July 28, 2011
-
Of True Scotsmen, Beef Jerky, and Abortion Doctors
There’s a logical fallacy called the No True Scotsman fallacy. It goes something like this.Somebody says to you, “No true Scotsman would ever wear anything under his kilt!” You say, “That’s not true–I know Seamus MacHarper wears boxers.” To which the somebody replies, “Then Seamus MacHarper is not a true Scotsman!”
Leaving aside the question of exactly how you know what Seamus MacHarper wears under his kilt… It’s a self-sealing argument. The speaker starts out by describing the category of “true Scotsman” as though it is static, fixed. In reality, the speaker is treating that category as fluid, moving the (rather arbitrary) boundary as he sees fit. When an example of a boxer-wearing Scotsman is found, the speaker moves the boundary of “true Scotsman” to exclude that anomaly which would otherwise invalidate his statement. So, with a No True Scotsman argument, it is impossible to find an example that would invalidate the speaker’s statement.
“Wearing anything under a kilt” and “Scotsman” can be replaced by whatever action and people-group you like. “No true Republican would vote for Ron Paul.” “No true Goth would wear a collared shirt.” “No true man would ever carry his girlfriend’s purse.” “No true Latino would eat at Taco Bell.” All these statements are fallacious because, as in the Scotsman example, their definitions can be arbitrarily shifted to keep from being disproved.
Got the hang of the principle? Good. Now let’s try another.
“No true Christian would shoot an abortion doctor.”
You see the problem. Christians have sought to distance themselves from those self-professing Christians who (they perceive) have engaged in undesirable behavior. You bring up the massacres of Muslims and Jews during the Crusades? “Oh, those who fought in the Crusades weren’t really Christians.” You bring up the Inquisitions? “No no, anyone who tortured people in the name of God couldn’t really have been a Christian.” How about the Christian trappings of the Nazi party? “No true Christian could have been a Nazi.” And then of course you have the recent shooting of an abortion doctor by a self-professing Christian.
In these statements, has Christianity committed a No True Scotsman fallacy?
(I wonder if it’s true what they don’t wear beneath the kilt. Ding ding diddly-eye, oh…)I have my suspicions. To explain my suspicions, I need you to follow my train of thought, so bear with me for a moment…
In high school I had a friend who decided that she was going vegetarian. She told us over lunch about the evils of animal-killing, and how she decided to exempt herself from our “culture of death.” Then, a few days later, I caught her eating a Slim Jim–you know, those processed sticks of Beef Jerky. I said, “Hey, I thought you were going vegetarian.” She looked confused, then looked down at the Slim Jim, and said, “What, this? This doesn’t count.”
Now, I couldn’t say “No true Vegetarian would eat Beef Jerky,” because that would be a No True Scotsman fallacy, right?
Actually, wrong. Saying “No true Vegetarian would eat Beef Jerky” is exempt from that fallacy? Why? Because, in this statement, the given definition of a true Vegetarian isn’t arbitrary, but intrinsic. If I said something like “No true Vegetarian would watch Desperate Housewives,” that would be a NTS fallacy, because watching a particular TV show has an abitrary connection to being Vegetarian–it has nothing to do with the definition of Vegetarian. But not-eating-meat is the very thing that defines being a Vegetarian. The status of “Vegetarian” is defined by specific behaviors, and meat-eaters are not adhering to those behaviors. So, had I made this statement, I would have been wholly justified.
So. If someone says, “No True Christian would shoot an abortion doctor,” whether this statement is fallacious or justified depends on the definition of “Christian.” If “Christian,” like “Vegetarian,” is a status defined by specific behaviors, and if shooting-of-abortion-doctors violates those behaviors, then the statement is not a fallacy. However, if such a shooting is not intrinsically linked to the definition of Christianity, but rather is only arbitrarily linked, such a statement is not justified.
(“Don’t worry ladies. There’s plenty of beef and spice to go around…”)What is a Christian? How does one define a Christian?
