Death of a Scotsman (Re: the "no true Scotsman" fallacy)

I think what it boils down to is the context in which the word "true" is being used.If one is not true to their faith, are they true?

I could believe I am black, but I am not. No true black would be white.The church does not define Christianity. If it did, there wouldn't be so many denominations.Interpretation, is an individual thing, not a Christian one.

While there may be some gray areas, and then I guess I would understand the logic behind the NTS fallacy, but some things are so obvious as to what the definitions are, that the NTS fallacy cannot hold water in those areas.i.e. No-true-Scotsman would be of African decent, having been born and raised in Africa, only tp have visited Scotland once or twice. Obviously this person is not a true Scotsman.i.e. #2 Mass murderers who claim to be Christian.Either one of these people may at one point later on become a Scotsman, or become a Christian, but not at those moments, they are not, and the NTS fallacy cannot apply. period.People cannot just cry NTS, and have an end to a debate on whether Hitler was really Christian or not. It's like trying equate 2+2=Love.again, I think it comes down to the context of the word "true" and how it is being used. The word true in NTS, is different from the "true" in "true Christian". again, I say if you are true to your faith, and then go against those rules set forth by your faith, then are you true?But if we are talking about some silly thing like the verse that says if eating meat causes your brother to sin, then it is better not to. Or wearing lipstick, or short skirts. The bible explains those things, and it is left to scrutiny of the particular individual or denomination, and their relationship with Jesus.Same situation with a scotsman. But there is no book of Scotish rules.If you choose to be in the Army, there are defined rules. If you go against them, then your not true to the rules, making you an untrue soldier.If we look at the definition of untrue, I think it makes perfect sense, and furthers the failed logic behind the NTS fallacy.

quote:

---

un·true Audio pronunciation of "untrue" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tr)
adj. un·tru·er, un·tru·est

​

1. Contrary to fact; false.
2. Deviating from a standard; not straight, even, level, or exact.
3. Disloyal; unfaithful.

---

No true Christian would commit murder. I am perfectly within the boundries of the English language to make such a statement.

It's almost as if your not paying attention. I think I have rebuked all that already.There's nothing subjective about murder, and there is nothing subjective about living in Scotland.

In that case, my name is actually Schrafinator, and I ride horses, because I write responses in this forum. And you are somehow responsible for my actions.NTS= no-true-schrafinator

Doesn't make it invalid either. If nothing in science can be proven, then why not religion too?While there may be grey areas where I think the NTS fallacy may apply, there are clearly areas where this is not the case. There are a few indisputable rules that Christians should follow, otherwise they remain untrue to their faith.

NTS doesn't allow any definitions.I could steal your idendity and become you, does that make me you?

A good point came to me while debating with schraf.If there never were any true Christians int he history of the world, then there are no-true-scientists in the world.Also if the no-true-Scotsman theory is valid, then creation science is science, and all those that subscribe to the NTS fallacy better be prepared to admit that creation science is science.I satnd by my original thought, and is that the NTS fallacy is untrue, and cannot be applied to all things.

I've always had it, but aparrently you do not.That whole "gobbedygook." Is not the exclusive logic behind the NTS.
Try again.We have covered all points that you just brought up already. No, and Yes.
We've coverd it.

Well crash, I actually agree with you. There are hypocrites, and there are gray areas. The whole thing is to vast to be summed up in some silly rule like the NTS fallacy. Especially groups of choice.

Then I would just be repeating myself, it's all been covered, we don't need to go over it again. If you don't get it, then that's your right. This thread is not about a theory, or a fallacy, it's about the logic of the NTS.

Please go back and read the OP.The logic behind the fallacy, When applied to Christians, or groups of choice, is flawed, thats the whole point of this discussion, I guess you missed that?Why do I have to explain this, it's like you don't actually read whats in the thread, you just like to argue with me?

Excellent !

So can I claim I am black?

Doesn't matter. I can't see you.