It doesn’t matter if they aren’t Christ-like. Many, many Christians, including clergy and even pontiffs have committed atrocities. They still worshiped Christ, making them Christians.
If we were to play it your way, the Crusaders weren’t Christians, the Spanish Inquisition weren’t Christians, the Conquistadors weren’t Christians, etc. I don’t think that’s what you intend, but that is the problem with suggesting people who are not Christlike are not Christians.
Otherwise, we need to invent a new religion and put a huge percentage of people from the last 2000 years who thought they were called Christians into it.
If you read the fallacy you’d realize that you fell into the false fallacy fallacy.
To quote your linked article:
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.[1][2][3] Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and similar counterexamples by appeal to rhetoric.
There is plenty of countries with a christian background and still majority christian population, that wouldn’t even think to discuss such absurd policies. American nutjobs cannot be considered to be representative of christianity as a whole. Much of their nutjobbery is specific to them.
That is not the true scotsman fallacy though. I never said they aren’t Christians, i said that they are about as christian as, implying that they lack the qualities associated with it. Also i’m not a christian.
If we were to play it your way, the Crusaders weren’t Christians, the Spanish Inquisition weren’t Christians, the Conquistadors weren’t Christians, etc
All of the above are Catholic, and the vast majority of Christians I know would agree that they aren’t Christian.
Nope. That would be the orthodox christians you still find sprinkled around Palestine and Syria. The catholics are already roman “lets stabilize our empire with mixing religion and poltiics” brand of christians.
I’ve been thinking of them as antichristian. Not as in against Christianity, but as in antichrist …ian. From what I’ve heard the whole idea of the antichrist is supposed to be that Christians love the guy even though the guy goes against all of the lessons of Jesus, but he does the performative stuff. That sounds like what I see there.
These kind of “Christians” are about as christian as the people from Sodom.
That doesn’t make it right to fuck things up for everyone else.
Sorry, that’s a no true Scotsman fallacy.
It doesn’t matter if they aren’t Christ-like. Many, many Christians, including clergy and even pontiffs have committed atrocities. They still worshiped Christ, making them Christians.
If we were to play it your way, the Crusaders weren’t Christians, the Spanish Inquisition weren’t Christians, the Conquistadors weren’t Christians, etc. I don’t think that’s what you intend, but that is the problem with suggesting people who are not Christlike are not Christians.
Otherwise, we need to invent a new religion and put a huge percentage of people from the last 2000 years who thought they were called Christians into it.
They are fascists. Fascist christians vs christians.
If you read the fallacy you’d realize that you fell into the false fallacy fallacy.
To quote your linked article:
There is plenty of countries with a christian background and still majority christian population, that wouldn’t even think to discuss such absurd policies. American nutjobs cannot be considered to be representative of christianity as a whole. Much of their nutjobbery is specific to them.
No one said they were. They aren’t. But they are Christians. That is their religion even if you don’t like that it is the same as yours.
That is not the true scotsman fallacy though. I never said they aren’t Christians, i said that they are about as christian as, implying that they lack the qualities associated with it. Also i’m not a christian.
I think you’re misremembering. You did say they aren’t Christians:
All of the above are Catholic, and the vast majority of Christians I know would agree that they aren’t Christian.
Catholics are the OG Christians, despite what all the seething Protestants might tell you.
Nope. That would be the orthodox christians you still find sprinkled around Palestine and Syria. The catholics are already roman “lets stabilize our empire with mixing religion and poltiics” brand of christians.
That may be but the original point you seemed to make was broader.
I.e. you just moved the goal post because of the examples.
Are Prosperity Theology Christian’s not really Christian?
btw, the buddha wasn’t a buddhist, and christ wasn’t a christian. Let go of identity views and just do the next right thing.
The world is tribal enough.
That is not only another No True Scotsman fallacy, it’s also anecdotal.
Catholics are undeniably Christians no matter what other Christians may think. Catholicism likely came before their sect anyway.
I’ve been thinking of them as antichristian. Not as in against Christianity, but as in antichrist …ian. From what I’ve heard the whole idea of the antichrist is supposed to be that Christians love the guy even though the guy goes against all of the lessons of Jesus, but he does the performative stuff. That sounds like what I see there.
Christianity is an evil ideology, and they are acting as christians.