Comments on: No True Scotsman and Labelling “True” Religions

By: michael

michael — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:49:58 +0000

Which statement is ridiculous? The problem seems to be that if people say something like “there’s no fixed meaning of words given from above” they’re interpreted as saying “all words are meaningless and I can define a Republican as a Democrat” which isn’t the original statement at all. This is similar to a statement like “scientific truth is a socially-mediated process/construct” being interpreted to mean “therefore anything goes and voodoo and science are on equal footing”. Whilst some people take such generalisations to the Nth degree, most such formulations mean only what they say.

I suggested that people outside of a religion have no reason to decide on what the doctrines of a religion should be. That does not mean I can choose to describe my coffee table as a Christian, but it does mean that the concept of what a Christian is is a very fluid one that’s changing all the time and by accepting something like the five solas you’re implicitly giving these values a tick of approval that they don’t warrant.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:12:55 +0000

I would agree with keddaw.. Phaedrus said “but beyond that Christianity is what I say it is, to me.” You can call your beliefs whatever you want, but Christianity holds to certain core beliefs.

Your statement sounds a bit ridiculous… Its like saying “Being Republican is whatever I say it is to me” but then you believe things that are radically left-wing.. People would say ‘well, these things that you believe are obviously not things that any republican would argue with, so its nice and all that you think you are a republican, but in essence you aren’t (except for in your head)”

Look at the ‘Five solas’ if you want a kind of basic idea of core christian (protestant) values

By: keddaw

keddaw — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:30:35 +0000

“Was Thomas Jefferson a Christian (He would have said so)?”
Don’t think he ever did. Deist at best.

But no, you don’t get to call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. personal revelation or not, there are certain tennets of faith that define the faith.

By: Phaedrus

Phaedrus — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:44:25 +0000

On Keddaw’s point :
“all christians believe Jesus is the son of god.” – is that true? Was Thomas Jefferson a Christian (He would have said so)? As long as religion is based on personal revelation (which it all is, I think) then people get to call themselves what they like. The different splinters might have legal control over who associates under their banner (Catholicism, Anglicans, etc.), but beyond that Christianity is what I say it is, to me.

By: Ridiculous Pamphlet #277 -- a Nadder!

Ridiculous Pamphlet #277 -- a Nadder! — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:39:54 +0000

[...] monopoly in defining that religion (ie. Orthodox Jews saying Jews for Jesus aren’t Jewish) is very suspect. Also from a certain perspective, any form of evangelism involves some deception. Even if the [...]

By: keddaw

keddaw — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:42:53 +0000

Osama (not Obama) is a Muslim who, according to most Muslims, 700 million+, has a seriously skewed view of Islam. It may actually be the correct view but most people would disagree.

However, what do we consider the ‘true’ version of Islam? Or Christianity for that matter? We have moved on as a species, but some people have clung on to old fashioned ideas.

I have to think that all (unevidenced[sic]) ideas are equally valid. If there is no part of your idea that can be challenged by science then it is no more likely than any other idea that cannot be challenged by science.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:32:32 +0000

True – but his whole life is led based on what he believes to be the correct interpretation of his religion. Whether that interpretation is acceptable to other Muslims or not is irrelevant – everything he does is based on his religion. In that sense, he’s a true Muslim.

By: michael

michael — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:09:35 +0000

Alan — couldn’t disagree more on Bin Laden being the most “true” Muslim. And I think you provide the counterargument in the next sentence: he lives by his interpretation just as much as a liberal Muslim, so what basis would you say he is more true? There’s often talk about the wishy-washy picking and choosing of the religious liberals but fundies do it just as much. For instance you don’t see too many Christians selling everything they have and giving it to the poor as Jesus specifically instructed his cult followers in the gospels. For Bin Laden the fact is that his theology goes against virtually all the mainstream sharia schools so from their perspective he’s a heretic as well.

By: michael

michael — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:04:27 +0000

keddaw — I guess I should have clarified. Of course for some terms the definition is pretty uncontroversial (in that there is general agreement), it’s only for terms that are ideologically-loaded that there’s a problem. For instance this doesn’t just apply to religion but, say politics (not a true communist), philosophy (not a true utilitarian) etc etc. But I think terms are a lot more contentious than we might think from a dictionary definition. I would say even the vegetarian case you mention is a bit more subtle — in cases where vegetarianism is seen as an ideology there might be debate amongst those lines. And of course there are problems with defining what is an animal etc etc. So I guess it can get quite messy.

However I will just [paraphrase] quote the sex columnist Dan Savage on people self-identifying with sexual orientations: people have a right to call themselves whatever they like. However, in some cases we have a right not to believe them (eg. someone who has sex with people of the same sex occasionally but identifies as strictly heterosexual)

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:25:36 +0000

Bin Laden is probably the “truest” Muslim in the world. He lives his life by the code of his holy text, albeit his own interpretation. But everyone that claims to live by any religious code is choosing their own interpretation anyway.

Ironically, the most “christian” people I know are usually atheists – they tend to be more tolerant, kind and forgiving than any religious folk I’ve come across.