• @drmeanfeel
      link
      29 months ago

      Never fails, Christians (ostensibly “”““real””“” ones lol) always go to this, such a convenient out for rancid, unserious, responsibility denying dingdongs

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -29 months ago

      If I call myself a Scotsman, despite not meeting the definition of a Scotsman (never been to Scotland, have no Scottish heritage) then it would be fair to call me not a “True Scotsman.”

      If the definition of “Christian” is “someone who follows the teachings of Jesus” then someone who spreads hate does not meet that definition.

      If the definition of “Christian” is “anyone who calls themselves a Christian” then the definition is so broad it is useless as a descriptor. It includes someone who is loving and caring, and someone who abuses and murders anyone they disagree with. It tells you nothing about the individual or how they behave.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        49 months ago

        If the definition of “Christian” is “someone who follows the teachings of Jesus”

        If that’s your definition then there are no Christians.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -29 months ago

          If that’s your definition then there are no Christians.

          Ok, so you’re going with the word is useless as a descriptor.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -29 months ago

              No, I’m saying that christians are people who claim to be christian.

              As I said, useless as a descriptor. By that definition the word “Christian” includes someone who donates time to charities, as well as someone who spreads hate about immigrants, wants them sent back to their own countries, and wants to bomb those countries.

              The word “Christian” could be applied to a person that wants to take away a woman’s right to medical care, and to a person that is pro-choice.

              Hell, the word “Christian” could apply to someone who has never set foot inside a church, has never seen a Bible, and has no idea what’s even in it, as long as they “claim they are a Christian.”

              By that definition if I tell you someone is a Christian it doesn’t tell you if that person loves Trans people or hates them. As I said, a useless descriptor.

      • @drmeanfeel
        link
        29 months ago

        Incredibly convenient thing for “polite Christians” (read: enablers) to say while the overwhelmingly powerful structure borne of their freely given money, time, and prejudices ruins the country.

    • @teejay
      link
      English
      -4
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Why is this getting upvoted? OP is using irony. The No True Scotsman fallacy requires refuting a counterexample as well as “The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, etc.” Check out the “Occurrence” section.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -29 months ago

        Why is this getting upvoted?

        Because there are people who really don’t like how right wing conservative Christians behave, but also for some reason hate when other Christians agree that the behaviour is unacceptable and call them out on it.

        • @EndlessApollo
          link
          English
          2
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          You’re not calling out shit. You’re refusing any responsibility by claiming they’re not even really Christian. They are, and until you admit that, nobody gives a fuck about your claims to the contrary. Christians can be shit, that doesn’t make them not Christian you absolute dingus. If you’d actually read the Bible you’d know that slavery and homophobia and sexism are as fundamentally Christian as any love thy neighbor shit

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -29 months ago

            Republicans: Act in hateful ways

            Guy: “That behavior is contrary to the book you claim to follow”

            Everyone: cheers

            Christian: “I agree!”

            You: “nO tRuE sCoTsMaN!!!1!”

            • @EndlessApollo
              link
              English
              29 months ago

              ???

              You suck at telling stories like this lmao, you’re the one no true scotsmaning shitty Christians to try and avoid any flak for being associated with them. Legit this comment is utterly incomprehensible, tf is your point? Who’s guy? Who’s everyone? I assure you far from everyone thinks that republicans aren’t real Christians

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -29 months ago

                Let me simplify it for you:

                The argument that everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, and also every Christian belongs to the same group and is responsible for the actions of everyone who claims to be a Christian, is patently absurd.

                You can have two people with wildly different beliefs, but if they both use the label Christian somehow they are both responsible for the actions of each other.

                • @EndlessApollo
                  link
                  English
                  39 months ago

                  Those people also call themselves Christian tho, and probably call you a fake Christian. That’s a big thing in Christianity, insisting that your brand of it is the only valid one. Yall are silly as hell, admit that there are shitty christians or accept that we don’t give a shit about your half ass condemnations of shitty christians

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -29 months ago

                    Okay: there are shitty Christians.

                    Now what? Do I now have permission to call out their shitty behaviour and not somehow be responsible for it myself?