"Church Urges On Four-Year-Old Boy Singing Anti-Gay ‘Hymn’"

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

In the interests of standardization, a single person's religious affiliation should be self-defined. I don't think it's wise to treat "Christian" like some kind of compliment; C.S. Lewis warned of that, last I recall.

I think the No True Scotsman fallacy is non-applicable, however, as Scotsmen are not, despite what Braveheart may have told us, bound by any particular code. (In fact, that fallacy should be wholly inapplicable to any worldview. Would someone who believed in ghosts be a true skeptic, even if they were part of the American Skeptic's Society?)

Men of God have acted abominably in Scripture, but they did not stop being men of God solely because of that. God often punished them, but Moses never stopped being God's representative, even if he never stepped foot into the promised land.

I think it's more fulfilling to have Christianity as a historical experience, and certainly not a perfect one. Certainly not a terrible one by any objective standards, though. In our attempts to lower altars we often place them underground. (Perhaps, as moderns, we think nothing has any business being so high anyway, and so why not bury it)

[Sebbie]

Wynni, like I said, if you want to choose a definition for the term "Christian" and use that to label people (which is precisely what you're doing), that's fine. But you're going to run into a lot of problems trying to come up with any kind of collective data on "Christians" if that's how you define them (who decides whether or not someone is Christian? Do you? Should there be a panel of people who decide whether or not someone is Christian for the purposes of statistical studies? What denomination should those people be? What if they disagree?). Like Mea said, an easy, straightforward standard is simply self-affiliation: if someone considers themselves a Christian, then they get labeled a Christian; simple as that.

To clarify: I take as the definition of a Christian someone who identifies him- or herself as one. Any other actions (and whether or not they agree with "what would Jesus do?") are irrelevant in this definition. "Proof's in the pudding" doesn't apply, because you can't prove a definition.

Also, thank you Silver; I'd never heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy, but it's wonderfully appropriate.

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

Also, thank you Silver; I'd never heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy, but it's wonderfully appropriate.

I honestly think it's a silly fallacy (if one at all), and only works in its very limited example; no one I have seen use it has shown that it is also applicable to adherents of worldviews, only adherents to nationalities that may have worldviews attached to them.

Structural definitions of worldviews like Wynni's are fine, perhaps necessary, for giving prescriptions for adherents of worldviews. For collecting data on adherents, self-definition is the only usable, objective data. That does not mean it is the best measure of what is and is not "a Christian," and is even less a good measure of "Christian behavior" or "Christ-like behavior."

[Kinuki]

I think the No True Scotsman fallacy is non-applicable, however, as Scotsmen are not, despite what Braveheart may have told us, bound by any particular code.

That's... not how that works.

[Wynni]

I find it very interesting you're choosing to be lax in this case of labeling, where you have before insisted on ironclad definitions.

A Scotsman can be defined either by heritage or place of birth, both are easily provable or disprovable. Same is true for belief systems.

A follower of Christ follows his teachings, which are fairly straightforward and easy to find in the New Testament.

And as any of the college peoples here can tell you, researchers plot data on a graph. There will be times one has outliers, and most researchers, if the outliers are statistically insignificant, ignore the outliers and go with the majority of the data. The transgression that kept Moses out of the Promised land was an outlier. Had he not, for the most part, followed God's will~and WANTED to follow God's will~ he wouldn't have been chosen in the first place.

Following and being faithful is what makes a Christian a Christian: a willingness to follow his teachings and actually bloody DOING IT. Does nobody else remember the passage where Jesus rebuked the false follower who came praising behind him? He out and out called her 'not his' even though she was literally singing his praises.

If you're 'not his' you're not a Christian.

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

I think the No True Scotsman fallacy is non-applicable, however, as Scotsmen are not, despite what Braveheart may have told us, bound by any particular code.

That's... not how that works.

The analogy that particular extension on circularity uses does not make any argument that it might apply to worldviews, and none have been supplied by its users, at least in the context of this thread.

[Sebbie]

I find it very interesting you're choosing to be lax in this case of labeling, where you have before insisted on ironclad definitions.

