I’m not so sure of that Christian version of “no true Scotsman”, but it’s true that religion is typically just a tool used by people with power to direct the people to violence.
But man is it an effective tool for that purpose.
Comment on Think about it
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
May not be stonings, but you’ve got the French Revolution, Stalin’s purge during the Soviet Union and Cultural Revolution - all mass executions caused by Atheist states
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
“No true Scotsman” isn’t just a thing you can scream at everything.
The No True Scotsman tale is as follows:
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.” Person B: “But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge.” Person A: “But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
I don’t know about you, but having sugar on your porridge isn’t a large scale distinction as okay-ing the mass murder of an ethnic group.
A more accurate example within Christianity will be:
Person A: “No Christian says swear words” Person B: “But my uncle Angus is a Christian and he swears sometimes” Person A: “But no true Christian says swear words”
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
no Christians supported mass murderer
Hitler and his supporters were Christians
Notruebible-believing Christians supported itSounds an awful lot like the scenario that you described. In fact it matches the archetypical example so well that it’s kinda wild that you quoted it when trying to say it doesn’t apply
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
In fact it matches the archetypical example so well that it’s kinda wild that you quoted it when trying to say it doesn’t apply
What type of horse kicked you in the head to make you think that mass murder is as trivial as sugar on porridge or saying no-no words?
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
The example used to illustrate the No True Scotsman fallacy in no way means that it only covers similarly minor things. That’s not how logic works, you’ve completely missed the point.
The claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge,” is falsifiable, because we can first determine whether someone is a Scotsman and then check if they put sugar on their porridge or not. But if it’s, “No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge,” where a true Scotsman is defined as someone who would never put sugar on their porridge, then it’s a truism, it’s just saying, “People who don’t put sugar on their porridge don’t put sugar on their porridge (also, this has something to do with Scotsmen for some reason).” It’s not predictive and it’s not falsifiable, and it’s just as true for any other group of people defined the same way.
Likewise, if you’re saying “No true Christian would ever commit mass murder,” then it’s a meaningless claim because you’re defining a “true Christian” as someone who would never commit mass murder. So really the claim is, “People who don’t commit mass murder don’t commit mass murder (also, this has something to do with Christians for some reason).” If I define a true Buddhist or a true Muslim or a true Communist or a true Liberal or a true man or whatever else as being someone of that group who doesn’t commit mass murder, then it’s just as true of any of those groups as it is of Christianity. The claim that “true Christians” or “bible-believing Christians” don’t commit mass murder is a meaningless truism, it’s not predictive and it’s not falsifiable, even if someone you think is a true, bible-believing Christian and has every appearance of being so goes off and commits mass murder, you only conclude that you were wrong about the person being a true Christian. And that would be equally true of any other group or ideology you apply the standard to.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
If you actually follow Christ, you wouldn’t commit mass murder. It’s like claiming to be a vegan yet eating meat.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 week ago
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Leadership lacked spiritual strength because of serious Biblical ignorance and unbelief.
Yeah, it’s reinforcing my point. That’s why I specified “bible-believing”. Just identifying as a Christian because it’s your culture isn’t the same as being an actual believer.
And before you pull out a “no true scotsman”, that argument is moot. It’s like saying “vegans don’t eat meat”, then someone else says “xyz is a vegan and eats meat”. It’s a valid objection to say that somebody isn’t actually something, unlike the “no true scotsman” where ethnicity and nationality are being debated over something trivial like sugar on porridge. You need to hold actual Christian beliefs to be a true Christian.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 week ago
So literally no one, awesome.
Pippipartner@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week ago
edgy teenage bullshit argument
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Dachau literally had barracks for clergy
St James, the Brother of our Lord wrote the following:
James 1:26-27
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
Now, to address your allegation referring to a “Heritage Foundation” (which I had to google) you’re probably referring to an American “conservative” think-tank. They are apparently behind the “Project 2025” satanic mandate laid out by the antichrists of American politics. Doesn’t St James write to keep ourselves unstained from the world? Why would I ever align myself with the leader of the USA? Do you automatically assume that because I follow Christ? Would Christ approve of what your president is doing? If Christ will return today, I tell you, it’ll be worse for the USA and the anglosphere in general facing God’s judgement than many other countries. I would never worship anyone other than God, unlike the cultists in that cesspit of a nation. You lot will have a lot to answer for, committing such evil, some doing so claiming in the Name of God, and others rejecting and blaspheming Him! Repent and turn to the Gospel. Don’t follow the ones who’ll die, who tickle ears and show off spectacles. follow He who was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father almighty - for He will return in Glory to judge the living and the dead! His Kingdom will have no end!
accideath@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yea. Humans never needed an excuse for violence.
Or rather, we always found an excuse, religion is merely one of them.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Even then, most of the time Religion was used as a justification for the actual intent which was usually some form of colonial subjugation. “We’re spreading the Gospel” wasn’t the actual intent, moreso just what you told people at home questioning the ethics of you conquering faraway lands