836
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 85 points 11 months ago

Right, this "not a real Christian" bullshit that Christians use to brush away the hateful people and teachings within your religion.

Own up to these people, they're your fellow Christians no matter how much you claim they aren't. Own them and fix them, instead of sweeping them under the rug and claiming they aren't real

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago

If they have to tell you they are Christian, they are not. If they have to tell you they are honest, they are not. If the have to tell you that they don't watch porn, they do.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

There's no Christian stamp of approval. Your are the religion you say you are

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 months ago

Calling yourself a Christian is not the same as being a Christian.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Ok but also if you think that being a good person is correlated with being a Christian that’s also a problem. I’m a heretical apostate to Christianity but I act more in line with the teachings of Jesus than many Christians. Does that make me more Christian than them despite me having different gods? Or is it just that they’re bad at following the rules of their religion? I think it’s the latter. I think most if not all religious traditions place some weight on and expectations around being halfway decent, and Mike Johnson is a shitty person. He’d be shitty in any religion.

I see a lot of Christians say that they should “show you’re a Christian instead of saying it”, but like how about just be a good person and I won’t infer your religion off of it

[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Or is it just that they’re bad at following the rules of their religion?

The problem is that this basically can't be the case, because all the rules are made up pretty much ad hoc and everyone can just justify whatever interpretation cause the holy spirit told them that was the right way, and they're more in touch with god than you, yadda yadda.

Definitions of who is and isn't a shitty person is also kind of up in the air. This guy definitely is, but the christian who's been brainwashed into believing that gay people are sinners as a matter of the rules of the universe by their god? I dunno. Plot twist, though, this guy and the brainwashed guy are the same guy. YMMV depending on whether or not you believe it's intent, or action, that specifically causes harm, though, cause lots of people can walk around thinking that and never attain positions of power like what this guy has, even if they might end up performing the same given the role.

I'm not given to thinking that all of christianity is bad or whatever, that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But I've been raised in the religion, I've seen a lot of it, and there's a much, much higher proportion of what people would call "fake" christians, in proportion to the ones that are nice and accepting and whatever. I dunno if they're fake, at that point, just by sheer numbers, just by the fact that that's what exists in the common consciousness as a "christian" way more than some nice dude.

[-] DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

In many cases, they created these monsters

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If they're not following the teachings of the founder of the religion, they're not part of the religion. It's not the No True Scotsman fallacy, because being a part of the religion requires them to do something (repent and love others) which they refuse to do.

Incidentally, I'd love to "fix them," but they don't think that I'm a Christian because I don't worship Trump.

[-] teuast@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

That's very nice, but we've still got to contend with the reality that an entire political party in the US is using Christianity as an excuse to do horrifically evil shit, and a sizeable contingent of everyday people who also claim the label are in support of that. As an outside observer and not a Christian myself, it seems like a semantic distinction that ultimately misses the forest for the trees.

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Yes, we do have to contend with that. And one thing they are counting on is that the excuse of Christianity carries with it a benefit of the doubt that they can trade on extensively with the "middle ground" Christians who are only supporting them because of the assumption of shared faith. But if we (meaning Christians who see the hypocrisy in their claims) can draw a sharp line of distinction between the two, perhaps we can prove that it was all a sham and turn the middle ground against them as well.

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

being a part of the religion requires them to do something (repent and love others)

By your definition, but there are plenty of people who seem to have other definitions, enough that he is publicly labeled as a Christian. It would seem the strict biblical definition of who is a Christian does not apply, like many other biblical rules, such as not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics.

You're not going to convince non Christians he's not one you with denial alone. You can either own him and better him, or suffer the changing public perception of your religion.

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

By your definition, but there are plenty of people who seem to have other definitions, enough that he is publicly labeled as a Christian.

It's not my definition. It's explicitly the founder's definition. There's not really any room for interpretation in "by this they will know you're my disciples: if you love one another." Not loving? Not Christian.

It would seem the strict biblical definition of who is a Christian does not apply, like many other biblical rules, such as not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics.

Maybe not for them, but words mean things, and I'm not going to accept their redefinition of a term that applies to me.

