To be a Scot is to embrace a national identity: our Scotsman might well, as many have, choose to become an American. While he did not choose to be born a Scotsman, he does implicitly choose to remain a Scotsman. Similarly, it is often by the circumstances of birth--national, familial--that one embraces a Christian identity, and then one chooses to remain a Christian or not. One cannot choose one's origins, but one does, day by day, choose one's identity.
You have just blended together 4 very different principals there, all of which I find irrelevant to each other.
Can you clearly define the specific differences between the 4?
Born a Scotsman
Scotsman by choice
Scotsman (which of the 2 I don't know) living in America
Christian by choice.
Hows it go again?
A+B=C, B+C=A, C does not = A
If people who make up these bogus sayings like NTS are going to start making all these rules, then they must live by them.
The NTS fallacy is usually cited in response to a no-true-Christian defense. Some criticism is made of past or current behavior by a self-proclaimed Christian individual or organization. Irrelevant, someone replies: if they did that, they are no true Christian. By this logic, the only true Christians are those that behave in Christ-like ways, by which criterion no one here at Evc (as far as I can see) has the right to claim to be a Christian. So any examination of the consequences of Christianity in the world becomes impossible, which, in the midst of debate, one cannot help but suspect is the point of the NTC defense.
You bring up a very good point here. To me it is one of self conviction. But it is mis-construding the truth.
The truth is that no-one can be Christ, but that is where it ends.
It is also why you cannot relate being a Scotsman to being a Christian.
What makes you a true Christian is accepting Jesus as the Son of God.
This is a choice of heart. Something that cannot be measured.
If you are born in Scotland, or living there, then you are a Scotsman. There are no other criteria than that. Anything else is hear-say.
However, truly accepting Christ, there is criteria. To be in Christ, is to follow that criteria. If you choose to not follow that criteria, then you are not acting in a Christ like manor, and therefore Christianity is not to blame.
A better analogy would be a runner who runs in the Olympics. He's an Olympic runner. He wins the race. He gets busted using steroids. Is he still an Olympic runner? whether he got busted before or after the race, makes no difference.
Is it the fault of the Olympics?
Does he still get to be the winner?
If he was a Scotsman, he still would be a Scotsman.
One might reasonably propose that the issue is an internal matter for Christianity.
Not Christianity, but individual religions, maybe.
If one Scotsman robs my house, do I blame all of Scotland?
Do I not trust all Scotsman from here on out?
If there are folks falsely claiming to be Christians for ulterior motives, who better than true Christians to detect and denounce the falsehood?
I think atheists are doing a fine job of that.
But the NTS fallacy falls short of the truth.
But that is not generally what one sees: instead, one sees a general reluctance to accept any criticism of folks and institutions claiming to be Christian, whatever their behavior, unless it is beyond a large sectarian boundary.
True, but irrelevant in how it relates to the NTS fallacy.
Protestants may denouce Catholocism as anti-Christian; Catholics may return the favor. One independent church may assert that another's doctrine or practice concerning, say, baptism, falls short of the true Christian bar. But we rarely hear a Christian observe that the jihadists are no true Muslims, or that virulently Palestinian-hating Israeli's are not true Jews, or that a corrupt Democratic official is no true liberal. Evangelicals never seem to denounce another evangelical, though we have seen that more than a few deserved denunciation.
Also true, but irrelevant. Your actions dictate who you are, not your mouth.
Being a Scotsman has a different set of rules.
So the 2 do not relate.
For an external perspective, all this seems like a distraction. If we call Christianity to account for its impact on the world, should we not include all that is done in Christianity's name, including the true flock and the wolves they allow amongst them?
In a court of law, who's fault would it be? Christ, or man?
This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 02-16-2006 10:58 AM
™ Version 4.2