The question is very interesting, but it should not be understood as a legal issue.A judge should not even be interested in whether one is a true Christian.
We hear so often that Christians do this or not.If you then come up with counter-examples, then it says: “But this was not a true Christian!”.
What could one now determine or judge what a true Christian is?
Answer: Not at all.”True Christian” is an absolute empty formula, a term without any meaning, an apologetic trick.
This is also known as “True Scotsman”:
A: All Scots are stingy!
B: All Scots?What about Andrew Carnegie? Born in Scotland, but famous for its generosity and generosity!
A: But Andrew Carnegie is not a trueScot.
See also: Psychology, Religion and Faith
Let us assume that we can determine who is christian and who is not.Well, this is where the problems begin – you can’t do that. But let’s assume that it would be, somehow, for the sake of argument. Now someone comes up with the claim that Christians are somehow morally better. Counter-question: “And what about Torquemada? The Catholic Adolf Hitler? The Orthodox candidate for the priesthood, Josef Stalin, who prayed every morning in a chapel specially set up for him and confessed to a priest once a week? What about Ante Pavelic, the greatest criminal of the Second World War, who wanted to establish a Catholic state of God and whose crimes even made an Adolf Hitler pale?”
Yes, these are not trueChristians!
Oh what.I take a group of people (Christians), claim that they are morally better, and if anyone challenges this, then I quickly remove all Christians from this group who are known to have some kind of dirt on them. Whoever is left is a trueChristian.
What one does is that one ad hoc “Christians” is redefined as “true Christians”, based on an arbitrary definition.
When I compare any two groups – let’s say, in Group A, only people who were in prison for a crime, and in Group B, they were just innocent people.Now I maintain that Group A is doing better morally than Group B. Anyone who now refers to the offences is told that they do not really belong to GroupA.Of course, if I arbitrarily change the groups, and only those in Group A that behave morally well, then the newly defined Group A will behave morally better. Because that’s how I set it up. Group B does not grant this advantage. But my assertion is now meaningless: A behaves better than B, because I count to A only those who behave better and eliminate everyone else. This works with almost every feature. Group A is on average larger (relative to height) than group B when I remove all small people from A. It also goes the other way if I remove all the great people. You define the group as you need it, but then the original claim is worthless and pointless.
This is one of the tricks of “unfair group comparisons”
You cannot define who is a Christian and who is not.You can’t define who is a true Christian.The trick of sorting out everything that is not suitable is an intellectually dishonesttrick, a deception that should not be allowed to pass.
So the answer to the question is: no one can judge this, not even ajudge.”True Christian” is part of a deception. “True Christian” is indeed an “immoral assertion”, because intellectual honesty is the basis of every morality. When someone lies so much in their own pocket, their sense of logic is inferior, and his moral judgments corrupt. If he now comes to believe that God is good, then I think, “Of course, you have just proved that your morality is corrupt, and now I should believe you that with your morally tarnished judgment you can tell ME that God is good. I can immediately believe that the earth is flat.”