What? I just gave a perfectly objective and rigorous definition of "Christian;" this is a classic example of my adherence to firm, objective definitions! You may not like my definition, but I certainly provided one. I absolutely don't see how I'm being lax at all.

A follower of Christ follows his teachings, which are fairly straightforward and easy to find in the New Testament.

Do you really think that Jesus' teaching are completely objective and subject to no interpretation? That is, if I came up with some scenario and gave people a Bible and asked them to tell me what, based on the Bible, Jesus would do in that situation, they would all come up with exactly the same answer? If that answer is no (which it most definitely is, or there wouldn't be the differences in opinion on Christ's teachings that we see in the world today), then your definition isn't objective. You're free to use your definition colloquially, of course, but you must realize it's subjective, and therefore no good at all for any kind of data-taking purposes. That's all I'm saying.

[Insomniac]

Would someone who believed in ghosts be a true skeptic, even if they were part of the American Skeptic's Society?)

There's a problem with that, Mea. A skeptic isn't someone who refuses to believe in something, it's someone that refuses to believe in something that hasn't been proven to them. If a skeptic saw a ghost, and could find no evidence to prove that it's not a ghost, they'll believe they saw a ghost. Then again, I picture Agent Scully as the ideal skeptic.

[Sebbie]

Would someone who believed in ghosts be a true skeptic, even if they were part of the American Skeptic's Society?)

There's a problem with that, Mea. A skeptic isn't someone who refuses to believe in something, it's someone that refuses to believe in something that hasn't been proven to them. If a skeptic saw a ghost, and could find no evidence to prove that it's not a ghost, they'll believe they saw a ghost. Then again, I picture Agent Scully as the ideal skeptic.

Ah, no - a skeptic (as I use the word to define myself, and as I believe many self-labeled skeptics use the word) is someone who doesn't believe something for which there is not sufficient evidence. A skeptic may see something that seemed like a ghost, but without further evidence, would conclude that he was probably hallucinating, because a hallucination is more likely than a ghost. Of course, that's just the word "skeptic" as I'm accustomed to hearing it used.

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

Skeptics: must be defined by actual principles
Christians: whoever calls themselves a Christian
Jimmies: Rustled

[Sable Dove]

Some would argue that following Christ's teaching's has little relevance in being Christian, and simply accepting Jesus as your lord and/or savior counts. After all, there's so much of many religions' most sacred books that we flat out ignore or dismiss as being outdated; it stands to reason that when nobody follows all of the rules and precepts set out for them by their higher power, then really, no one can belong to that group, no? When following God conflicts with following Jesus, who is also (part of) God, and they choose God over Jesus, are they any less Christian for it? Because they follow the teachings of one mouth over another on the great Cerberussian [censored] that is the godhead?

Basically what I'm saying is that you're all wrong; just like a skeptic, a Christian can be defined, and is not simply anyone who claims to be. However, you can't simply dismiss actions you disagree with as "non-Christian" if said actions are supported by the same holy texts that your beliefs stem from, but are different because you followed different teachings/passages.

Jesus was a pretty nice guy. God was pretty much an [censored]. Problem is: same deity. That means you can have Christians in either pool, and both will likely denounce the other side as "non-Christian," but really, both are just two sides of the same coin.

Personally, if I had to believe in a deity, I'd pick one that was less... schizophrenic. Perhaps one that can not but regard all of creation with fondness...
Or perhaps an Alicorn. That works too.

[MeaCulpa, S.C.M.]

A Christian who said they worshipped God, not Christ, should probably receive a reading lesson. :/

[Sable Dove]

Who said they didn't worship Christ? It's just that when their deity contradicts itself, they side with the father, and not the son. Who are both the same being. So really, they're worshipping Christ either way.

[MrFlyingAmoeba]

Many would argue strenuously that God and Jesus are not the same deity, but two separate beings.

[Silver Seren]

Many would argue strenuously that God and Jesus are not the same deity, but two separate beings.

But I know just as many that would argue that they are the same being, a part of the Holy Trinity.