I’ve heard a myriad of definitions. I’ve had people who don’t believe that there is a God tell me that they are nevertheless Christian. I’ve had people who believe in many gods–and that there are many ways to heaven, Jesus being only one–tell me that they are nevertheless Christian. Some people call themselves Christian because their parents were Christians, some because they go to church once a year, some because they believe certain beliefs, some because they perform certain actions.
The dictionary is no help, because it includes all these definitions: everything from “derived from the teachings of Jesus” to “Christlike” to merely “humane.” For simplicity’s sake we’ll take three of these definitions as possibilities.
–A person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. (Professing Christian)
–One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus. (Active Christian/Liturgical Christian)
–One born in a Christian country or of Christian parents, and who has not definitely becomes an adherent of an opposing system. (Private Christian/Cultural Christian)To me, that last definition can sometimes be akin to my jerky-eating friend claiming vegetarianism. And the first definition is a step in the right direction but not enough. I’d like to examine what the founder of Christianity said being a Christian was all about.
–It should be noted that the term “Christian” didn’t even get coined until Acts 11:26, years after Jesus’ death. “…the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.” –St. Luke. That statement right there tells us that “Christian” was originally synonymous with “disciple” (mathetes). (Understand that “disciples” did not always only refer to the Twelve, cf. Luke 16:13.)
–Christians/disciples follow the teachings of Jesus. ‘To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
–Christians/disciples love each other–and this is supposed to be the hallmark, the key way we identify a Christian. ‘”A new command I [Jesus] give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”‘
–Christians/disciples “bear fruit.” ‘”I [Jesus] am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing… This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.”‘
–Christians/disciples become more like Jesus. “The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.”
–Christians/disciples put Jesus before everything else; there is a cost to being a disciple. ‘”…any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”‘With me so far? (Notice, Christians, I’m not talking about salvation here–Jesus and Paul gave specific criteria for salvation. They give seperate criteria for “disciple,” and thus by extension “Christian,” and so I will treat them as seperate issues.)
(Sadly, unlike Master Po’s disciples, Jesus’ disciples don’t necessarily learn any Kung Fu…)So if the original definition of “Christian” was a disciple/follower of Jesus, and if Jesus himself laid down certain criteria that are intrinsic to the definition of “disciple of Jesus,” can we ignore this original definition when determining whether shooting-an-abortion-doctor is antithetical to the definition of “Christian”?
Sure, if you take the cultural definition of “Christian,” that you just have to go to church once in a blue moon or have had Christian parents to be considered a Christian, then yes, it IS a No-True-Scotsman fallacy to say “No true Christian would shoot an abortion doctor.” Because the fixed definition of “Christian” then has nothing to do with the alleged Christian’s actions, and little to do with his beliefs.
But if you go with the original definition of what constitutes a “Christian,” then it would not be a No-True-Scotsman fallacy to say that, because shooting an abortion doctor specifically violates one of the fixed definition criteria of Christian–that of “A Christian follows the teachings of Jesus.” (Even further in the recent example: since abortion doctor George Tiller was, at least, a professing Christian, for a Christian to shoot him would be a violation of Jesus’ hallmark disciple-defining statement “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.“)
If following Jesus’ teachings is the defining characteristic of a Christian, and if shooting an abortion doctor (or slaughtering Muslim civilians, or torturing Jews) violates those teachings, it follows–without fallacy–that one who shoots an abortion doctor is not a Christian. (And it does violate those teachings: how about “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who spitefully use you…”)
Short version, the statement is not a NTS fallacy if:
Original definition of Xtian
–> Definition of Disciple
–> Teachings of Jesus =/= Shooting Abortion Docs
(“Master, Judas is team-killing again.”)So now you have my thoughts–it depends on which definition of “Christian” you use, but I suspect that saying that the guy who shot George Tiller could not have been a real Christian is not necessarily a No True Scotsman fallacy, because by some fixed definitions of Christian, his action places him outside of that category.
Now we just have to figure out the truth about those Scotsmen.
