Not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him

[Blastcat]

In another post, someone mentioned that "Not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him"

I call this a rather veiled attempt at the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The implication is that SOME Christians think that burning people at the stake is RIGHTEOUS and according to Christianity, but they don't actually know "Him".

"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

What do you guys think of this?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 9 by tam]

Hi tam.
I can't follow your objection. It's way off base
This is the messy kind of thinking that makes it SO difficult for me to have a conversation with you that goes anywhere. I keep trying to explain .. and you keep not really understanding.

That was my problem in the other thread.
It just seems to me that for whatever reason, I couldn't get you to understand what I was talking about. So, whenever you make an objection ... it's about some other thing, entirely. Weirdly CLOSE to my point, but really... off.

I'm not going to be able to unravel all of that for you.
Preaching seems to be your thing, tam. Reasoning... maybe not so much.

Tam, you don't seem to understand what a fallacy is.. And I'm NOT sure that you understand at all what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is, either.

I understand what a fallacy is.

I think that you do not.

So, that's a problem.

Perhaps. Perhaps the problem is with me. Perhaps the problem is a lack of full understanding on this fallacy. I learn best by example. That is who I am.

The example of the Scotsman is not applicable to the example of a Christian, because a Scotsman is born a Scotsman (or perhaps moves to Scotland and becomes a Scotsman). A Christian is not a Christian by birth (not like how a Jew is a Jew by birth), and there is no country called "Christian" that one can move TO.

That's is the WEIRDEST objection to the fallacy that I have EVER read.

There are plenty of resources that aren't too difficult if you really want to know how this works.

Here is a good one. It's not too difficult, and it explains how it can relate to Christianity.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/

It's not too long or overly technical. I really suggest that you take a look at it.
Right now, you are way off base.

[PghPanther]

Me thinks this whole thing can be simplified to this...

Tam makes the statement she knows the voice of Christ and that if others claim they follow Christ but conflict with what Christ really is to her (via either the Biblical accounts of him by her interpretation and/or her communication with him) then they are not truly followers of Christ

Of course every person who claims they are a follower of Christ can make this statement about themselves as well.....

So if you a get a conflict with any who among the followers of Christ how is one to know who is right or not?

But worse yet.........just because you may think you are right among proclaiming believers does that mean any of it is seated with in reality to even begin with?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 9 by tam]

Hi tam.

Hope you don't give up.
Bad reasoning really doesn't WORK.

It's so messy that it's hard to UNDERSTAND.. and then it FAILS to convince anyone.
Why would someone insist on FAILING?

Who wants to be WRONG?

You also fail to understand why we cannot take you as THE authority on what Christ thinks, tam. You keep trying the same old same old routine, and it keeps FAILING.

Not at all. I do understand why you cannot take me as THE authority of what Christ thinks. I do not ask or expect you to take me as THE Authority of what Christ thinks. I can only show you what He is written to have said/taught/done... and/or... share what He has taught me personally (but the only way for you to confirm the latter is if you heard from Him yourself).

So, in the meantime.. we should take you as the AUTHORITY in the matter?... no tam, we can't do that. Just because you SAY that the only way for us to confirm what you say is TRUE at all is to "HEAR IT FOR OURSELVES" doesn't mean that anyone CAN actually DO THAT, or that YOU HAVE.

For all we know, you are just imagining all of this. Nice dream.. but that's it.
A lovely fantasy, tam.

You would just LOVE us to live in the same fantasy as you do.
Well, some of us don't WANT to base our lives on fantasies, tam.

Even a LOVELY fantasy like yours must be.
But you CLAIM that your fantasy is REAL.

And all we have to verify your claims ARE your claims.
That's not going to get you ANYWHERE, tam.

It's completely CIRCULAR.
And most probably delusional.

Either way... I cannot expect you to take me as THE authority on Christ... when I would NEVER take someone else as the authority on Christ.

So, you are on equal footing with anyone else, tam. Your opinions about Christ isn't any more special than anyone else's. Sorry.

Not even mine, tam, not even mine.
I have opinions too, you know.

A WHOLE lot of people have opinions concerning what the Bible says, tam. Is that NEWS to you?

I can only put the info out there. You can test it, you can do with it as you wish, but the only authority on what Christ thinks is Christ Himself.

That would be using the WORST logic imaginable. I don't recommend doing that.

You CLAIM it's "info" but it's really just "your opinion". You claim to "know Christ" but can't prove it. You give us criteria that can only fail.

Anyone can have an idea as to what kind of Christ they believe in, and test their idea WITH their idea, and if their idea happens to MATCH their idea, THAT'S PROOF the the idea is TRUE?

I got dizzy just WRITING that.

Do you LIKE to be wrong like that all the time?

Nope. But if I am, I like to be shown it so that I can instead know what is right.

It's going to be VERY difficult for someone who thinks that CHRIST himself talks to him, to be able to even ENTERTAIN that he can be WRONG.

