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

Thank you for questioning this. This "no true Scotsman" argument always seemed to me to be misapplied too. There are very clear standards for being a Christian that make it possible and even necessary for someone who knows the standards to say that someone else is or isn't a "true Christian." And as you say, this is because it is not something one is born into, but a system of belief that one learns and practices according to those very standards.

There are some things that just clearly make a self-described Christian not a Christian. It is possible for people to disagree on these depending on their school of thought, but it's not an invalid concept. For instance, killing an abortionist is just so completely out of keeping with Christian doctrine there's no way that person can be a Christian. Christians sin all the time but committing an act like that and doing it IN THE NAME OF CHRIST, as they do, is simply a complete contradiction with what Christ stood for and taught. It's not about ulterior motives, the people consider themselves sincerely enough to be Christian, but they are wrong, and it's perfectly fair to say this about them, including people within large "sectarian" boundaries that are definable doctrinally.

Actually, it is more like a definitional statement -- this is what a Christian IS. It is to be determined by doctrine and can't be answered the way you all are answering it, from the outside. Different denominations have their own definitions. It's what makes a denomination you could say. There are cults who call themselves Christians. This doesn't invalidate the basic principle that from within your doctrinal system it is right to call someone who violates the doctrine a nonmember of your system.

Yes that is the way it looks to an outsider but the outsider is wrong, it is a false accusation. There is such a thing as false Christians and in fact entire false Christian institutions -- and yes those within those institutions are going to disagree, so the outsider is in a difficult position, but goalposts are not being moved, it's just a difficult position for an outsider to judge. It is valid to define an individual or group as a violator of particular principles. The outsider is not in a position to judge this and no right to call this moving the goalposts. That is not the case.

It is easy to specify that homosexual practice is an intentional violation of God's law, putting a practicing gay outside the camp, and I have every right to say so. A NONpracticing but otherwise self-identified gay, who may even fall into sin from time to time because we're all sinners and weak, would not be excluded by my definition. And I have every right to appeal to my definition.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-16-2006 10:14 AM

This is true. As I said outsiders can't judge it. It doesn't make a statement about what a Christian is to be a fallacy however or moving any goalposts.

You are answering some other argument. The only point I'm making is that a statement from within any particular doctrinal system is not a fallacy if it is consistent with that system. It doesn't have to be consistent with your system or any other system. It is not moving the3 goalposts to have such a position.

It is my contention that a PRACTICING gay person who does not recognize it as a sin is not a Christian. The fact that there are gays who CALL themselves Christians does not refute my contention. I do so state. And I have the right to state it, as I have a consistent definition of Christianity that excludes practicing gays.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are continuing to argue some other point than the one being made.
Yes, I am saying that they are not truly Christians. My definition doesn't have to be authoritative outside my own system for it to be valid, or for it to be valid and not moving the goalposts to state that a practicing gay is not a Christian. If he calls himself a Christian it's for YOU to figure out which definition you want to accept, and since it has implications for your eternal life you might want to consider it carefully, but mine is perfectly consistent and valid.

The difference is between the occasional fall into sin and the habitual and rationalized practice of sin as if it were not a sin. A practicing homosexual does the latter; so does a practicing adulterer who claims it is not a sin etc. Christians in general are prone to the former.There is growth and refinement of Christian doctrine but not evolution in the sense of significant change.I don't mind defining myself specifically as a Bible-believing Christian if that helps. I often do so. I'm even willing to accept the erroneous but sometimes useful term "fundamentalist."This message has been edited by Faith, 02-16-2006 12:09 PM

Deleted and edited: Decided that what you are saying is so confused and garbled I have no answer to it at the moment.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-16-2006 12:46 PM

It's funny you merely "assumed" it. I thought I was pretty explicit. I don't need to demonstrate that for purposes of this discussion. You accept taht he is a Christian on his say-so; therefore on mine accept that I am. That is all that is requried at this point. If it doesn't need to be authoritative outside my own system, then it also doesn't need to be valid outside my own system. I'm not here proving such things, I'm simply saying that within my own system a practicing homosexual is not a Christian and that that is a perfectly valid statement within my own system; it rests upon the consistent doctrine of my system. This is true whether you take my system as valid or authoritative or not. From my point of view a practicing homosexual who thinks there's nothing wrong with it is simply not a Christian. You can decide to accept that as true or false for yourself. I claim it is true. Your gay friend claims he's a Christian. You can choose as you please. But my statement is nevertheless valid based on my system of thought. You continue to argue this other argument. I certainly MAY call myself a true Christian because based on my doctrine I am a true Christian, just as I MAY call your gay friend NOT a true Christian, because based on my doctrine he isn't. I am communicating exactly what needs communicating on this subject. That's not what we are discussing. However, I have told you how I arrive at my position, although it is a tangent. The Bible condemns homosexual acts. That's my position. I also explained that a gay who recognizes it as sin and doesn't practice it habitually even though he may occasionally lapse, is a Christian within my system, while one who practices homosexual acts and claims it is not a sin is not a Christian. I explained all that so you can't object that I haven't given you my grounds. However, that is not what this discussion is about. Speaking of grounds, you have no grounds whatever for your interpretation of people's motives, and even at EvC the testimonies of believers should have made it clear by now that your conjecture is false. Nobody I know of has become a believer for such reasons. In fact I suggest that SINCE it is false but you cling to it nevertheless, that YOUR motives must be to disparage believers in order to make yourself feel superior. This assessment of YOUR motives I believe has some justification from the context. As I believe I said, it's up to you. I simply state my view and you take it or leave it.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-16-2006 01:32 PM

Actually the definition of a Christian is related although I admit we haven't been drawing the connection as we should be. The idea is that if within a system of belief you judge another system of belief, your judgment can't be discredited on the basis of the other or a third or fourth system of belief; it is valid in itself. That means that if you say so and so is not a true Christian/Scotsman, that can't be invalidated by somebody else's standard, can't be called a fallacy, can't be called moving the goalposts, since by your own standard, your own system of doctrine, the statement is true.