Are Christians being logically fallacious?

[Johnny Wishbone]

We often hear Christians dismissing terrorist movements in Africa such as the "Lord's Resistance Army" as not real Christians. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Why are they being logically fallacious?

[Language-Gamer]

Probably because they are all secretly terrorists. After all, that's what you would expect clandestine terrorists to say.

[Johan Biemans (jbiemans)]

It's only a no true Scotsman fallacy if a Scotsman is not well defined.  In their minds, what is and isn't a christian is clearly defined and they do not fit the criteria.  I would say that a better example of the fallacy would when Christians say that people that were once members of their church and people that the once accepted as Christian, suddenly were never a Christian because they lost their faith. 

Although, even then, they could be defining a "true Christian" as someone who is faithful for life, and therefore no one who lost their faith would ever be a true Christian.  That also though, would have the side effect that only those who died professing Christianity are true Christians, so no Christian alive is a true Christian either.

[AnimatedDirt]

It's only a no true Scotsman fallacy if a Scotsman is not well defined.  In their minds, what is and isn't a christian is clearly defined and they do not fit the criteria.  I would say that a better example of the fallacy would when Christians say that people that were once members of their church and people that the once accepted as Christian, suddenly were never a Christian because they lost their faith. 

Although, even then, they could be defining a "true Christian" as someone who is faithful for life, and therefore no one who lost their faith would ever be a true Christian.  That also though, would have the side effect that only those who died professing Christianity are true Christians, so no Christian alive is a true Christian either.

I wouldn't say that they weren't a true Christian, I'd say they never really understood Christ, the sacrifice, the gift...to understand it is to never be able to walk away.  However, that's not to say it is impossible to understand it and become insensitive to it and simply not want it.  But that shouldn't turn one into a militant atheist that argues that God doesn't exist...as that wouldn't be an argument from a person that understood the Gospel, rather the argument would be against God having one's best interest in mind and allowing certain tragedies to happen.  It's anger AT God rather than anger at Christians that claim to be better people.

That may've simply created more confusion.  I hope not.

[pat1911]

We often hear Christians dismissing terrorist movements in Africa such as the "Lord's Resistance Army" as not real Christians. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Why are they being logically fallacious?

I dunno but watch your back! You've outed the secret Christian terrorist army and their coming to get you and all your little secular friends. If your not careful some might even pray for you so watch your back!

[Johan Biemans (jbiemans)]

Animated, if a 'True Christian' is one truly understands Christ, and the only way that you can know if someone really understands Christ or not is if they leave the faith, then you cannot know if anyone actually understands christ unless they died in the faith, because for all you know, one day they might leave the faith.

Even yourself,  you don't know for a fact that you will not leave the faith one day, so you cannot know if you truly understand Christ.

[AnimatedDirt]

Animated, if a 'True Christian' is one truly understands Christ, and the only way that you can know if someone really understands Christ or not is if they leave the faith, then you cannot know if anyone actually understands christ unless they died in the faith, because for all you know, one day they might leave the faith.

Even yourself,  you don't know for a fact that you will not leave the faith one day, so you cannot know if you truly understand Christ.

In a sense I see what you're saying and there is an element of truth to that.  However, no person would willing leave a loving relationship where they truly love the other and the other truly loves them.  Therefore if the case be that a person leaves this kind of relationship and the reason is because they just could no longer live in a fake relationship where they couldn't be assured of one's existence, then what, pray tell, were they in love with if the relationship was a loving one?!

This is why people leave and become atheists that argue God's existence.  If it were that they understood God's love and mercy ( understanding Christ ) for them and humanity, God's existence wouldn't be an issue.  So the conclusion I make is that they never really understood the Gospel/God/Jesus Christ/the Cross/redemption...all of which is a loving relationship and actions therein.

[Bertuzzi]

One could just say their actions are inconsistent with what the bible teaches. That avoids the situation altogether.

[Johan Biemans (jbiemans)]

They were in love with the God they believed was there.  Once they realized that it wasn't and they were simply in love with the concept of God, the relationship breaks down because now it is one sided.  It really isn't that hard.

[alex1212]

It's only a no true Scotsman fallacy if a Scotsman is not well defined.  In their minds, what is and isn't a christian is clearly defined and they do not fit the criteria.  I would say that a better example of the fallacy would when Christians say that people that were once members of their church and people that the once accepted as Christian, suddenly were never a Christian because they lost their faith. 

Although, even then, they could be defining a "true Christian" as someone who is faithful for life, and therefore no one who lost their faith would ever be a true Christian.  That also though, would have the side effect that only those who died professing Christianity are true Christians, so no Christian alive is a true Christian either.

Yeah, the fallacy is an ad hoc moving of the goal post and begging of the question. I often see many Christians commit the fallacy.

On the other hand, I cringe whenever certain non-theists automatically accuse a Christian of committing it without even really understanding what the fallacy is or when the fallacy isn't being committed. "Christian" has to mean something. Let's define it as follower of Christ... that's how I am defining it. Clearly, Stalin was not a Christian under that definition

[Moot]

"Christian" has to mean something. Let's define it as follower of Christ... that's how I am defining it. Clearly, Stalin was not a Christian under that definition

Is someone a Christian if they vote for Trump?

[Questions11]

JB:

Couldn't it just be stated as a xtian is one who possesses the kind of faith that lasts until death.  Thus there can be a true xtian alive way before their death, it's just that the truth of their profession cannot be ascertained at this time?  Doesn't that solve your dilemma?

[Johan Biemans (jbiemans)]

That kind of is what I am saying.  If that is the definition of a xian, then we cannot have any reasonable degree of assurance on the claim until the person dies.  You can't really know if anyone is an xian.

[Johan Biemans (jbiemans)]

Let's define it as follower of Christ... that's how I am defining it. Clearly, Stalin was not a Christian under that definition

I hate to ask this, but how do you define "follower of Christ".  Someone who liked some things he said, or someone who follows everything he said to the letter ?  If the latter, then I think there are few to none real Christians.

[bdsimon]

That's the problem with the word Christian really. The Bible certainly doesn't define it a manner that is consistent with how it is used today. That's why there was a whole movement recently of "I'm a Christ follower" rather than a Christian. Jesus said this: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Use that measure.