I don't see you preaching humility. I see you preaching the word of god DIRECT from god. The messenger of GOD. Every time you claim a direct revelation, you LOST it.

You might as well be babbling on a street corner for all the convincing power that has. But you seem to THINK that it's a good idea, since you do it ALL the time.

It's not a good idea, tam.

I don't get it.
I personally HATE to be wrong.

If someone told ME that I was making a logical fallacy, I would certainly CHECK IT OUT.

You're assuming I did not check it out?

NO, I don't have to assume ANYTHING, tam.

It's plain to see that you don't understand at all. So if you DID check it out, you didn't UNDERSTAND it at all. You clearly demonstrate your almost TOTAL lack of understanding by your very BIZARRE objection to it in your previous post.

I will leave it to others with WAY MORE PATIENCE to explain it to you, tam. I just wont fill PAGES of attempts at explaining and untangling SUCH A MESS.

Try THIS on for size though... change the word "Scotsman" for ANYTHING ELSE. Change it to "Someone who KNOWS Christ". The SCOTTISH connection is only an EXAMPLE.

The argument isn't ONLY intended for SCOTTISH people, tam.

I read the wiki link; though it is not the first time I have read it. I tried to see how it applies, but I have too many unanswered questions as yet as to how it can apply.

It applies because you CLAIM to be a true "knower of Christ", or more simply, a "true Christian". And you compare THAT to someone who merely CLAIMS to truly know Christ.

Apparently, the general case is TRUE KNOWERS OF CHRIST don't disagree with you.
Yet, people DO disagree with you,
THEREFORE,
They must NOT be true knowers of Christ.

But you haven't established that :

1. You ARE a true knower.
2. That your criteria for what "true knower" means is accepted by all.
3. Truly knowing Christ is even POSSIBLE.
4. That Christ is more than an imaginary being.

It would be perfectly USELESS to say that some people don't actually know Him IF

1. He doesn't actually exist.
2. Knowing Christ ( assuming that he DOES exist ) is IMPOSSIBLE.
3. Your criteria is only good for SOME people, but not ALL people.
4. You aren't yourself a true knower.

You have a LOT of work ahead of you, tam.

Like I keep saying.. there are a WHOLE lotta claims going on.

For example from another defintion:

Description: When a universal (“all�, “every�, etc.) claim is refuted, rather than conceding the point or meaningfully revising the claim, the claim is altered by going from universal to specific, and failing to give any objective criteria for the specificity.

I did not make a universal claim, so I had no universal claim that was refuted.

You did tam.

The universal claim that you make is that NO TRUE "knower" of Christ disagrees with you about what "Christ" said and did and taught. And THAT'S why you claim people have different opinions about Christ than you do... you claim that they don't agree with you because they don't ACTUALLY know "Him".

Because IF THEY DID actually "know Him" they WOULD agree with you..

Your criteria for what is REALLY KNOWING Him seems to consist of THREE parts:

1. LOVE... as long as they match up to what you think is loving behavior, they are REALLY KNOWING CHRIST. Think about it. Are ONLY people who know Christ capable of LOVING BEHAVIOR?... or course not. Even us HEATHENS are capable of loving behavior.
2. Scripture. ...as long as they match up to what you think SCRIPTURE means, they are REALLY KNOWING CHRIST. Think about it. They have THEIR opinion, you have YOURS, and you don't AGREE. So, are we supposed to think that BECAUSE they don't agree with you that they don't really know Christ? Of course not. People DO have different opinions than you do. Maybe THEY know Christ and you DON'T.
3. Special Revelation... when in doubt, claim the god HIMSELF told you. Settles everything, doesn't it? Think about it. Not everyone who claims to know Him actually DOES know Him. You claim to know Him, and for all we know, you don't.

All three of these criteria for ACTUALLY KNOWING CHRIST are useless.


I'll stop here.
This is getting WAY too long.

If you have any interest in the "All X is Y thing", let me know.
It gets a bit technical...

Maybe we should focus on what we already have... it sure is ENOUGH for now, and maybe TOO much.

[tam]

Peace again to you Blastcat!

[Replying to post 9 by tam]

Hi tam.

Hope you don't give up.

You insist on making me say things I did not say. You insist on making this about something that never happened. It does not matter what I say. So I think I am done, Blastcat.

Bad reasoning really doesn't WORK.

Neither does building pages and pages of arguments on something someone never said.

Its, as you say:

It's so messy that it's hard to UNDERSTAND..

You also fail to understand why we cannot take you as THE authority on what Christ thinks, tam. You keep trying the same old same old routine, and it keeps FAILING.

Not at all. I do understand why you cannot take me as THE authority of what Christ thinks. I do not ask or expect you to take me as THE Authority of what Christ thinks. I can only show you what He is written to have said/taught/done... and/or... share what He has taught me personally (but the only way for you to confirm the latter is if you heard from Him yourself).

So, in the meantime.. we should take you as the AUTHORITY in the matter?...

I tell you that you should not... and you follow with, 'so we should'?

