I don't want to segue the US Politics thread more, but I do want to explore the True Scotsman Fallacy presented by March Hare in the thread.
For context:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout
I don't want to derail this thread more than it already has but I NEED to point out the following:
Just because you call yourself a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Buddist/etc doesn't necessarily make you one.
If you don't believe in helping your neighbour regardless of their race or beliefs; if you don't believe in feeding the poor, or healing the sick; if you believe in money over people then it doesn't matter if you say "I love Jesus" or "I'm a Christian"... you're not Christian.
In the same vein that you can call yourself a Calgary Flames fan all you want, but if you're wearing an Oilers Jersey, cheer for Edmonton to win the division, and your favourite player is Darnell Nurse, then you're not actually a Flames fan.
The point I was making is that in order to be Christian you have to follow the teaching of Jesus. A fairly low bar, in my opinion.
However, if you don't follow the teachings of Christ, if you do the opposite an actively work against the teaching of Christ, then you cannot be Christian.
Essentially, just calling yourself a member of a group does not make you one.
I've never read the Torah, I've never had a bar mitzvah, so even if I called myself Jewish, I wouldn't be. I don't meet the requirements of the faith.
If you're born and raised in China, with Chinese ancestry without any European ancestors, I don't think it's a fallacy to say you're not a Scotsman.
Am I falling into the True Scotsman fallacy on that? I don't think I am as I'm not saying "If you say you're Jewish/Christian/Scottish/whatever without meeting the requirements, I'm saying not a True member of the faith/group", I'm saying you're not at all.
Hey, I could be misunderstanding. I could be wrong, and am open to having my mind changed (hence the thread and trying to lay out the background).
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The logical fallacies need to be amended with "logical fallacies are meant to inform an argument and are not an argument in themselves." The internet is filled with halfway smart people who just want to drop a logical fallacy reference and smugly act like that's all it takes to win the day.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Matata For This Useful Post:
The point I was making is that in order to be Christian you have to follow the teaching of Jesus. A fairly low bar, in my opinion.
However, if you don't follow the teachings of Christ, if you do the opposite an actively work against the teaching of Christ, then you cannot be Christian.
Essentially, just calling yourself a member of a group does not make you one.
I've never read the Torah, I've never had a bar mitzvah, so even if I called myself Jewish, I wouldn't be. I don't meet the requirements of the faith.
If you're born and raised in China, with Chinese ancestry without any European ancestors, I don't think it's a fallacy to say you're not a Scotsman.
Am I falling into the True Scotsman fallacy on that? I don't think I am as I'm not saying "If you say you're Jewish/Christian/Scottish/whatever without meeting the requirements, I'm saying not a True member of the faith/group", I'm saying you're not at all.
Hey, I could be misunderstanding. I could be wrong, and am open to having my mind changed (hence the thread and trying to lay out the background).
With regard to being Jewish, you are incorrect. So long as your mother is Jewish (or, in some denominations, your father), then you are a Jew, regardless if you follow all or none of the tenets/traditions/dogma. Even Jews who convert to another religion are still considered Jewish, they have simply just gone "off the way".
A Jew who eats pork is still a Jew. A Jew who works on the Sabbath is still a Jew. No one in Adam Sandler's Hannukah Song is an observant/religious Jew but they are all Jews just the same. Jesus was a Jew who preached a different message from the norm of the times. All these Jews are welcome in my orthodox synagogue.
Having a bar/bat mitzvah is a right of passage, not a determination of faith or belonging. Many Jews who were not allowed to have bar/bat mitzvahs due to coming of age during WWII or in the USSR has them later in life.
If good Christians read the bible, then they have read the Torah. It is likely they have not read the Talmud (which most Jews haven't either).
A Rabbi Professor of mine in University had another track - If someone stands up and says "I am a Jew" and is willing to take upon them the joys and hardships of being a Jew, then we must consider them a Jew.
Judaism is not an all or nothing deal.
(Now, I am not sure how this fits in with your post/question. Just wanted to add what I know.)
The Following User Says Thank You to Bleeding Red For This Useful Post:
Yes. Your definition of a Calgarian/Catholic/Scot are flawed and totally arbitrary. Even if we found an easy to define means of defining who belongs to a particular group, there will always be grey areas.