(“I don’t know where ya been, m’lad, but it seems ya won first prize…”)
Comments (58)
I thought you were tired and busy – and you pull off a post like this?! O, to be young again.
Okay, in honesty, I read the first half, which was just about all the mental energy I have for it right now. I’ll be back to finish it and put in a real response later. It may be days.
Well said, as usual! Of course, considering we live in a country where 21% of all people who identify themselves as atheists say they believe God exists (true!), I’m not sure how practical exposing the fallacy will be. I’m still bookmarking this for the next time someone pulls out the ol’ canard on me, though. Wanna buy a duck?
Jesus said (Matthew 7:15-23)
15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
@Pass_the_Aura - Somehow I want to make a “canard carnage” pun, but I’m having trouble making it work.
A very well written essay! O_o Me likes!
This is right on, mr. russo. This is an excellent analysis of the subject. Of course, it won’t matter to many of the fundatheists who frequent xanga (their philosophical pre-commitments preclude them from reasonably enganging the subject), but i am very glad to have read this.
good point. It’s hard to say… because after reading this, I’m like “Well, going by ‘following Jesus’ definition of Christianity, he’s not Christian” because that obviously was not loving others right there, but how many of us can really claim that we have always loved each other and never, ever hated? To that extent it would seem like none of us are Christians.
RE: The fine print beneath your last pic. I’ve heard that song live.
And maaaany Scotsmen do NOT wear anything under their kilts. I was at some Scottish games one time on a rather low yard chair, a guy in a kilt was sitting directly across from me in a rather tall yard chair, and ding dong diddly ey oh, he weren’t wearin nothing under there. Didn’t have much to show off either.
In these discussions, I always try to change the focus subtly from the term ‘true’ to the term ‘faithful.’ A ‘true Christian’ is a matter of category, and you’re either in or you’re out, and it’s difficult to imagine being in one minute and out the next, especially when it is admitted that a Christian who sins is still a Christian. But it’s not hard to imagine a Christian going from years of faithfulness to faithlessness in an instant. So I’m content to say that no faithful Christian would shoot an abortion doctor, though anyone who shoots an abortion doctor can still hope to become a faithful Christian.
I’m glad you wrote this post, so I can cross it off my to-do list.
[Sadly, unlike Master Po's disciples, Jesus' disciples don't necessarily learn any Kung Fu]
You should read Lamb by Christopher Moore, where Jesus’s best friend learns Kung Fu. Since Jesus was opposed to hitting, they invented a martial art for him where he used the other person’s force against him. They named it Jew Do, or “the way of the Jew.”
i dunno if that guy is a christian or not, my question to this is so what?…i know he is a nutcase…
great… after reading this… now I want beef-jerky… thanks alot…
@Undercover_Librarian - EEEEWwwww!
Very well written. I’m glad someone wrote it. And I read the whole thing! That’s an accomplishment for me.
I really don’t want to think about what they are wearing under those kilts.
This needed to be said. In fact, I want to double-rec this.
SirNickDonmakes a good point that Christians are still capable of sin. It is entirely possible that George Tiller’s killer was a Christian. And if he wasn’t a “true” Christian, he may still become one. Regardless, his action was inconsistent with Christian teaching.
Also found JadedJanissary‘s term “fundatheist” interesting. I’ve used “evangelical atheist” and “atheist fundamentalist” before. It’s true that being non-religious doesn’t seem to inoculate one from some of the foibles people often like to attach to religious.
Woah. That was a brilliant post. You have yet again reminded me why I am subscribed to you!
One of the best examples of clear and logical discourse I’ve seen on Xanga in a long time.
this is very well written, engaging, logical, easy to follow, and rather amusing. bravo.
the interesting thing about religion is that each person has his/her own definition of what is/isn’t acceptable to his/her religion, and these things do not always necessarily line up with what other adherents of that religion think of as acceptable/unacceptable practices/beliefs/etc. Thus you have Christians who think that gay marriage is acceptable, and those who don’t, Christians who think abortion is all right, and those who don’t, and Christians who think the death penalty is acceptable and those who don’t. The same conflicts exist in Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and probably every other religion out there.