Do you LIKE to be wrong like that all the time?

Nope. But if I am, I like to be shown it so that I can instead know what is right.

It's going to be VERY difficult for someone who thinks that CHRIST himself talks to him, to be able to even ENTERTAIN that he can be WRONG.

Is this your opinion, Blastcat? What is it that you have to say about opinions?

I don't get it.
I personally HATE to be wrong.

If someone told ME that I was making a logical fallacy, I would certainly CHECK IT OUT.

You're assuming I did not check it out?

NO, I don't have to assume ANYTHING, tam.

But you did.

The argument isn't ONLY intended for SCOTTISH people, tam.

I'm quite aware of that.

I read the wiki link; though it is not the first time I have read it. I tried to see how it applies, but I have too many unanswered questions as yet as to how it can apply.

It applies because you CLAIM to be a true "knower of Christ", or more simply, a "true Christian". And you compare THAT to someone who merely CLAIMS to truly know Christ.

I did not make that comparison. So how does it apply?

Apparently, the general case is TRUE KNOWERS OF CHRIST don't disagree with you.
Yet, people DO disagree with you,
THEREFORE,
They must NOT be true knowers of Christ.

This is your warped version of what I said. I didn't even say anything like that.

I said, in response to being asked why so many believers do not agree with one another:

"Not all who claim to know Him, actually do know Him."


I did not name who was who. I did not even mention myself in that. I simply made a general statement, that you have turned into pages and pages of argument. I even added an addendum to that, in that some people may misunderstand some things (for whatever reason) and are still learning/growing/becoming mature in Him.



I also asked these questions of you which you did not respond to:

Please tell me how I could have answered that question accurately (the accurate response being that not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him) without resorting to the logical fallacy you have said that I have resorted to.

Can you answer the question with the truthful response I gave to you... in a way that does not commit what you believe to be the no true scotsman fallacy?


If there is no way to speak the truth on this matter, then I would suggest that the deck has been stacked against what is true, and how is that logical?

It would be perfectly USELESS to say that some people don't actually know Him IF

1. He doesn't actually exist.

On the thread that you objected to this statement, Christ existing WAS AN ASSUMED PART OF THE OP. CHRIST BEING WHO HE SAID HE WAS WAS IN THE ACTUAL QUESTION.


The statement would be true either way though.

For example from another defintion:

Description: When a universal (“all�, “every�, etc.) claim is refuted, rather than conceding the point or meaningfully revising the claim, the claim is altered by going from universal to specific, and failing to give any objective criteria for the specificity.

I did not make a universal claim, so I had no universal claim that was refuted.

You did tam.

The universal claim that you make is that NO TRUE "knower" of Christ disagrees with you about what "Christ" said and did and taught.

That was not my claim.

That was never my claim.

That has never BEEN my claim.

That will never BE my claim.

You can't see that. I get it. And maybe that is why you have a hard time seeing that Christ did not teach anyone to burn others at the stake, and in fact taught opposite this.

Because IF THEY DID actually "know Him" they WOULD agree with you..

No, they would not do things in His name that are so completely opposite of everything He said, taught, did.


You keep making it about me, BC. It ain't about me.

You keep saying you can't possibly know what Christ said/taught/did, because anything can be interpreted any way. Well that is your opinion. But Christ's words AND DEEDS on the matter of burning people at the stake in his name; well, a person would have to be blind to think He somehow approved this; a person would definitely NOT know him if they thought this is what He wanted.


Because to do it, one must ignore Him, and every word and deed that He spoke and acted. Even if the only thing one will do is look to His words as written.

Your criteria for what is REALLY KNOWING Him seems to consist of THREE parts:

1. LOVE... as long as they match up to what you think is loving behavior, they are REALLY KNOWING CHRIST.

Nope. Never said that. Don't think it.

Think about it. Are ONLY people who know Christ capable of LOVING BEHAVIOR?... or course not. Even us HEATHENS are capable of loving behavior.

This statements should be a red flag for you because it PROVES that you are NOT reading my words; are merely skimming and seeing what you expect to see; or are refusing to understand; or are incapable of understanding; or do not truly want to understand.

I would suggest that you stop thinking you know what I am saying, because you clearly do not.

I said DIRECTLY, on the thread in question and elsewhere, multiple times, that there are those who are not Christian who have the law of love upon their hearts. They know love, they act out of love, and they are not Christian. They may be atheists, agnostics, people of other religions, etc... but they are not Christian and they do know and act in love.

Remember the link I posted on the previous thread, and then copied entirely so you would not have to click the link? I said all of this in that as well.


For you to attempt to school me on something that I already knew and said to you should at least be a hint to you that you are not HEARING me at ALL. That you do not know or understand my position at ALL.

2. Scripture. ...as long as they match up to what you think SCRIPTURE means, they are REALLY KNOWING CHRIST. Think about it. They have THEIR opinion, you have YOURS, and you don't AGREE. So, are we supposed to think that BECAUSE they don't agree with you that they don't really know Christ? Of course not. People DO have different opinions than you do. Maybe THEY know Christ and you DON'T.