You're not going to convince non Christians he's not one you with denial alone.

I'm really not sure what the other option is, but I'm not trying to convince non-Christians that he's not a Christian. I'm trying to convince other Christians that he isn't.

You can either own him and better him,

Love to, but he (and those like him) doesn't believe I'm a Christian, because I'm not a Republican. So they won't listen to people like me. Excommunication and public repudiation is a badge of honor to them. About the best I can do is try to say to other Christians, as loudly as I can and with as much Scripture as possible, that he's a heretic.

or suffer the changing public perception of your religion.

I totally grant that we haven't done much to change that perception in recent years, and I'm far from trying to demand (or assume) that it should change overnight.

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There's not really any room for interpretation in "by this they will know you're my disciples: if you love one another."

There is room for interpretation in every statement, and that is far from the only quote in the Bible that defines what a Christian is.

and I'm not going to accept their redefinition of a term that applies to me.

Then nobody else needs to accept your definition either.

I'm not trying to convince non-Christians that he's not a Christian. I'm trying to convince other Christians that he isn't.

You are literally trying to convince me, an atheist, right now.

Love to, but he (and those like him) doesn't believe I'm a Christian, because I'm not a Republican. So they won't listen to people like me.

You can't do anything about it and it's his fault that you can't? Because that's a really pathetic defense.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This is a really dumb slapfight you've picked and you should apologize to this guy.

[-] MarsAgainstVenus@fedimav.win 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It seems you just want to argue. If he said that grass was green, you’d come back with “well actually it’s all colors EXCEPT for green. Green is what’s reflected back to your eye.”

The fact is there are basic truths. Christians believe and follow the teachings of Jesus. If someone is not following those teachings, they are not Christian.

I can say I’m a purple elephant and I hate all pink mice because my savior in the Book of Phants told me to. None of that is any more true just because I said it. Likewise, for Mike Johnson. He and his friends can say whatever they want. Their actions show their true beliefs.

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There is room for interpretation in every statement,

Not if you're intellectually honest. Which...ok, fair enough, but I stand by my statement.

and that is far from the only quote in the Bible that defines what a Christian is.

Very true. But the guy who started it all said it quite clearly, and everything else he said that drew edges around this thing points to or flows out of that statement. It's not like there's some arcane other thing people can do that's completely unrelated; there's no secret magic. It's all pretty straightforward.

Then nobody else needs to accept your definition either.

I'm not asking non-Christians to. I'm asking people who claim to be Christians to understand what that term has historically meant, and what it meant at the beginning.

You are literally trying to convince me, an atheist, right now.

You're the one asking.

You can't do anything about it and it's his fault that you can't? Because that's a really pathetic defense.

I mean, if you've got any better ideas, I'm all ears. Seriously, I'm willing to try quite a lot at this point.

I do want to point out that this is a standard that most groups are not held to. Dog lovers are not called to "come get your boy" anytime sometime who claims to be a dog lover kicks a puppy. I'm all for Christians being called to a higher standard—I think we should be, and I think we should rise to it—but I'm really not sure what you think the options are here.

[-] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

but there are plenty of people who seem to have other definitions,

"The Protestant Reformation was a mistake. " -Martin Luther

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Right, this “not a real Christian” bullshit that Christians use to brush away the hateful people and teachings within your religion.

You literally are acting against the teachings of Christ if you act like Johnson, which is the entire point of the op-ed you didn't read.

He isn't "sweeping them under the rug" but rather calling them out as heretics, and calling out Christians to do the same.

Before writing a big emotional response like this, I'd recommend reading the linked content.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I have mixed feelings about that instinct. Calling out and distancing from the religious hypocrites is a Jesus thing to do. But also when non Christians fear Christians they need to understand why we feel that way and many Christians don’t seem to understand that I’m even scared of Christianity at it’s best.

So in short, do they just disavow or do they adamantly oppose as well? If they do the latter I’m happy they do the former, but I’ve seen far too many think the former is enough before they start shit talking atheists

[-] guleblanc@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

No True Scotsman.

this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
836 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4949 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS