.
According to Christians who debate here there appear to be many 'degrees' of Christians – REAL Christians, TRUE Christians, Bible Believing Christians, Spirited-filled followers of Christ, Born Again Christians, Slaves of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Nominal Christians, Cultural Christians, etc, etc – even “authentic born-again, Spirited-filled followers of Christ�.
Often we see Christians demeaning fellow Christians who worship or believe differently, particularly when some commit reprehensible acts or promote a 'weird' viewpoint. This suggests the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy:
“The No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defends the generalization of a group by excluding counter-examples from it. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to abandon all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people". https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
It also suggests self-righteousness and self-aggrandizement (because the speaker pretends, of course, to be one of the select)
Who decides what labels apply to which Christians? By whom are the judges appointed?
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
It also suggests self-righteousness and self-aggrandizement (because the speaker pretends, of course, to be one of the select)
Who decides what labels apply to which Christians? By whom are the judges appointed?
I think the important factor is belonging to a group of like-minded people. They might all believe in mystical oak trees and accept guidance from a druid. Or they might think Mecca is the place they turn to when addressing God. Or they may think that plucking a living heart from a human and offering it as a sacrifice is pleasing to God.
The various Christian groups find shelter in the umbrella of like opinion. So one group might decide Catholics are heretics and constantly deplore anything Catholic. That very animosity is the cement of that society.
But such groups don't need a god- they can have political ideals and join together apparently believing the same thing. Perhaps it's all to do with a human desire for closeness, and a wish to exclude the wild beast.
It is amusing that millions of Muslims bend down believing they are addressing a true god while millions of Christians sign themselves and address another true god. It is sad, too, since in them all flows blood and they are all destined for death as they ignore life.
Either one is a Christian, that is, born-again (spirit once dead is brought alive in Christ) and Spirit-filled (Holy Spirit fills a person and lives within him or her) as he or she enters into a relationship with Jesus or he or she isn't. That's the historical definition of a Christian, always has been and I hope it always will be although there have been people who have wanted to define it to suit their own purposes -- and there still are including some on this forum. So there are no "degrees" of Christianity. Either one is or one isn't according to the definition which is rooted in the Bible and established by the early church.
Consider these passages about being born again:
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.� Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.� Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?� Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:1-8).
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:1-10)
Consider these passages about being filled with the Holy Spirit:
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever" (John 14:16).
"When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4).
Once born-again and Spirit-filled, a Christian, as a follower of Christ, works with the Holy Spirit to do as he asks, living out the gospel that he preached, sharing it with others.
As for the No True Scotsman Fallacy, it doesn't apply here. Being a true Scotsman means either being born in Scotland or becoming a citizen of Scotland. That's the definition. If you say someone isn't a Scotsman because he doesn't wear a kilt or eat haggis or speak with a burr, then that's a fallacy because none of those things is required to be a Scotsman. But if you say someone isn't a Scotsman because he wasn't born in Scotland or hasn't taken out citizenship, then it isn't a fallacy because you are making the claim based on the definition of what it means to be a Scotsman.
If a person says someone isn't a Christian because he doesn't quote the Bible or doesn't wear a cross or doesn't attend this particular church rather than that particular church, that's a fallacy because none of those things are what is required to be a Christian. However, if you say someone isn't a Christian because he isn't born-again or Spirit-filled, that isn't a fallacy because that's what the definition of a Christian is.
I always think it's imperative to define our terms in these discussions and there seems to be some misunderstanding of just what it is to be a Christian. It is no more self-righteous or self-aggrandizing to say that someone isn't a Christian unless they're born-again and Spirit-filled than it is to say someone isn't a Scotsman if he wasn't born in that country or isn't a legal citizen of it.
Overcomer wrote:
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:1-8).
Jesus in his reported sayings seems to enjoy using figurative language instead of taking the trouble to say exactly what he means. He isn't defining Christianity, a system that came after Christ's death; he is suggesting that the spiritual is better than the flesh. What water has to do with anything is just perhaps a piece of superstition.
The "born-again" thing is another way of claiming some superiority over lesser mortals. I suppose one jumps in the sea and comes out with a declaration. Christ didn't quite say exactly what he was on about.
Zzyzx wrote:
...
Who decides what labels apply to which Christians? By whom are the judges appointed?
Originally Christian meant a disciple of Jesus.
When he found him, he brought him to Antioch, and for a whole year they were guests of the church and taught a large crowd. It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26
And according to Jesus, person who remains in his words, is truly his disciple.
Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32
So, what do you think, would Jesus be the best to define who is his disciple?
1213 wrote:
So, what do you think, would Jesus be the best to define who is his disciple?
I think that the Jesus character depicted in the Bible would have nothing to do with modern 'Christians', but would consider them self-righteous hypocrites and pretenders -- perhaps akin to the temple Jews of his era.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Who decides what labels apply to which Christians? By whom are the judges appointed?
It really doesn't matter. I mean if Christians can't all agree among themselves, surely we can't here.
One person will say '123' and another will say 'No, that 123 is not right, it's actually ABC'
Then another will say 'You're both wrong. It's XYZ'
When it comes to judges, I've seen many Christians that don't want to judge do so. It's the epitome of hypocrisy.
That's what Christianity is these days: Excused hatred serve with justified hypocrisy.
Overcomer wrote:Either one is a Christian, that is, born-again (spirit once dead is brought alive in Christ) and Spirit-filled (Holy Spirit fills a person and lives within him or her) as he or she enters into a relationship with Jesus or he or she isn't.
You have clearly identified one in-group here, and by applying it, also identified its corresponding out-group. There will likely be those within this in-group who further restrict the definition to create a further in-group within yours. Social Identity Theory is full of examples (sports, politics, consumer brands) of in-groups, and religion is no different.
My understanding of the OP’s position is that Christianity is no different from any other ‘in-group’ in that it often commits the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy in order to ‘protect’ its identity. All you have demonstrated is that you have an opinion on what constitutes the defining factor of whether a person belongs to this particular in-group or not.
As for the No True Scotsman Fallacy, it doesn't apply here. Being a true Scotsman means either being born in Scotland or becoming a citizen of Scotland. That's the definition.
You have confused the definition of a person’s nationality with the similarly-named fallacy. As Zzyzx has already posted a definition of the fallacy, I don’t need to repeat it, but the point is that the fallacy applies to any in-group being defended. As such, it very much does apply.
I always think it's imperative to define our terms in these discussions and there seems to be some misunderstanding of just what it is to be a Christian.
Can you see how the fallacy is linked to your desire to define a particular social group? And do you feel comfortable with this as your answer to the OP’s:
Who decides what labels apply to which Christians? By whom are the judges appointed?
I agree that every Christian will have a definition of what it means to be a Christian. Those who fit that definition are in and those who don't are out. Not all Christians will try to put individuals in one camp or the other unless they are talking about actual actions/comments that directly contradict the definition.
So what? Everybody with a worldview, religious or secular, does this, don't they? I don't see why this is necessarily self-righteous and self-aggrandizing. People can certainly act that way, but it's not necessary to do so.
According to atheists who debate here there appear to be many 'degrees' of atheists - explicit atheists, 'implicit' atheists, strong and weak atheists etc.
Often we see atheists demeaning fellow atheists who think or believe differently. Even someone such as I who does not 'believe' in God and therefore by some folks' definitions would be an 'agnostic weak atheist' have been accused by more than one atheist of instead being Christian or religious. This suggests the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy - "No true atheist would argue fairly for both the pros and cons of a position!"
It also suggests self-righteousness and self-aggrandizement (because the speaker pretends, of course, to be one of the select)
Who decides what labels apply to which atheists? By whom are the judges appointed?
I would say that the biggest difference in this comparison is that Christians rarely or never try to claim that someone is a Christian who doesn't say they are one, but atheists regularly seem determined to put their label onto others - even babies! Diagoras has already hinted at the social dynamics which describe such efforts to create a suitable in-group: Being such a popular religion, some Christians might be more inclined to selectively refine their in-group, whereas having comparatively little popular success some atheists might be more inclined to artificially boost their in-group's size and social credibility.
