Nazism

I think this highlights the general mis-use of the no true scotsman fallacy.If the predicate is contrary to the definition, then there is a genuine cause to say that one doesn't meet the criteria.We all define Christian. But I've always stuck to two qualifiers, and for good reason;1. Belief in Christ.
2. Following his teachings.If you are merely number 2, then you can be atheist. If you re merely number 1 then you can be the devil.I know, I know, it's quite clever of me to suggest that both 1 and 2 must be present in the claimant. Atheists commonly use this fallacy when Christians claim that people aren't genuine, as you know. The problem is that when we hinder the inference of an argument, then we incapacitate the conclusion. That is to say, we are no longer able to conclude that the most obviously none-Christian person, is a none-Christian, because of a technicality. it's quite pedantically useless therefore, and quite silly, to assume that a person cannot pretend to be a Christian simply because this fallacy exists.Fair enough, strictly speaking I know I can't say, 'Hitler wasn't a true Christian', but the fact is that it remains quite possible, that, as Irishrockhound expounded, he merely used any belief or system as a means of an appeal to that system.To anyone with common sense, it needn't be stated that hitler wasn't Christian, as it is quite a truism, IMHO. He was neither Christ-like nor fearful of Christ.So then, technically you win, but I'm banking on your discernment.

Hi Golden ratio. I don't disagree. Technically I agree with you. These people CLAIMED to be Christians, Let me make it clear.But because you're a smart guy, can you see that just because we have to observe this fallacy, doesn't mean they are genuine in their claims to love Christ and be in favour of peace. Can you see that?Should this fallacy mean that any claimant's claims are automatically true?My only problem is the nature of the ignorance, which is a requirement to the qualifier.Our ignorance as to whether someone is genuine, can be overlooked, if we are to say that all Christians, ever, and in other worlds, were definitely Christians. What? Because of there say so? Well then, a Christian means anything you want.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-15-2006 01:36 PM

I agree. Hence it is generally fallacious. I don't deny it.... and it true that these claimers of Christianity were proved to be evil, while being of 'Christian' persuasion. For all we know though, many thousands have simply lied to get what they really wanted.For example, the person who raped the kids might have always intended to do this, and infact never believed anything to do with the faith. How could he, unless as you state, he justified his actions in his head.You see, I agree GENERALLY but I am very specific. There will be specific exceptions,; there will/have been people who are not Christian, but say they are.If we favour the fallacy, the exception is overlooked. If we dismiss the fallacy, the general justification is overlooked. Therefore, I choose both to observe the fallacy, but to not let the observation remove the belief that I am still ignorant as to their genuine belief, or lack thereof.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-15-2006 02:26 PM

Don't forget that Riverrat's points are important; The scriptures are clear on the matter. Not only has a murderer no eternal life in him, even to be angry at his brother is dangerous.Just because Hitler qualified Jews as less than human, doesn't mean Jesus did. Jesus was/is a Jew!RR's point is intact, because Jesus' actions show that JESUS thought his brother or sister was even someone Gentile, as He helped a Roman soldier.By all means claim the NTSF. But Jesus' teachings are clear, and they even back up themselves in other scriptures. They are clear, even if the definition of Christian is anything but clear.If we are true to what the New Testament actually says, then on these terms, a true Christian, according to Jesus, cannot be an evil person, as this is a contradiction of the original historical, according-to-Jesus, definition. Now forgive me for thinking that Jesus knows who his true followers are but who else would know?Just because past Christian claimants have done evil, doesn't mean Jesus didn't mean what he said. Jesus said that many would claim to know him, and he would say, 'depart from me, you workers of iniquity'.If Jesus is real, then this scripture was made for a reason. It means that those that work iniquity, infact are unknown to Jesus. Now how can anyone unknown to Jesus be Christian, in reality? (Good luck with that one)What. Did you think burning witches and justifying evil is suddenly acceptable according to scripture? It never was. It warns in Isaiah, 'woe unto them that have evil for good and good for evil'.Example; Galileo's claims. A good thing, made out as an evil thing.Example; Burning women and bloodletting. An evil thing, looked upon as good.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-16-2006 10:27 AM

Ahh.....but not the true scripture.No true scripture can say anything evil. (Ofcourse, I personally don't believe in the Torah. I believe in the prophets and the New Testament). Talk to phat about that, my views are the same as his on this.I concede. It was my mistake. I was thinking that everybody's tehology was the same as mine. Mine is basically to believe anything good, but not evil. Lol.