• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ex-Christians: How do current Christians treat you?

anna.

but mostly it's the same
A true Christian does exist just as an unfaithful one does and both should be judged on their individual merits not some sweeping generalisation.

I see a bit of a mid-stream boat jump here, you went from a "true" Christian to an "unfaithful" one. The opposite of a true Christian is a false, or nonChristian, while the opposite of an unfaithful one is a faithful one - that is, the scale is of degree of goodness, vs. a scale of trueness.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
How did you acquire the right to impose the accuracy of another's interior faith beliefs?
I don't care nor comment on their interior faith beliefs. I comment on the incongruity of their actions to their self proclaimed belief label.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
If someone identifies themselves as Christian, I generally take them at their word. Same with any other (ir)religious identifier. That just strikes me as common sense, unless I have a reason to believe they're lying or something.
I work with about 40 other people every day. And so far, not one of them has related their religious or theological position to me, or asked me about mine. Odds are some of them are Christians and some are not. But only the most outspoken will ever say so uncelicited. I have family members that go to church regularly, but we have never had any need to discuss their beliefs, or mine.

I'm just saying that only the most zealous religious adherents go around telling others what they believe, and judging others for the same. And they do not reflect religious people's attitudes as a whole.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
But that's another thing then. Perceiving that they don't walk the the talk of their beliefs isn't the same as telling them they don't, or never had, those beliefs.
The former would be assumed, I would think, given that none of us can know what anyone's internal beliefs are. I doubt most people even know that, themselves.
 

anna.

but mostly it's the same
The former would be assumed, I would think, given that none of us can know what anyone's internal beliefs are. I doubt most people even know that, themselves.

So I guess we agree? The issue I have is with one person telling another that they aren't a true believer. Whether they're good or bad at putting those beliefs into practice, that we can observe and evaluate. That's something different than saying they were never a true believer (In my experience it's Christians saying that another Christian was never really a Christian if they've done something bad.)
 

PureX

Veteran Member
So I guess we agree? The issue I have is with one person telling another that they aren't a true believer.
But that's not something anyone can actually know. So it's just poor communication skills. What they mean is that someone has mislabeled themselves. Which does happen, often. The "true Scotsman" label embodies a set of criteria that not all self-proclaimed "Scotsman" embody. And we have the right and even necessity to call out such mislabeling.
Whether they're good or bad at putting those beliefs into practice, that we can observe and evaluate. That's something different than saying they were never a true believer (In my experience it's Christians saying that another Christian was never really a Christian if they've done something bad.)
Humans are often imprecise in both language and thought. All the more reason to call our discrepancies.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
My religion teaches me that a true believer will be known by his deeds. And also in the Bible it says a good tree does not bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree does not bring forth good fruit. A name is just a label. Our deeds define who we really are.

The man who lives the life according to the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is already a Bahá’í. On the other hand, a man may call himself a Bahá’í for fifty years, and if he does not live the life he is not a Bahá’í. An ugly man may call himself handsome, but he deceives no one, and a black man may call himself white, yet he deceives no one, not even himself.

And still various sects of Christianity cuss each other as non belivers and literally battle. So that seems to be their deeds. Wr are not talking of trees but of people and good people can on occasion do bad deeds while bad people do on occasion do good deeds.

Yes deeds do define who you are which is why i say what i say
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Religion teaches certain standards. One who embraces a belief agrees to uphold that standard and is faithful to it. But there are those who do not live up to the standard. The differentiation is necessary so that bad behaviour by a religionist is not unjustly generalised to include all religionists. For example one terrorist attack does not mean Islam is a violent religion or all Muslims are terrorists. Without justice being applied millions of innocent people stand falsely accused and prejudiced against due to over generalisations.

A true Christian does exist just as an unfaithful one does and both should be judged on their individual merits not some sweeping generalisation.
For what it's worth, I've read through the thread and carefully considered the arguments going on here. I actually agree with you on this one.

I think when people are accusing you of making a No True Scotsman Fallacy, they're making a sort of category error. When you use the word "Christian" you're referring to someone who tries to follow the example that you believe Christ set and is living in line with his teachings, right? So clearly someone who is not making a concerted effort to live in that way would not be a true Christian.

