DomKen
Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004 From: Chicago, IL Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Arturas quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen quote:
ORIGINAL: Arturas quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen quote:
ORIGINAL: Arturas quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel Ah the old No True Scotsman Fallacy. You think so? Obviously I think that a CHRISTian by definition follows CHRIST and if they don' then they are not, no matter what they call themselves. I don't think this fits your description of my argument since the goalpost is never shifted, it is absolute whereas the church indeed shifted the definition of Christian, as have other posts here, to agree with their arguments which indeed fit the description of "The No True Scottsman Fallacy" You have no idea what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. But you did definitely commit it. It was a classic. You think so? In what way? You decided that people who self identify as Christian were not Christian so as to exclude them because you don't like their behavior. That is the precise definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Hardly. Christians are defined by Jesus Christ, hence they are called Christians. The definition is in the written word and not provided by a Pope, or King on a Crusade or you or me. So you have this backwards and are trying to move the goal or criterion to fit your argument, one you cannot win because of it's core fallacy, that is you redefine Christian and add to that one already provided by Christ. I am amazed some even attempt it. But they have to in order to classify the followers of the one who said "treat others as you would have them treat you" and "love thy neighbor" as somehow bad and then point to some pope or King who did bad things with subjects they called Christians. Amazing task they have set themselves to do in pointing at Christians and blaming them for the ills of some Church and secular authorities. Your failing is to define Christians in a self serving manner and then assign that definition to a semi fictional entity who cannot be consulted. It doesn't change the fallacy it simply makes it worse.
|