Technically, sure. But you could make the same point that I assume you're trying to make by just pointing out that a lot of people who consider themselves Christian don't actually adhere to the principles that their religion demands of them.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Technically, sure. But you could make the same point that I assume you're trying to make by just pointing out that a lota majority of people who consider themselves Christian don't actually adhere to the principles that their religion demands of them.
fixed
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Technically, sure. But you could make the same point that I assume you're trying to make by just pointing out that a lot of people who consider themselves Christian don't actually adhere to the principles that their religion demands of them.
Those principles are debatable. So is the judgement of adherence to said principles.
I was responding to the first post, not you, if that's the source of confusion here.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The character of Jesus in the New Testament said the Old Testament is all good. Therefore, if you don't believe all the stories/follow all the rules of the Old Testimate, you don't follow the teachings of Jesus. That's not a low bar, but rather a twisted in-passable bar that defies all logic.
The point I was making is that in order to be Christian you have to follow the teaching of Jesus. A fairly low bar, in my opinion.
However, if you don't follow the teachings of Christ, if you do the opposite an actively work against the teaching of Christ, then you cannot be Christian.
Have you read the Bible? There are endorsements of violence from Christ as well as passages imploring people to be kind to each other. A book that endorses all viewpoints ultimately endorses none of them, and it is our own morality that people apply when they ignore the brutal bullsh*t in the Bible.
The problem with applying your criteria of following Christ is that there are people who would say that the way one person follows "the teachings of Christ" are not faithful to scripture. Then there are others who would say that our understanding has evolved so they are still actually following Christ's example, and so on. People conveniently ignore teachings they don't like, whether those teachings are negative or positive, yet they still claim to be Christians.
I know Muslims who drink and have bank loans (alcohol and paying interest are both considered haram), but you're not going to tell them "Well, you're not a real Muslim because you don't follow the teachings of the Quran", are you.
The character of Jesus in the New Testament said the Old Testament is all good. Therefore, if you don't believe all the stories/follow all the rules of the Old Testimate, you don't follow the teachings of Jesus. That's not a low bar, but rather a twisted in-passable bar that defies all logic.
This is incorrect.
Jesus preached an "open to all" message - Jew and Hellenist alike. His whole point was that one did not have to follow all the laws in the Old Testament in order to gain eternal salvation.
Jesus was philosophy/theology. The Church is rules and laws.
"in order to be Christian you have to follow the teaching of Jesus. A fairly low bar, in my opinion."
Whose definition of 'follow'? Whose interpretation of scripture?
Today owning slaves would probably fall into the "not a Christian" category for most but that hasn't always been true.
So at best one can say "that person doesn't follow what I believe a Christian is".
Exactly this.
Christianity has speciated, in my opinion, more than any other major world religion. It's like asking what a dog looks like. Besides the obvious 4 legs and head, the descriptions can be quite different.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Jesus preached an "open to all" message - Jew and Hellenist alike. His whole point was that one did not have to follow all the laws in the Old Testament in order to gain eternal salvation.
Jesus was philosophy/theology. The Church is rules and laws.
Not according to various direct quotes of Jesus in the gospels.
The character of Jesus in the New Testament said the Old Testament is all good. Therefore, if you don't believe all the stories/follow all the rules of the Old Testimate, you don't follow the teachings of Jesus. That's not a low bar, but rather a twisted in-passable bar that defies all logic.
In Acts though doesn’t he appear to Peter with all of the non/kosher food and say that it’s okay to eat and that essentially is saying that provided you believe in Jesus the Old Testament rules don’t matter?
I'm also pretty sure that Jesus referred to gentiles (non-Jews) as dogs in the eyes of the lord.
Didn’t that change with the conversion of Paul though when he became the emissary to the Gentiles? And Luke’s?? Gospel was written for gentiles compared to Matthew written for the Jews.
I can’t remember anymore i could be completely wrong on this and my other post.
Are you confused about your own post? You made a statement. I responded. Isn’t that how this works?
No, I am not sure what your point is. Was I unclear about that when I said "what's your point"?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The True Scotsman Fallacy