No. I have said that you can look at what is written to see what Christ actually said and did.

So that if someone say, 'curses another person'; then you can know that they are not listening to Christ in this instance, even though they may claim to be listening to Him. They may just have reacted in anger, and will repent. But someone who says Christ wants us to curse and not bless; that is someone who does not know Christ because that is the exact opposite of what Christ said. Because Christ said, clearly and in black and white, 'bless and do not curse." and "Bless those who persecute you."

It is not my opinion that Christ wants us to bless and not to curse. It is His words. It is not my interpretation that Christ wants us to bless and not to curse. It is His words.





I'm not sure there is more to say from me on this matter. I would be interested in your answer those questions I bolded with regard to the scotsman fallacy. Or maybe someone else will jump in on that one.

But the rest?

I did not make the claims that you have said and will continue to say that I made. I am finished pointing that out and getting drawn into an argument that I did not make to begin with.





Peace again to you and your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Divine Insight]

Me thinks this whole thing can be simplified to this...

Tam makes the statement she knows the voice of Christ and that if others claim they follow Christ but conflict with what Christ really is to her (via either the Biblical accounts of him by her interpretation and/or her communication with him) then they are not truly followers of Christ

Of course every person who claims they are a follower of Christ can make this statement about themselves as well.....

So if you a get a conflict with any who among the followers of Christ how is one to know who is right or not?

But worse yet.........just because you may think you are right among proclaiming believers does that mean any of it is seated with in reality to even begin with?

It seems to me that we already have a criteria given to us by the Gospels that are supposed to be the "Words of Christ".

Tam was trying to suggest that a "True Scotsman" would be defined by someone who was born in Scotland, or has obtained legal citizenship there somehow. In other words, we could create a definition for a "True Scotsman" as the criteria and then just go by that definition to see whether or not a person qualifies as a "True Scotsman".

I realize this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "True Scotsman fallacy", but surely you can understand how we could (in theory) create a specific definition and criteria for determining whether a certain person qualifies, by that definition, to be a "True Scotsman".

Well, guess what? Jesus GAVE us the criteria for being a TRUE CHRISTIAN, (i.e. a person who truly believes on Jesus)

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

So there we have it, straight from the horse's Mouth as they say, although, in truth this is just John claiming that Jesus said this, but according to Tam words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament must be the words of Jesus otherwise she has NOTHING to go by or point to as instruction given to us by Jesus.

Yet, according to the WORDS OF JESUS above, if Tam truly believes on Jesus then she should be able to do the works that Jesus did.

In short, that should be the ONLY CRITERIA for what constitutes a "True Christian".

And therefore if Tam can't heal the sick, raise the dead, walk on water, and turn water into wine, then she has no business (according to Jesus) to be claiming to believe in him at all.

She has shot herself in her own foot on this one.

If she wants to go by what Jesus had to say, then she needs to demonstrate that she can do what Jesus proclaimed that she would be able to do if she believes on him.

As far as I'm concerned this is an OPEN AND SHUT case.

Unless she can perform the same works as Jesus, then she can't be a "True Christian" according to words attributed to Jesus himself. By his own criteria she must not believe on him or she would be able to do the same works that he did.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 14 by tam]

Hi tam.

It seems that I got almost EVERYTHING wrong, and I just hate that.
How about you take the opportunity to tell us just what it IS that you believe. I don't LIKE to be wrong, tam.

So, instead of just telling me NO... how about you take a little time and tell us what IS your position on a few crucial issues.

I will ask some questions concerning your very STRONG objections.

I will take them seriously.
Please correct me.

You insist on making me say things I did not say. You insist on making this about something that never happened. It does not matter what I say. So I think I am done, Blastcat.

If you are done...... You might not see the 13 questions I have for you below.
I hope that you do, and that you choose to answer them. Most of them are YES/NO questions, but feel free to elaborate if you think you need to.

I really HATE to be wrong, tam.
I'm going to try as hard as I can to get it right.

I tell you that you should not... and you follow with, 'so we should'?

Ok, fine.

First question then:

1. Whenever you tell us about what Christ is.. should we:

a. Believe you.
b. NOT believe you.

It's going to be VERY difficult for someone who thinks that CHRIST himself talks to him, to be able to even ENTERTAIN that he can be WRONG.

Is this your opinion, Blastcat? What is it that you have to say about opinions?

Ok, second question:

2. Is it easy for you to entertain that what you believe about Christ can be WRONG?

It applies because you CLAIM to be a true "knower of Christ", or more simply, a "true Christian". And you compare THAT to someone who merely CLAIMS to truly know Christ.

I did not make that comparison. So how does it apply?

Third question:

3. Do you consider yourself to be a true "knower of Christ"?

Apparently, the general case is TRUE KNOWERS OF CHRIST don't disagree with you.
Yet, people DO disagree with you,
THEREFORE,
They must NOT be true knowers of Christ.

