Many Christians Lack Responsibility

Hi Ochaye,

quote:

---

So if a person does not show 'the difference', does it mean that the Holy Spirit has failed?

---

No, it usually means that they didn't truly accept the Holy Spirit in the first place. It's a win/win scenario! Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Yes, a fair comment ochaye. I was aiming for humour, but sadly, the attitude I was mocking is a very familiar. So far as Phat is concerned though, I've spoken with him many times and I'm well aware that he knows better than that.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Because it's a blatant example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

quote:

---

‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy

​

Explanation

​

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example

​

The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

​

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

​

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

​

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

​

Real-World Examples

​

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

---

SourceIf an encounter with the Holy Spirit is supposed to improve a person, people are naturally going to object that Christians don't seem to be noticeably more moral than those of other religions or no religion. An all-too-easy answer would be that those Christians who lapse into immorality were "not true Christians" or "didn't truly accept the Holy Spirit" after all - a clear example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

So someone who describes themselves as Christian and genuinely believes themselves to have accepted Jesus as their saviour, would cease to be Christian if they did something immoral? You seem to trying have your cake and eat it. You are simply trotting out the fallacious line, unaltered.Like it or not, "Christian" is commonly applied as a noun. You seem to be trying to use it as an adjective, with a definition synonymous with "moral", a practise which I consider disingenuous. If you define "Christian" as "moral", then naturally, all Christians are moral. You are simply trying to define Christianity into a moral position, by dishonest use of terminology. And yet there is such a thing as a Christian. Yes or no?If yes, do some of those Christians behave immorally? Yes or no?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Listen ochaye, I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to talking past me. You keep talking about hypotheticals and about other people's views and about what one might suppose, without ever telling me what your own views are. I'm done for now. I'm off on holiday. See you in a week or so.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod