Comment on Jesus hates American "Christians"

• Demdaru@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  FFS I hate that. “Religion poisons everything” no! No it doesn’t! Think if christianity wasn’t a thing they wouldn’t find something else to twist? After all it’s not like any other good thing got twisted, no? Communism, patriotism, charity, heck, even local communities?

  Christianity says: Do not do to others what you don’t want done upon yourself. No matter if sinner or faithful, treat all with respect (nagging about becoming christian is ok tho, sadly). Do not fall for greed, lust or pride.

  American “Christians” aren’t Christians, same like most of the local Patriots are actually Nationalists and Communism is mostly used as a another tool for simply stealing power.

  I know I am pretty much shaking my fist at the sky here, sorry, but I really needed to let it out ._.

  source

  • Rothe@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    American “Christians” aren’t Christians

    No true Scotsman fallacy.

    source

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      No true Scotsman

      Knowing a name of a fallacy doesn’t mean you understood what the fallacy means.

      The No true Scotsman fallacy is a very specific thing and it doesn’t mean what you think it does.

      Here’s the name-giving example of the No true Scotsman fallacy:

      • Person A states an absolute statement: "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge."
      • Person B disproves that by offering a counter-example "Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar in his porridge."
      • Person A declares “But no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.”

      ---

      So for an argument being the No true Scotsman, there need to be three elements. If one or more are missing, the fallacy doesn’t apply:

      • Person A does not retreat from the original statement
      • Person A offers a modified assertion that excludes all counter-examples by definition (this turns the argument into a tautology: "No true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge, and a true Scotsman is a Scotsman who does not put sugar in his porridge."
      • Person A uses rhetoric to signal that change

      ---

      So why does the no true Scotsman fallacy not apply here?

      Because it’s about this change, not about whether something can be classified as something.

      Take for example this exchange:

      • Person A: "A true Scotsman is someone who lives in Scotland, holds a Scottish passport and identifies as a Scotsman."
      • Person B: "But Angus, who was born in the USA, and holds an US passport and who’s only connection to Scotland is that his great grandma was from there claims that he is a true Scotsman."
      • Person A: “He can claim what he want, he is no true Scotsman.”

      In this case Person A

      • Did not retreat from the original statement
      • Did not modify the original statement
      • Did not use rhetoric to signal a change, because no change existed.

      That’s what @Demdaru@lemmy.world argued:

      • A true Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ.
      • American “Christians” claim to be Christians but are largely against the teachings of Christ.
      • Hence they are no true Christians.

      ---

      The “no true scotsman” fallacy is about changing your argument into a non-falsifiable tautology. It’s not about using the words “true” or excluding some group from some definition. And it certainly doesn’t mean “Everyone who calls themselves X surely and irrefutably belongs to group X”.

      source

      • Aljernon@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        No-True-Scotsman-Fallacy Fallacy

        source
      • snooggums@piefed.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Oh look, you had AI vomit out your incorrect position for you.

        The "no true scotsman" fallacy is about changing your argument into a non-falsifiable tautology.

        That is what you do when you say "They aren't real Christians because they do X." It is the poster child of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I follow your logic, and it does make sense, but I think the problem might be that those arguing against you are American, not Scotsmen /s

        Can we agree that there can be good and bad, or perhaps generous vs selfish Christians? Another issue is “Christian” is sometimes used adjectively, “that’s pretty Christian of you”, which is generally used to mean generous, but has nothing to do with someone’s belief in God, Jesus etc.

        Probably a person’s belief in supernatural beings has nothing to do with their ethics, morality or generosity, it’s just that in some societies at certain times there are perceived correlations, and irrespective of whether these reflect reality or not, they, through deliberate conflation of religion, morality, politics etc. can color people’s opinions of those belonging a specific religion.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • glorkon@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    American “Christians” aren’t Christians

    Classic defense by religious apologists and still a fallacy. You don’t wish to associate all the bad Christians with Christianity, so you pull the old “they aren’t real Christians” card. No, only you, a good and righteous and kindhearted person, you are the only one who is a true Christian. Of course. We’ve heard it countless times.

    Of course they’re Christians. You don’t get to whitewash Christianity by simply declaring they aren’t.

    source

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Which fallacy is this? It’s not the “No true Scotsman” one as explained here: lemmy.world/post/37452533/19987098

      For example, let’s turn that argument around:

      • Person A: "No true atheist believes in God"
      • Person B: "But I call myself an Atheist and I strongly believe in God"
      • Person A: “Then you aren’t a true Atheist”

      Did person A argue fallaciously to you? Or is person B just an idiot who took on a wrong label?

      source

      • snooggums@piefed.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Person B is an idiot who doesn't understand words because atheist is

        To be a Christian someone just needs to identify as a Christian. They don't actually have to do anything specific with that self identification that aligns with the Bible or any particular denomination's practices. That is because belief and faith and religion have a massive spectrum of beliefs and practices wrapped up into one. A large number of people who attend religious ceremonies don't even believe in the deities or take things literally, they are there for the community.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • glorkon@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        “No atheist believes in God” is a factually correct statement. It’s like saying “One does not equal two” - a verifiable, objective truth that does not rely on anyone’s opinion.

        Therefore, person B make a contradictory statement, and person A would be correct in responding “Then you aren’t an atheist”, because person B stated a verifiable falsehood. Same as saying “One equals two”. We all know it’s wrong.

        Christianity has a much looser definition. You quoted it yourself:

        A Christian (/ˈkrɪstʃən, -tiən/ ⓘ) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

        So anyone who follows this religion and calls himself a Christian is a Christian. Nothing in the definition says “You must follow the Bible to the exact letter” in order to be one. There wouldn’t be ANY Christians if that were true.

        So that leaves us with a whole bunch of people who all claim to be Christian, but have different opinions on…

        • how strictly do you have to follow the Bible,
        • racism are condoned or forbidden by the Bible,
        • if slavery is forbidden by the Bible,
        • who you can fuck,
        • what kind of funny hat you have to wear,
        • what food you can or can’t eat,
        • if you have to kill any non-believers,

        … et cetera, et cetera.

        And all of these people claim the others aren’t the true believers.

        Now here’s a very simple question: What gives you the confidence, why should we believe you that it’s YOU, out of all these people, who follows the correct interpretation of the Bible?

        That’s why the No True Scotsman fallacy applies to the whole bunch, including you, when you claim the others are no true Christians. Not a single Christian can objectively, verifiably prove that their individual view of Christianity is the correct one.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Aljernon@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    American “Christians” aren’t Christians

    I got bad news for you, Christians have been hypocrites for alot longer than the US has existed.

    source
  • Aljernon@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Communism is mostly used as a another tool for simply stealing power. These people are called Bolsheviks. The idea of Communism and people who are communists without being Bolsheviks are just fine.

    source
• Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Well, sorta.

  You also see plenty of people delegating their sense of Good and Evil to for example political leaders.

  A great example is people who would look at what’s going on in Gaza putting aside politics and going “yeah, knowingly killing tens of thousands of children is objectivelly bad” but as soon as their favorite political leaders start opinating about it, all of the sudden they’re all “I don’t believe that’s a Genocide” (even after the UN officially deemed it a Genocide).

  I’ve seen it happen in the country were I live - people who previously admitted that what was happening was bad, suddenly when their favored rightwing politicians took an interest in it and sided with Israel, start voicing quite different opinions which ape what those politicians are saying.

  As I see it the problem isnt specifically Religion or Politics, it’s people with high Tribalism (hence easilly swayed by the leaders of their tribes, such as religious or political tribes) and lacking or with a very weak moral compass.

  source