This is your warped version of what I said. I didn't even say anything like that.

Fourth question then:

4. Can ACTUAL knowers of Christ DISAGREE with what you believe about Christ?

I also asked these questions of you which you did not respond to:

I missed those. Sorry.
Let me get to them right quick like.

Please tell me how I could have answered that question accurately (the accurate response being that not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him) without resorting to the logical fallacy you have said that I have resorted to.

Well, first off you could say something like "In no way do I claim to actually know Christ, and some people DO make that claim". There are tons of ways to avoid the fallacy. Invoking true or false knowers is falling right in there.

We KNOW that you have claimed to be a "Knower of Christ" ... do you take the claim BACK? It's important for us to know if you do, because I don't WANT to be wrong about your actual position. It seems that I am so very much, you see.

Please, clear that up for everyone.

Can you answer the question with the truthful response I gave to you... in a way that does not commit what you believe to be the no true scotsman fallacy?

I'm not sure what you are asking me, sorry.

If there is no way to speak the truth on this matter, then I would suggest that the deck has been stacked against what is true, and how is that logical?

I didn't say there was no way to speak the TRUTH on this matter, I'm questioning your reasoning. I have no way to evaluate if what you say is true. All you really said is that some people really know Christ ( I think you might include yourself in that group, correct me if I'm wrong ) and some people DON'T.

So, if they disagree with you, they just DON'T know Christ as well as you do was the implication. Some people KNOW Christ, and their opinions are CORRECT, and some don't and get them WRONG.

Question five is:

5. Do you think there are disagreements between Christians because they don't KNOW god the way that you do, but only CLAIM to know god, and get it wrong?

It would be perfectly USELESS to say that some people don't actually know Him IF

1. He doesn't actually exist.

On the thread that you objected to this statement, Christ existing WAS AN ASSUMED PART OF THE OP. CHRIST BEING WHO HE SAID HE WAS WAS IN THE ACTUAL QUESTION.

That's why I had to start a new thread. In here, we are exploring the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, where assuming that Christ is real isn't necessary at all.

But you missed the point of the objection.

IF Christ does not actually exist, then OF COURSE you cannot, NOR CAN ANYONE ELSE, 'actually know Christ". So, it's rather IMPORTANT that you can demonstrate that he actually DOES exist in the first place, because if you cannot, then it's MEANINGLESS to say that disagreements exist due to NOT KNOWING CHRIST.

Ya can't know what ain't there, tam.

For example from another defintion:

Description: When a universal (“all�, “every�, etc.) claim is refuted, rather than conceding the point or meaningfully revising the claim, the claim is altered by going from universal to specific, and failing to give any objective criteria for the specificity.

I did not make a universal claim, so I had no universal claim that was refuted.

The universal claim that you make is that NO TRUE "knower" of Christ disagrees with you about what "Christ" said and did and taught.

That was not my claim.

Question six:

6. Do you or do you NOT claim to ACTUALLY know what Christ said, did and taught?

And question seven is:

7. Do you claim that people who disagree with you DO NOT actually know what Christ said did and taught?

Because IF THEY DID actually "know Him" they WOULD agree with you..

No, they would not do things in His name that are so completely opposite of everything He said, taught, did.

You keep making it about me, BC. It ain't about me.

Then I really have to ask you question eight:

8. Do people who disagree with what you believe is Christ actually REALLY know Christ?

1. LOVE... as long as they match up to what you think is loving behavior, they are REALLY KNOWING CHRIST.

Nope. Never said that. Don't think it.

Wow.. I thought I had that one. So, next question:

9. What IS your criteria for knowing what Christ really is, if not love?

I said DIRECTLY, on the thread in question and elsewhere, multiple times, that there are those who are not Christian who have the law of love upon their hearts.

"The law of love".

Up above, you said that what you consider love wasn't a criteria for knowing Christ.
Love is or is not a criteria for knowing Christ.. which is it? That was my question 9 above.

2. Scripture. ...as long as they match up to what you think SCRIPTURE means, they are REALLY KNOWING CHRIST. Think about it. They have THEIR opinion, you have YOURS, and you don't AGREE. So, are we supposed to think that BECAUSE they don't agree with you that they don't really know Christ? Of course not. People DO have different opinions than you do. Maybe THEY know Christ and you DON'T.

No. I have said that you can look at what is written to see what Christ actually said and did.

Again no.
Ok, a few questions about this... just to be clear:

10. Do you admit to different interpretations as to what Christ said and did?

11. Do you admit that we don't actually know IF Christ said and did as is depicted in the Bible?

So that if someone say, 'curses another person'; then you can know that they are not listening to Christ in this instance, even though they may claim to be listening to Him. They may just have reacted in anger, and will repent. But someone who says Christ wants us to curse and not bless; that is someone who does not know Christ because that is the exact opposite of what Christ said. Because Christ said, clearly and in black and white, 'bless and do not curse." and "Bless those who persecute you."