The sad thing is that the people who are most vocal/public about their beliefs are the ones who get the most attention, even if their beliefs are not necessarily the norm. Are those people true Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/etc, or not? There is a logical argument in the religious structure for and against each of the issues that I listed above, debated by people who are quite intelligent, well-read, religious scholars. I would argue that each is a True (insert Religion Here) follower/believer, but only as fits their own definition.
In any case, the True Scotsman is one who is proud to wear his kilt in public, and can throw a log with the best of them!
PLEASE submit this for revelife and for top blogs. Or I will!
This is a very interesting post. You really made me think. I think the problem is that many different groups (whether religions or religious denominations) accuse each other of not being “true Christians, Muslims, etc.” Each person seem to have their own definition of a “true believer.” Sometimes, two groups can cite material from the same holy book to justify opposite actions. They may even interpret the same verse differently.
You make a good point in writing that maybe there is a clear definition of the word “Christian,” but I’m not sure what that is.
@leaflesstree - You wrote, “I would argue that each is a True (insert Religion Here) follower/believer, but only as fits their own definition.” That’s an interesting point.
- J. M. 713
Brilliant, Chris. I wish I could rec this twice.
Well written, logical, and interesting. As always.
NTS applies. Here’s an analogy:
“No true man after God’s own heart would murder a man in order to justify the rape of his wife.”
Such actions are obviously not after God’s own heart. But David was described exactly as such both before and after he murdered Uriah.
In other words, even as he strove mightily to follow God he committed a monstrous crime that makes Scott Roeder a saint in comparison. He was a true man after God’s own heart. And he fell.
Now you could get all hairsplitty and say that he ceased being a man after God’s own heart during the moments that he sinned. You could get all hairsplitty and say that a true Christian who commits a terrible murder ceases to be a Christian during the moments that he fires the trigger, but then becomes a true Christian again just after. That would be a works-based definition of religion. I don’t like it.
Whether Scott Roeder is a true Christian is irrelevant here. But whether a true Christian could do something appallingly evil? Absolutely, yes. The NTS fallacy applies. True Christians do terrible things, because we are sinners.
“If following Jesus’ teachings is the defining characteristic of a Christian,”
Sorry, but you are including a premise that also leads to another questionable conclusion when combined with another belief that is heavily backed up by scripture- that no man is perfect (and thus will not always be able to follow Jesus’ teachings). If you take the combination of these two premises to it’s logical conclusion, then there are no true Christians.
What should be concentrated on is not whether or not the man who murdered Tiller is a christian. Christians and non-christians are on equal ground when trying to answer a question about something as personal as one’s own salvation. What Christians should concentrate on is how this is neither typical nor should it be acceptable christian behavior.
Wow. I feel so ill equipped to even start talking about this…
~V
Actually, wait.
I have a question. Would you possibly be suggesting that someone can acquire salvation without ever becoming a “true” Christian?
~V
@buddha_gazelle - I think the problem with that analogy is that the set “Man after God’s own heart” is a category defined by desire. Murder and rape are actions. So those actions, however antithetical to God’s heart, do not necessarily disqualify someone from a category defined by a desire to follow God’s heart. So yes, that statement is an NTS.
As for what I’ve set up being a “works-based definition of religion,” I have no problem with a works-based definition of religion as long as there is not a works-based definition of salvation. If that makes sense. But then we’ve had this conversation before.
I guess my point is, Jesus’ definitions of “disciple” are action-oriented: love one another, bear fruit, forsake all, etc. Most of the biblical definitions of salvation are belief-oriented: believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, believe that Jesus is Lord, confess with your lips that God raised him from the dead, etc. If we’re saying that “disciple” and “Christian” are synonymous, then I find myself forced to seperate the state of being “saved” from the state of being “Christian,” making them roughly equivalent to the state of being “in the race” and the state of “running.”