You aren't saying that they aren't Christian. You said they are Christian in name only, as in, you are aware that they fit into the broad category of being Christian in the sense that they might share a variety of doctrinal beliefs or go to Church or what have you, but they do not fit the narrow understanding of what a Christian is as defined within the context of your religion.

That's not a No True Scotsman. The issue with the No True Scotsman argument is that "Scotsman" is literally defined as a citizen of Scotland, and so it does not imply any sort of ideological or behavioral criteria. "Christian" does imply that criteria, at least within the framework of your religious worldview. (ETA: And, I would argue, both etymologically and historically!)

At the same time, saying that someone is not a "true Christian" is not always comforting to a non-believer, because it makes it look like you're just as quick to condemn others as the people you label "unfaithful" Christians. I speculate that users might be bringing up the No True Scotsman Fallacy because they feel some sort of hypocrisy in what you're saying, but they're just articulating that intuition with the wrong language. Added to that, I think there is a real sense in which people in this thread do not care about your own interpretation of Christianity at all, because it's just one of many to them; thus, from their perspective, the division between a "true Christian" and an "unfaithful Christian" is idiosyncratic and arbitrary. (ETA2: Partially because they don't believe in Christianity, so there is no such thing as a "true Christian" in that sense to them)

It's not a No True Scotsman, technically. You aren't committing a logical fallacy just because people disagree with you about what constitutes a true Christian. I think you're right to defend your use of the term here and you're explaining it adequately.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But it is a valid argument. People do mislabel themselves all the time, intentionally and unintentionally. So to claim that "X" is not truly a "Scotsman" or whatever else, as they claim, is often a true and significant point. It's labeling this objection a 'fallacy' that is the actual fallacy.
Of course, the question of who is a "true Christian" never seems to come up when the collection plate is coming around.

... but we're talking about religion. Religion is a community based around shared beliefs and practice. If someone:

- self-identifies as a member of the community,
- participates in the community, and
- is recognized as a fellow member by the community,

... then they're a member of the community. This is still the case even if some particular member of the community doesn't like them or what they do.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I work with about 40 other people every day. And so far, not one of them has related their religious or theological position to me, or asked me about mine. Odds are some of them are Christians and some are not. But only the most outspoken will ever say so uncelicited. I have family members that go to church regularly, but we have never had any need to discuss their beliefs, or mine.

We hang out with different people, I guess. At work that's one thing, but family and friends? Perhaps it's because I grew up in Evangelical Christian culture, but one's religious ideas certainly come up from time to time as a topic of conversation.

I'm just saying that only the most zealous religious adherents go around telling others what they believe, and judging others for the same. And they do not reflect religious people's attitudes as a whole.

I think you're criticizing something that no one is saying. All I said is that if someone tells me they're a Christian, I take that at face value. They might be a good one, a bad one, an observant one, a nominal one, etc.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Of course, the question of who is a "true Christian" never seems to come up when the collection plate is coming around.

... but we're talking about religion. Religion is a community based around shared beliefs and practice. If someone:

- self-identifies as a member of the community,
- participates in the community, and
- is recognized as a fellow member by the community,

... then they're a member of the community. This is still the case even if some particular member of the community doesn't like them or what they do.
But it's really not that way. Because language belongs to all of us. Including the labels we use for things. And it doesn't work if we let any subgroup among us invent their own definitions and criteria for the labels they use to designate themselves among the greater community. Christians don't get to define Christianity. We all do, collectively. Because the label belongs to us all, and is meant to be used by us all.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But it's really not that way. Because language belongs to all of us. Including the labels we use for things. And it doesn't work if we let any subgroup among us invent their own definitions and criteria for the labels they use to designate themselves among the greater community. Christians don't get to define Christianity. We all do, collectively. Because the label belongs to us all, and is meant to be used by us all.
Yes, and that's another way to dismiss Christians who try to hand-wave away the Christians they find embarrassing as "not true Christians."
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Yes, and that's another way to dismiss Christians who try to hand-wave away the Christians they find embarrassing as "not true Christians."
They can do whatever they like. But they don't own the words we use. So they can't just redefine them as they please (even though they often try). We usually end up having to add clarifications to such fractured terms; like 'Bible Christians", vs "Charismatic Christians", vs "Liberal Christians", vs "religious zealots" (of whatever tradition) and so on.
 
Top