Next question then:

What do we do in cases when Christ doesn't TALK about an important issue.. like, say.. slavery?.. Because I think the bible has Jesus saying that slaves should obey their masters as in 1 Peter 2:18. I don't THINK he ever said anything about setting them FREE, did he?

12. DO we sometimes NEED to interpret what the Bible says?

And the last question is just to help you be as clear as possible. You completely disagreed with what I thought were your three criteria for what TRULY knowing Christ was..

13. Are you saying that you DO NOT use the criteria of LOVE, SCRIPTURE and SPECIAL REVELATION to know Christ?

[PghPanther]

If someone is doing things that are against what Christ taught (in spirit or according to what is written) and against what Christ did (in spirit or according to what is written) and against what Christ said (in spirit or according to what is written), how exactly do they know Him? How exactly are they listening to Him? How can they even claim to be His follower when they are not following his words, deeds, or instructions?

How do you follow contradictory instructions?

Words attributed to the "Christ":

Matthew 5:17-18
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

There is no contradiction.

Christ did fulfill all, the law and prophets.

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: All must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."


If the old law is what we are supposed to listen to, and/or if the old law was correct in how it was written/understood, then what was the point of Christ coming to begin with? What was the point of God saying in front of Moses and Elijah (law and prophets):

"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."

Jots and tittles from the Old Law:

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

So according to Christ are you supposed to kill witches or not?

Who did Christ kill?

Who did Christ instruct anyone to kill?


The law said that an adulteress should be stoned (though it was still permissible to show mercy); and yet Christ saved the woman from being stoned for adultery.

If Christ did not do it, and did not instruct anyone TO do it; and the examples we have of how he responded to people who were to be put to death according to the law were of Him showing MERCY, then if we are following Him, we will follow what He did.


Same for any of your other examples. Especially in light of this:

"How can you say 'we are wise for we have the law of the LORD', when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"


Love IS the law of the new covenant.

Christ taught four things about who we are to love and how:

"Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul."
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
"Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you."
"Love one another as He has loved us."




Now, even though there is no contradiction... lets assume for a moment that there IS a contradiction. Since love is the law and both it and mercy are the most important matters of even the old law, according to Christ (the Truth), then love would settle your contradiction.


It is never against the law to show mercy, to show love. In fact Christ surpassed the 'jots and tittles' with love on more than one occasion (such as with the woman about to be stoned; such as when he asked forgiveness for those who rejected and killed Him instead of demanding 'eye for eye/life for life'. He GAVE life for life, even for those who were His enemies.)

So if one is not sure what is expected, then I would suggest that one use some reasoning and err on the side of love and mercy. If you err on the side of judgment and condemnation, well, I don't think that is the measure you want to be used against you.

"By the measure you use against others, it will be used against you."

"Show mercy and mercy will be shown you."

On the other hand, show NO mercy, and that is the measure that you are saying you want to be used against YOU when the time comes.




"I desire mercy; not sacrifice."



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Something else to think about here Tammy..........I think you would agree that both Paul and Peter were quite familiar with Christ. Peter knowing him and living side by side and eventually claimed by Christ as the rock for which the church would stand on..........and Paul as the most famous conversion from a revelation of a resurrected Christ.

and yet both of them disagree and argued most of their lives like in Galatians in Antioch..........If these two disagreed with each other and were so close to the personal revelation of your Lord.................then how in the world could you tell that your revelation would be correct when even Peter and Paul couldn't??

How would you have more insight that even those two did to make such a distinction with another believer who disagreed with what you claim?

[Divine Insight]

tam wrote:
On the thread that you objected to this statement, Christ existing WAS AN ASSUMED PART OF THE OP. CHRIST BEING WHO HE SAID HE WAS WAS IN THE ACTUAL QUESTION.

That's why I had to start a new thread. In here, we are exploring the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, where assuming that Christ is real isn't necessary at all.

I'm willing to go with the original assumption and premise.

Christ exists and was who he claimed to be.

I hold that even if we accept this as our starting premise we still have insurmountable problems precisely because of John 14:12

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

If Christ truly did exist and WAS who he claimed to be, then the above words should be TRUE.

Yet do we see anyone who can do the work that Christ had done?

No we don't.

Therefore we can only draw two possible conclusions:

1. Christ was REAL, and spoke the TRUTH, but NOBODY actually believes in him.

If they truly believe in him and he spoke the TRUTH then they would be able to do the works that he had done, and even greater works then this so says the Christ.

So unless people like Tam can actually do the works that Christ did, they can't claim to believe on him, even if he was REAL. They must not truly believe even though they are convinced that they do.

OR, we can conclude that our original premise and assumption that Christ was "Real" was mistaken, and these ancient scriptures are nothing more than superstitious rumors, or empty claims by someone who was simply lying.

Then the only other conclusion that makes any sense:

2. The premise that Jesus was real and spoke the truth must necessarily be wrong.

So either the stories of Jesus are nothing more than empty supersitious rumors and/or outright lies, OR no one throughout all of history actually believed in Jesus because no one was ever able to do the same works as Jesus much less greater works.