I can only work with the definitions I’m given.
I like what @SirNickDon said about making this about being a “faithful” Christian than about being a “true” Christian. That’s really more of what I’m driving at.
@TheMarriedFreshman - Well, see my above comment for clarification. I think I would say yes. If Christian = disciple, and a disciple is defined by following Jesus’ teachings, then being a Christian is an extension of salvation–it’s what should come next. If salvation is like crossing the starting line of a race, being a Christian is like running towards the finish line. Not everyone does it–some people cross the starting line and then sit around for a while, or then throw themselves a party to congratulate themselves. Salvation is important, but it isn’t enough–Jesus calls us to follow him to become Christlike, and it’s that last part that “being Christian” is about.
So yes, I would say that there are people who are “saved” but who aren’t necessarily currently being “Christian.” (I really like SirNickDon’s comment making this about being a “faithful” Christian rather than a “true” Christian.) Perhaps the thief on the cross is a good example–his belief allowed him to enter Paradise, though what real following-of-Jesus’-teaching did he have time to do?
@ChrisRusso - *grins* I think I totally agree. I’d have to sit down and think for awhile to know for sure if I agree completely, but I’m pretty sure I do. Salvation is a new beginning, a rebirth, but how many times are we urged not to remain as little infants in Christ? We’re still IN Christ, but we’re supposed to be growing, moving forward, gaining maturity, etc. Remaining a spiritual infant doesn’t reverse the rebirth, but it does inhibit the mature person God designed you to become. So yeah. I think I agree.
Y’know, this is getting awfully close to the predestination mess…
~V
@GodlessLiberal - Heh–is that the same book as the Gospel According to Biff?
@TheMarriedFreshman - Yes! Exactly! Someone who is not being “Christian” but is saved would be like the still-on-milk spiritual infants that Paul and the author of Hebrews talk about–your salvation doesn’t get negated, but it holds you back from your full potential.
@ScarletMoth - None of us are Christians if the qualification is success. Christians fail at loving–and we’re even told that we’re going to fail at loving.
I think, though, that the struggle is important. If I’m not perfect (and I’m not) but I’m struggling towards perfection, that’s good; if I’m not perfect and I sort of give up and say “Meh, I’ll never be perfect anyway,” I stop trying, and that’s bad. Jesus called us to be like Him even knowing we’d never make it this side of heaven… but it’s the journey towards that Christlikeness that’s so crucial.
A man who shoots his enemy has given up, has stopped even struggling to love his enemy.
I hope I’m making some sort of sense.
@ChrisRusso - Yes, the title is “Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Jesus’ Childhood Friend” or something very similar. I’ve been meaning to read it since an atheist friend of mine told me that I wouldn’t read it because it would rattle my faith too much! I think she had forgotten that I laughed uproariously at “Good Omens.”
@sonnetjoy - Yay Good Omens!
They mean to win Wimbledon!
No true xangan can write a short, simple blog….
I guess the solution is to properly define “true Christian” and then make everyone who wants to use that title adhere to the exact same standards.
Excellent thoughts!
C.S. Lewis has an essay on this subject in the intro to his excellent Mere Christianity. He uses the example of the word “gentleman”. The word used to mean “land owner”. When it meant that, people (i.e. men ha ha) who owned land were also responsible for the livelihoods of many and so the moral and behavioral choices made by land owners affected the lives of many. Over the years, people began to assign traits to a “true” gentleman. Eventually gentleman came to mean one who was honorable and kind, etc. In other words “good” (of course, we already had a perfectly good word for good. Good is good enough for good, I think).
Lewis’ point was that we destroyed a perfectly useful and meaningful word by changing it into another word for “good”. Now, gentleman has nothing at all to do with land ownership. It only means “good”. Similarly, we are in danger of destroying the word “Christian”. Instead of meaning “follower of Christ” it will only mean “one who is anti-abortion and anti-homosexual”.
