The No True Scotsman Fallacy does not apply to philosophies or belief systems, as even if one is raised in a belief system, it is a BELIEF system, not an inherent trait. For example: "No TRUE vegan eats meat"You wouldn't call it a fallacy. It's just self-evidently part of the belief system that a vegan does not eat meat."No TRUE Christian denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"You might think you have something approaching a fallacy here. But the equivalent of "Christian" who denies Jesus Christ is like a "vegan" who eats meat.The actual historical statement "No TRUE scotsman..." is absurd because it treats the inherited state of "being a scotsman" as coming with inherent unchanging behavioral characteristics/beliefs. Whereas, in reality, no one controls the circumstances of their birth (such as the circumstance of being born a scotsman), and are thus at liberty to determine their own character. You cannot renounce being a scotsman like you can renounce a belief system. You will always be a scotsman regardless of beliefs or character (thus, whether one is a scotsman or not cannot tell us how a "true scotsman" ought to behave). Such is not the case in being a "vegan" or "buddhist" or "Christian." Those are belief systems which possess paradoxical conditions (i.e. you cannot "be a vegan" and "not a vegan" at the same time). I think modern western atheists default to believing that "everyone" who is religious must've been raised that way. Very interesting tell about themselves. Sorry you had stupid parents.
>>18651804Is this a board where people in seminary just shitpost?
>>18651830I wish.
>>18651839You don't know shit about the Scots, retard!
>>18651804I don't get how you didn't realize that the fallacy was about implying a false contradiction in a behavior to how these identities are defined. "No true Scotsman is born under Indian parents in India" is always true because it is a direct conflict of the definition of a Scotsman. "No true Christian wears shorts" has zero relevancy in being a Christian, so the fallacy applies here too. Now there is a disconnect in how some people define "Christian" in which I think we should ignore this fallacy in such cases. For example, some people believe in low Christologies where Jesus is the adopted Son of God and still claim to be Christian. This fallacy only really applies in cases where the definition of the identity itself is not the subject of controversy.
>>18651878>For example, some people believe in low Christologies where Jesus is the adopted Son of God and still claim to be Christian....>some people in low Veganologies believe that fish is actually fine to eat and still claim to be Vegan
>>18651804>"No TRUE Christian denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God">You might think you have something approaching a fallacy here. But the equivalent of "Christian" who denies Jesus Christ is like a "vegan" who eats meat.True. Also, since Jesus built his church upon Peter and gave him the keys to the kingdom of God, no true Christian denies the authority of the Pope.
>>18652009The Bible actually says Jesus gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose on heaven and earth. Nor does it speak of some special authority of the Bishop of Rome. So I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you implying Christians don't believe the Bible? Statistically speaking, most "Christians" don't. But I make the case that this is a contradiction, and therefore makes them not Christian.
>>18652017The Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church. You cannot appeal to it without appealing to the authority of the one true Church. You are no true Christian.
>>18652025Still unsure of what you mean. Are you implying it that Christians believe that Scripture wasn't* God-breathed until it was canonized? It seems to me it has been recognized since ancient times that canonization is the public declaration of what has been revealed to all as inspired scripture.
>>18651886More comparable to vegans who say owning leather goods is ok, just not the purchasing of it which supports the slaughter financially. Many vegans call this non-vegan, but many others still insist it does not violate veganism. That is closer to a "low veganology."What you called a "low veganology" is like calling Messianic Judaism a Low Christology.
>>18651830If it makes you angry its a good thing.
>>18651804The problem is that christcucks use the no true christcuck fallacy against christcucks who have a different political or even theological view that does not contradict the idea that Jesus is the son of god.