So this fails even if we allow the premise that Jesus actually existed and was who he said he was. There couldn't be anyone who actually believes in him anyway, because there is no one who can do the works that he was rumored to have done.

Or, far more likely, we were simply wrong to accept the premise that Jesus was real and was who he said he was. That's a far more realistic conclusion don't you think?

[tam]

If someone is doing things that are against what Christ taught (in spirit or according to what is written) and against what Christ did (in spirit or according to what is written) and against what Christ said (in spirit or according to what is written), how exactly do they know Him? How exactly are they listening to Him? How can they even claim to be His follower when they are not following his words, deeds, or instructions?

How do you follow contradictory instructions?

Words attributed to the "Christ":

Matthew 5:17-18
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

There is no contradiction.

Christ did fulfill all, the law and prophets.

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: All must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."


If the old law is what we are supposed to listen to, and/or if the old law was correct in how it was written/understood, then what was the point of Christ coming to begin with? What was the point of God saying in front of Moses and Elijah (law and prophets):

"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."

Jots and tittles from the Old Law:

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

So according to Christ are you supposed to kill witches or not?

Who did Christ kill?

Who did Christ instruct anyone to kill?


The law said that an adulteress should be stoned (though it was still permissible to show mercy); and yet Christ saved the woman from being stoned for adultery.

If Christ did not do it, and did not instruct anyone TO do it; and the examples we have of how he responded to people who were to be put to death according to the law were of Him showing MERCY, then if we are following Him, we will follow what He did.


Same for any of your other examples. Especially in light of this:

"How can you say 'we are wise for we have the law of the LORD', when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"


Love IS the law of the new covenant.

Christ taught four things about who we are to love and how:

"Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul."
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
"Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you."
"Love one another as He has loved us."




Now, even though there is no contradiction... lets assume for a moment that there IS a contradiction. Since love is the law and both it and mercy are the most important matters of even the old law, according to Christ (the Truth), then love would settle your contradiction.


It is never against the law to show mercy, to show love. In fact Christ surpassed the 'jots and tittles' with love on more than one occasion (such as with the woman about to be stoned; such as when he asked forgiveness for those who rejected and killed Him instead of demanding 'eye for eye/life for life'. He GAVE life for life, even for those who were His enemies.)

So if one is not sure what is expected, then I would suggest that one use some reasoning and err on the side of love and mercy. If you err on the side of judgment and condemnation, well, I don't think that is the measure you want to be used against you.

"By the measure you use against others, it will be used against you."

"Show mercy and mercy will be shown you."

On the other hand, show NO mercy, and that is the measure that you are saying you want to be used against YOU when the time comes.




"I desire mercy; not sacrifice."



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Something else to think about here Tammy..........I think you would agree that both Paul and Peter were quite familiar with Christ. Peter knowing him and living side by side and eventually claimed by Christ as the rock for which the church would stand on..........and Paul as the most famous conversion from a revelation of a resurrected Christ.

and yet both of them disagree and argued most of their lives like in Galatians in Antioch..........If these two disagreed with each other and were so close to the personal revelation of your Lord.................then how in the world could you tell that your revelation would be correct when even Peter and Paul couldn't??

How would you have more insight that even those two did to make such a distinction with another believer who disagreed with what you claim?

Peace to you PGH!

I fear that I may have responded in haste to your post on the other thread, having misunderstood the depth of your question. I thought I had cleared it up in a later post, but either way, I will attempt to clarify my understanding here and now, and I apologize for any confusion:



It is true that there are so many disagreements between believers because not all who claim to know Him truly know Him. Regardless of whether making that statement is somehow a logical fallacy, it is still a true statement.

**


But it is also true that some disagreements can come about because we may be carrying preconceived biases that impede our hearing and understanding of His words. For instance, Paul was a strict adherent to the law; a Pharisee. So that when he started out, he still had that ingrained in Him. He had to overcome that bias. He had to learn to empty himself out of all that he thought was true, and build upon Christ, and ONLY Christ. As do we all.



I also don't think it is true that Paul and Peter argued their whole lives. The event in Galatians is Paul calling Peter on the hypocrisy that he was showing. We all sin and mess up at times in what we do. It was good of Paul to call Peter on it. A - it did not show favoritism, even though Peter was one of the 12; and B - it showed love TO Peter, to warn him of his hypocrisy.

Perhaps Christ was also warning Peter about it; or would have; but Paul saw it and so spoke against it.


To point out where one is showing hypocrisy (or some other sin) is not a disagreement. Unless Peter argued back and defended his position. The ensuing discussion, even if 'hot-heads' turned discussion into an argument, could lead to clear up whatever misunderstanding had arisen. Especially if both parties are putting love of Christ first, remembering that they are serving HIM, and not themselves.

Peter called Paul his brother, so their argument did not impede their brotherhood in Christ.