Nowadays, a homeless hobo opens a door for a lady and he becomes a gentleman. I hope we do not reach the point where an abortionist terrorizing gay basher is how we identify “true” Christians.
@ChrisRusso - and then there are people who are quite deliberately endeavoring to follow Christ but reject the label “Christian” because of its associations. (or because they have mistaken beliefs about the linguistic history of the word ‘Christian,’ which could be a long and delightful tangent)
In public discourse, I’m all for using broad and neutralish labels. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that if you say you’re a Christian, then you have the right to be called a Christian. This has little to do, of course, with what you actually believe, even less to do with how you behave, and nothing at all to do with the state of your soul. Theologically and doctrinally, it’s meaningless. But in the realm of public discussions, I believe it’s a very appropriate definition.
Thanks Chris, for a great and timely post. There is one wrinkle I would add to this, however. The person who is making the ‘No True Scotsman’ argument sets the standard from which the argument is made. The ‘No True Scotsman’ argument, as you point out, while loosely based on some point of fact, is in fact based in a completely subjective standard. When a Christian says, “No true Christian would murder an abortion doctor,” that statement is based upon an objective standard set for the Christian. It is God who sets the standard for Christians.
Murder violates God’s objective standard, and the Scriptures tell us, those who commit murder are condemned by God to eternal damnation. By the objective standard set by God, a Christian is one who has been supernaturally born again, and no longer pursues a life which would lead him/her to commit murder. Therefore, the Christian’s assumption, based upon God’s objective standard, is not, strictly speaking, a true ‘No True Scotsman’ argument. SirNickDon’s modification goes along way to strengthening your point.
Lonnie
@buddha_gazelle - With the exception of your use of the word “rape” (which I do not think the Bible indicates is the case here, but I digress) I agree. It is still a case of No True Scotsman.
The question of whether or not Tiller or his murderer was really a Christian is poorly worded. Are they really attempting to ascertain whether or not Tiller’s murder is saved?
It seems more likely to me that the heart of the question is something more like, “is it acceptable to kill in Jesus’ name?” If you boil it down, this is just a specific case of asking if the purpose justifies the method (aka “end justifies the means”).
Tiller was one of just three abortion doctors in the U.S. performing late-term abortions. Because Tiller is dead, late-term abortions are more difficult to obtain. So some pregnancies that would have been abortions will now continue to term. Therefore, some people who will be born in the near future have Tiller’s murderer to thank for saving their lives.
Hopefully we can all agree that saving people’s lives is a noble purpose. However, can we take the next step and say that killing is an acceptable method for pursuing this noble purpose?
I don’t see how. If life is sacred, then EVERYBODY’S life is sacred. Even TIller’s, no matter how much blood is on his hands.
Tiller’s career was a reprehensible one. But before my brothers and sisters in Christ try to support Tiller’s murder, they should first consider these verses: “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord.” (Romans 12:19) and on that same thought “For we know Him who said, ‘vengeance is mine, I will repay’. And again, ‘The LORD will judge His people.’ ” (Hebrews 10:30).
Sometimes God does decide to end a person’s lifetime prematurely because of gross sin, but these are rare cases indeed. When it does happen, God does not ask for, expect, or want our help to bring it about. He reserves that right for Himself.
@BloodTypo - The first paragraph above should end with “murderer” not “murder”.
The very phrase “No Christian would …. ” ought to send chills down our spines. It implies that somehow all Christians are immune from some particular sin. I find no basis for supporting such an assumption.
@buddha_gazelle - ”The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that if you say you’re a Christian, then you have the right to be called a Christian. ”
Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state that if I say I’m a black person, then I have the right to be called a black person? If so, I wish I had known about that when I was applying for scholarships and grants . . .
According to the apostle John “true Christian” is the accurate category.
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
(1 John 3: 4-10)
If Scott Roeder believes when he committed murder, he sinned and he has repented from that sin, then he is a christian. However, if he is unrepentant and would choose to continue in this sin then he would fall into the accurate category of non-christian.
