...but then again, they have the excuse of being an addict!
Edited by Phat, :

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Rrhain, posted 09-04-2009 4:34 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Rrhain, posted 09-10-2009 11:18 PM Phat has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 130 of 138 (523536)
09-10-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Phat
09-10-2009 3:08 PM


Phat responds to me:
quote:
OK, you have a point. the punishment should fit the crime.
Which means you're not an absolutist but a relativist.
But you still didn't answer the direct question: If I know you're going to shoot someone and I steal your gun so you can't do it, is that really wrong?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 09-10-2009 3:08 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 131 of 138 (523861)
09-13-2009 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Stile
06-22-2009 9:41 AM


Re: Is that my soapbox?
That's a rather thoughtful post, Stile. I will admit that I occasionally talk "to God" (an observer would report that I was talking to myself) BUT...I never yet have heard any audible response. If I were GOD, I wouldn't answer anyone because I wouldn't want them to get all giddy over hearing my reply and thus causing them to perhaps abdicate their faith and their daily responsibility to others and to the world around them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Stile, posted 06-22-2009 9:41 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Stile, posted 09-14-2009 9:18 AM Phat has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 132 of 138 (523878)
09-13-2009 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by ochaye
09-05-2009 1:08 PM


Re: The Annoying Annointed
quote:
Because many of us believe that when you accept Jesus Christ you become empowered with the Holy Spirit and it is the Spirit working through you that makes the difference.
So if a person does not show 'the difference', does it mean that the Holy Spirit has failed?
And if a person with the Holy Spirit fails to answer a question, is that because the Holy Spirit doesn't know what He's talking about, or because He didn't notice the question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by ochaye, posted 09-05-2009 1:08 PM ochaye has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 133 of 138 (523879)
09-13-2009 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by ochaye
09-05-2009 1:08 PM


Re: The Annoying Annointed
quote:
Because many of us believe that when you accept Jesus Christ you become empowered with the Holy Spirit and it is the Spirit working through you that makes the difference.
So if a person does not show 'the difference', does it mean that the Holy Spirit has failed?
And if a person with the Holy Spirit fails to answer a question, is that because the Holy Spirit doesn't know what He's talking about, or because He didn't notice the question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by ochaye, posted 09-05-2009 1:08 PM ochaye has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 134 of 138 (524046)
09-14-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Phat
09-13-2009 3:13 AM


Responsibility of Authority
Phat writes:
If I were GOD, I wouldn't answer anyone because I wouldn't want them to get all giddy over hearing my reply and thus causing them to perhaps abdicate their faith and their daily responsibility to others and to the world around them.
I don't see any specifically inherent danger attached to believing in God or any other deity. Regardless of their actual existence (which may very well be unattainable knowledge for us).
The danger I'm afraid of is when folks take their unsubstantiated beliefs and start telling others what to do. In order to start telling others what to do, you better be able to show that what you're talking about is an actual part of reality. Especially when things become important. When people are unable to do this, and fall into this trap, that's where I feel they lack responsibility.
It is almost human nature to gain personal validation by having others agree with us. It is also a part of human nature to accept "as truth" information that is provided to us from people in authoritative positions (parents, pastors, elders, friends...) Therefore, it's very, very easy to fall into the above trap, or take advantage of such a trap (perhaps unintentionally) and start getting others to do things we don't actually have any factual basis to rely on. It's the ease of this danger that makes it extremely hazardous.
This doesn't mean it's wrong to do such things for ourlseves, only that it's not right to attempt to convince others of something we are unable to show is actually true, without also conveying that the information is only "personally accepted", or "without factual basis". This doesn't make it false, but to omit such a glaringly important aspect when relaying information to others is only another display of lacking responsibility.
It also doesn't do anything to promote oneself as an acceptable resource for information. We all have "that friend" who you can pretty much throw out their opinion on pretty much everything 'cause you know they're just talking out their ass, even when they adamantly claim to "know" something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Phat, posted 09-13-2009 3:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Phat, posted 09-14-2009 10:27 AM Stile has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 135 of 138 (524070)
09-14-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Stile
09-14-2009 9:18 AM


Re: Responsibility of Authority
Stile writes:
The danger I'm afraid of is when folks take their unsubstantiated beliefs and start telling others what to do. In order to start telling others what to do, you better be able to show that what you're talking about is an actual part of reality. Especially when things become important. When people are unable to do this, and fall into this trap, that's where I feel they lack responsibility.
Jar and I discuss this stuff a lot. The future of this country will, as Mr. Obama suggested in his speech to schoolchildren, depend on the education and acceptance of responsibility that the new generation needs to own. My question is this: Do we owe a responsibility to the older generation (even globally) and does this take away from our dreams?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Stile, posted 09-14-2009 9:18 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Stile, posted 09-14-2009 11:02 AM Phat has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024