I have a brother in Christ who does not always seem to agree with one issue that I (and a few others) have shared as we have learned from the Spirit. But that does not mean I think he is not a true Christian; and I would not even suggest such a thing. Just this one issue, he seems to have a hard time yet hearing. (yes, from his pov, he may be saying the same thing about me). But I love him as a brother in our Lord, and I know that he also loves me as a sister; and we are both FOR Christ.

We can set aside the disagreement (if indeed there is a disagreement) to continue serving our Lord, leaving it to our Lord to correct us where we need correction. Because we are not masters of the other's faith. Christ is our Teacher, Leader, Lord and Master.


Lack of maturity in Christ may cause some disagreements while one is growing and learning as well. That is where one who is mature might be able to assist another who is just beginning to listen to Christ.



**

Many times, however, people simply are not listening to Christ first, foremost, or even at all. They have taken their eyes OFF Christ (the copper serpent; the Truth) and turned their eyes, ears, and hearts toward religion, toward other men (religious leaders), holy books, and even themselves. And so they allow themselves to be misled.


**


To the matter of burning people at the stake, however, that is no small thing. That is actually in opposition to the very nature and work of Christ - shown in every example I have shared even from what is written - and such a person who could do that in his name, could not have known Him.

Even when the disciples started out with Christ, and some asked if Christ wanted them to call down fire from heaven to consume the people of a town that would not welcome Him, my Lord rebuked:

But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."


They learned of course; He taught them, even right here in this lesson. And He later gave them holy spirit (the anointing that makes one a Christian), which would also have reminded them - and anyone who had this anointing - that burning people alive was NOT from Him, or of His Spirit.




Peace again to you and to your house,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 19 by tam]

Hello, there, tam

I noticed that you haven't answered my 13 questions.
Hope you get around to those.

It would really clear things UP.

You said that I was wrong on almost EVERYTHING, and since you are here to TEACH... I am looking forward to your answers.

I think it would go a long way to help me understand your position a little better.
I don't take your silence as AVOIDANCE, you probably just missed the post.

Well, let's get down to it... your reply to PghPanther is interesting.
I have a few observations.

This post is called:

The NO TRUE SCOTSMAN RIDES AGAIN

It is true that there are so many disagreements between believers because not all who claim to know Him truly know Him. Regardless of whether making that statement is somehow a logical fallacy, it is still a true statement.

We have no way to verify that you really know Christ.

But it is also true that some disagreements can come about because we may be carrying preconceived biases that impede our hearing and understanding of His words. For instance, Paul was a strict adherent to the law; a Pharisee. So that when he started out, he still had that ingrained in Him. He had to overcome that bias. He had to learn to empty himself out of all that he thought was true, and build upon Christ, and ONLY Christ. As do we all.

We have no way to verify that you have.

But I love him as a brother in our Lord, and I know that he also loves me as a sister; and we are both FOR Christ.

But what does that mean if you disagree? Who has that "TRUTH", tam?
I don't CARE what you call yourselves, but if both of you are making a TRUTH claim, you have to somehow give us a reason to imagine that EITHER of you have it, since the TWO of you can't decide.

If you make a TRUTH claim about your religious opinions, you are WRONG.
Opinions are NOT all TRUE, tam.

Some are FALSE opinions.
And you give us NO reason to think that YOUR opinion IS true, tam. You DO have a wonderful theory, ALL CHRISTIANS DO... but ODDLY, none of them can PROVE their theories TRUE.

They all make SENSE to themselves. And I suppose that YOUR theory makes sense to YOU, too. But just because it makes sense, it doesn't mean it's TRUE.

I don't WANT to be wrong.
What you say might be FALSE, tam.

We can set aside the disagreement (if indeed there is a disagreement) to continue serving our Lord, leaving it to our Lord to correct us where we need correction. Because we are not masters of the other's faith. Christ is our Teacher, Leader, Lord and Master.

So, you are HAPPY with being wrong.
See, that's where we differ.

I DON'T LIKE THAT.

Lack of maturity in Christ may cause some disagreements while one is growing and learning as well. That is where one who is mature might be able to assist another who is just beginning to listen to Christ.

Oh yeah, let me guess who you are thinking is the MATURE ONE teaching the IMMATURE ones.

You give us no reason to think that you know more than they do.

**

Many times, however, people simply are not listening to Christ first, foremost, or even at all. They have taken their eyes OFF Christ (the copper serpent; the Truth) and turned their eyes, ears, and hearts toward religion, toward other men (religious leaders), holy books, and even themselves. And so they allow themselves to be misled.

For all we know, tam .. you are talking about YOURSELF.
You give us NO reason to think otherwise.

Preacher, preach THYSELF.

To the matter of burning people at the stake, however, that is no small thing. That is actually in opposition to the very nature and work of Christ - shown in every example I have shared even from what is written - and such a person who could do that in his name, could not have known Him.

We have no reason to take YOUR word for it and not THEIRS, tam. You just like to imagine yourself "holier" than them.

I don't.