@sonnetjoy - No, see that’s the the big difference between race and religion, and that’s the important distinction that the UDHR is making. Unlike race, which is a fixed identity that each person is born into, religion is a choice that every human is free to make.
So to those who say, “you are Race X and therefore belong to Religion X-prime like it or not,” the UDHR responds that one should only be treated as a member of Religion X-prime if one chooses that religion. Conversely, everybody who claims Religion X-prime as theirs, has the right to be treated (by the state, in public policy) as a member of that religion. This has nothing to do with membership in a specific religious body, this has nothing to do with being a member-in-good-standing, and it has even less to do with righteousness or the state of a person’s soul. But again– in public discourse, I find it reasonable to call anybody a Christian who calls themselves a Christian.
As for whether somebody is a “true” Christian or a “phony” (?) Christian, these are categories that are relevant only to the Judge on the Judgement Day. For us in the meantime to make judgements about the state of somebody else’s soul… well, it’s not our place and our judgements have no value. If Scott Roeder seeks membership in a specific Christian body, then those who determine membership will have to make some sort of judgement about the sincerity of his faith. If he does join such a body and then approaches the Altar, then the Eucharistic minister will have to make some sort of judgement about his readiness to receive the Gifts. But otherwise, for any of us to say that he is or is not a “true” Christian– our judgement one way or the other is petty and meaningless. It’s not our place. If he calls himself a Christian, then I concede to him the same apellation, and that’s that.
@buddha_gazelle - I think I have a real problem with calling someone a Christian just because he calls himself a Christian. There are folks who deny Christ - deny that he even lived, let alone that he died, resurrected, or is the Son of God – but who call themselves Christians.
@sonnetjoy - Indeed. There are self-described atheists who call themselves Christians.
But see, here’s the thing. Outside the Church, calling oneself a Christian means absolutely nothing. If somebody’s not a committed member of a congregation, if they’re not participating in the sacral life of the Body, then it doesn’t matter what they call themselves and it doesn’t matter what people call them. So if they want to be called a Christian… OK, they’re a Christian. Whatever. Doesn’t change anything.
The bigger problem is people who don’t wish to be associated with a given religion being forcibly associated with that religion because of their ancestry. Allowing folks the freedom to choose their religion without precondition– yes, it means that a few atheists will call themselves Christians and I’ll allow them the right to do so. Whatever. It also means that millions of people will be free to not to be called, say, Muslims. And therefore won’t be treated by the state as though they were (for example) Muslims.
@buddha_gazelle - I think it does change things because it waters down what the word “Christian” means and also confuses non-believers.
@sonnetjoy - Eh. Confusion is overrated. People are smart; they figure things out. I know Jews who eat bacon cheeseburgers. This doesn’t make me all confused about what their religion actually teaches. It just gives me some insight into exactly what *kind* of Jews such folks are.
Yes, for a self-described Christian to do and say things contrary to the historic faith of the Church does indeed water things down. For me to publicly deny that they’re Christians, though… I really don’t need to go there.
very interesting
@Pass_the_Aura - This post is ridiculous!
Christianity is a particular set of beliefs and doctrines. One of those doctrines is, “Thou shalt not commit murder.”
If someone commits murder they are not Christian.
Using the No True Scotsman fallacy to taint Christianity with murder is preposterous.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Huh? That’s exactly what the post says.
@Pass_the_Aura - In these statements, has Christianity committed a No True Scotsman fallacy?
Christianity cannot commit a logical fallacy. Only people can commit a logical fallacy.
I read that far and then gave up because the post seemed so bone headed.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - That’s clearly a rhetorical question preparing the reader to answer “no.” If you’d taken the trouble to read the whole thing before dismissing it, I think you’d see that its conclusions agree with what you’re saying. Anyway, I didn’t write it, so I’m not sure why I’m the scapegoat here!
@Pass_the_Aura - I appreciate your comment and counter argument. Thank you!