Why is the no true Scotsman fallacy in the bible if its the so called word of God?

Because it’s a vague, poorly defined ‘fallacy’ that is often not a fallacy at all, and is only cited by average IQ’d neckbeards.

Stop thinking that because some redditors labelled something a fallacy it therefore is necessarily a fallacy.

No sane Christian with even half a brain and the least amount of research would ever claim that The Bible is the word of God. The only retards that claim their book are directly the words of God is shitslam.

i

so people pretending to be christians.
how's that a "no true scotsman"?

St John here is talking of Jewish converts who still kept the Mosaic law and thought that they could be saved by following the Old Testament

>It doesn't mean they weren't Christian, only that they apostacized.
Cope,
Then why do christfags use this quote when someone leaves their faith

Maybe Atheists were only pretending ;^)

you need to read the book again, user.

possible.
people pretend to be a lot of things when they think it's beneficial.
just like how most nazi's pretended to give a shit about hitler because they would've been killed otherwise.

>1 Jo
1 John you satanic nigger

If you would like to pose this in a no true scotsman fashion please do, here is my attempt:

"If Christianity is the true religion why do Christians stop believing"

"Anyone who leaves the faith wasn't Christian in the first place"

Which doesn't make any sense and wouldn't be an actual rebuttal because there are hundreds of saints who have dealt with the billions of apostasies in church history. Apostasy is the main driving force of evil within the church and is what has formed the world as it is today with its Catholic and Protestant lines in the sand.

Why do you Christkikes do this when your scripture is called out?
Its almost like moving the goalposts

Protestants are heretics, not apostates.

Fuck off
Litterally no Atheist ever says ''No true atheist could convert, if you ever did you were never a true fedora!''
Fuck off
>just like how most nazi's pretended to give a shit about hitler because they would've been killed otherwise.
Okay Moshe

>its in the bible
>quote the passage.

Attached: yahweh child sacrifice.jpg (792x1394, 671.02K)

explaining the facts is moving the goal posts?
wew
lad.

I'm just explaining to you what that verse means in context.

Because you're the type of idiot who calls the slippery slope a fallacy. Just because it can be doesn't mean it always is.

How much more clearer does it need to be?
>Scripture says if you leave the faith you were never of the faith in the first place, ergo making it the no true scotsman fallacy
>N no dude! you are reading it wrong! it actually means X and Y!

Protestants often quote that to support their Calvinist tradition of eternal security. It isn't true. Hebrews 6:4-8 describes the fate of an apostate. If you bring it up with a protestant they will engage in all sorts of verbal gymnastics to convince you that it doesn't mean what it says.

And now we know why Calvinism is wrong.

Christianity is trash.

It’s jewish trash

Attached: 8D700FE5-7ED5-4BBD-AE65-BAE24093C761.jpg (659x1024, 139.71K)

It doesn't say that. Proof of this is that if you get baptized and then decide to abandon the faith, you won't get rebaptized if you want to come back.

>Read the first few pages
>Talking snakes and Giants that never existed

Fuck off nigger faggot
its the same shit you do with the ''talking snake'' on genesis
>I swear it was just an analogy! they didint mean a literal talking snake!

There aren't giants in the Bible. The Nephilim are like modern day celebrities. The snake didn't "talk", Satan used it as a tool to speak to Eve.

How could it be a talking snake? It says God cursed it to crawl on its belly. If it wasn't already crawling on its belly it couldn't have been a snake.

like clockwork
By that logic
>Jesus didint really rise from the dead, it was just a analogy
>Jesus didint walk on water pure analogy!
>Jesus didint really heal a blind man it was an analogy bro :^)

Fuck off shlomo

Hey don't take bait you simps.

Okay Schitzo

Those all happened in reality. The snake didn't speak. Satan did through him. If you read some depositions from serial killers they will say that their dog or some other animal spoke to them and told them to kill.
Satan has the power to do that. It doesn't mean that dogs or snake can speak.

Sure, if you want to be totally non-nuanced about it and say that either everything is metaphorical or none of it is. I guess that makes your argument a lot easier.

>"Anyone who leaves the faith wasn't Christian in the first place"
>aka my parents took me to church therefore I am a Christian

You can't be a Christian without having faith. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian just as being a Catholic doesn't make you a Christian.

Catholics and Protestant Catholics aren't Christians. You're both pagan Idolators.
By the way, Jesus wasn't a long haired hippy faggot that looked like Michaelangelo's boyfriend.

I am using your own retarded logic against you, the whole bible is Jewish Shit

>>aka my parents took me to church therefore I am a Christian
Its a problem with semantics sure, but if someone identified as Christian, beleived the bible and suddenly left you would still throw No true scotsman there

>and Lo, God saith: no takebacks; for thou hast promised, and behold, thy thot hath been patrolled

pretty brutal

>Scripture says if you leave the faith you were never of the faith in the first place
no it doesn't.
it merely said they were walking with them and then took off.
read the book again.

>I swear my subfaction out of the 100s has the right gospel!

...

weak shilling, kike. All those anti-christian shills come up with different explanations as to why christianity is allegedly fake, but they mostly contradict each other.

>they mostly contradict each other.

There are tons of contradictions in the Bible, mein Freund

Religion is a puzzle not a doctrine.

some people are filled with hate even though they believe in christ, user.
free will and all that.

if you see any contradictions in the bible you didn't comprehend it and need to read it again.

>comprehend it and need to read it again.
Then why does the bible need hundreds of so called ''biblical scholars'' to read and interpret the writings then?

Take one example: in one part of the NT Judas takes his blood money from betraying Christ, buys a field with it, then falls down and spills his guts. In another part, though, he feels bad and throws the money back to the priests without spending it. These contradict each other, so which one is true?

read it again, user.
judas hanged himself.

irrelevant to you comprehending it, user.

If God created everything then he created fallacies too. Pointless thread.

>judas hanged himself.

In one version he takes the money and buys a field, in the other he throws the money back. How can both be true?

And why are genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and in Luke totally different in terms of names and the numbers of generations?

read the greek version, user.
king james fucked up a bit.

There is no Greek version.

The slippery slope is not a fallacy as we have seen in gay communities.
The no true scotsman is also not a fallacy as there are some traits that are integral to being one thing or another. This scotsman fallacy (((trick))) is used to setup false flags. ie someone does something horrible then gets to claim they were part of a group to shift blame, or attention, or push a narrative when in reality that group hates those people and actions. ie No true oldfag would ever use a meme flag. The only reason someone chooses a meme flag is to troll, cuck, or fed post and are a massive faggot.

>No true oldfag would ever use a meme flag.
2013 called and they said you are a dumb faggot

You prove my point. What's next rabbi? Going to look for a "journalist asking pol" thread to have that meme flag front and center while you fed post? Absolutely disgusting cringe.

Judas hanged himself on a tree that was near a cliff. The tree broke and Judas fell off.
Matthew says the genealogy of Christ from Joseph's POV because he was writing that gospel to Jewish converts and jews don't allow female genealogies.
Luke was naming the genealogy from Mary's POV

old pol didint have country ID's you redditfag