1107
Not that hypocrisy carries any weight on the right, but for those who are keeping score. (alt version in body)
(slrpnk.net)
For those who don't find "far-right" to be an applicable descriptor with what is known currently, I acknowledge that the meme creator could have been more precise with their word choice. However, I feel the difference is academic:
We can replace “far right” with the easily verified “not leftist” without changing the meme whatsoever, primarily because the meme is about Nancy Mace and her mercurial, disingenuous opinion, not (directly) about the shooter.
Edit - I modified it, though I still find it to be a distinction without a difference - alt version for those who prefer (whoops missed one first time)
To summarize, the person you responded to stated
To which you responded,
Followed by a wall of text that presented absolutely zero authority figures authorized to decide who is, and isn't, christian.
All you gave is YOUR criteria, but there's no reason anybody needs to follow your criteria. You're also not authorized to decide. That's the point.
No True Scotsman
I never really thought about it but unlike Catholics who have the pope. Christians don't have a lead authority. So yeah there is arguably an authority to say what is and is not Catholic but not an authority to say what is or isn't Christianity
Other groups have authorities as well but there is no central authority to all. You can be expelled from a denomination but not from Christianity itself.
First I reject the assertion that no one can make that determination so your “No True Scotsman” is not applicable
To be clearer there is one standard that all Christians agree to which is the redemption of Christ. If you don’t think Christ died to redeem sin there’s literally no point in the religion.
The rest of my post explains why those that think LDS aren’t Christian and what their claims are.
Except those that don't. You're committing the fallacy right there. If those people over there that call themselves Christians don't agree with your arbitrary criteria, then they're not true Christians. Except your only evidence to back up your claim is, "trust me bro." There's no license or certificate from any kind of authority. It's just you making shit up.
Allow me to demonstrate.
All Christians have a tattoo on their forehead of Jesus on the cross with a pool of blood at the base of the cross. Every year they go through a secretive cleansing and atonement ritual that culminates in an update to the tattoo that makes the pool of blood bigger. You can identify the most pious Christians by how big their pool of blood is.
If you don't have this tattoo, then you're not a Christian and your erroneous opinion of what criteria makes someone christian is irrelevant.
You need to have an actual example to present a counterfactual. You cannot presume one might exist and then argue as if your claims have validity.
If you can find an actual example of a Christian denomination that does not see Christ's death on the cross as an act that redeems the world of sin you can press the No True Scotsman claim but it needs to be real and it isn't.
You absolutely do not understand No True Scotsman, then.
This whole thing started with you arguing against someone that stated that there is no central authoritative body that decides who is and isn't christian. You have yet to present one. Instead, you just present YOUR criteria, as if you're the authoritative body, but your not, because there isn't one.
I could call myself a Christian and make up whatever criteria I want that makes me qualified, and there's nobody to stop me.
And even if I did, you would reject it because they don't meet your definition of a Christian denomination, so I still failed to "find an actual example of a Christian denomination that..."
There is an understanding if what “Christian” means. Your argument, if valid, would mean there is no definition for the majority of concepts.
But I’ll tell you that you are correct if it makes you fell better.
If you could find an actual denomination that didn’t accept the redemption of Jesus and accepted his religious message and called you would have a group of Jews from the first two centuries CE. They did not see themselves as a new faith separate of Judaism.
There never was an example of No True Scotsman you just have a flawed understanding of Christianity and this logical flaw you improperly cited.
So you just massively showed you have almost no actual knowledge of historical Christian sects.
Plenty of non-trinitarians sects don't believe Jesus died for our sins. Some don't believe Jesus was real at all. Others believe that God and Jesus is the same thing while others believe Jesus was God taking mortal form.
And plenty of them don't agree that Jesus even died for our sins.
Christadelphaisn, Jehovah witnesses, oneness Pentecostals, universalists, to just name a few example of how varied things can be.
That's not even getting into old old stuff back around like 300-400CE.
If there is literally any defining aspect of Christianity is that it never agrees with any other aspect of Christianity. It's one of the single most fractured religions in our history.
Also your a God damn moron you ARE using a no true scottsman fallacy. Go read the god damn wiki page on the fallacy. Holy fuck man.
Why are you calling them sects if you are so well educated?
If you can't be civil you should take a break ffs
Wasn't Paul the only one that said that? Plus, it wasn't a new religion at the time. They all considered themselves Jewish at least until 70 ad.
None of the apostles said this directly. It's literally the central dogmatic point everyone shares post schism. If Christ's death isn't redemptive there's no point to the faith at all.
Again, not a new religion. They were a sect of Judaism.
It's what makes them a new faith.
What's "It's"?
The notion that Christ was God’s son whose death redeems the world of sin? The entirely different relationship with God that Christians have that derives from that concept. It’s why Christians are not a sect of Judaism.
Again, then why did they call themselves Jews until at least 70AD? I guarantee that every single apostle called themselves a Jew until they died. I think your brain isn't wanting to hear this and blocking what I'm saying. It doesn't change your religion other than making it more Jewish, why would that be bad?
Yes, 2000 years ago the ethnic Jews that were Christians considered themselves to be Jews. That ceased to be the case within a few years as Paul’s ideas are adopted and the people joining aren’t Jewish and do not follow Jewish laws and traditions.
It’s a new faith because they frame it as such. If you were Christian and called yourself a Jewish person you would get weird looks.
It was a sect of Judaism at one point but that was thousands of years ago.
70 years is a few generations. Just saying. I'm not saying Christians are Jewish now, the Catholics changed all of that. I'm saying it was originally a Jewish sect. I think you're agreeing anyway, have a great day.
originally yes they were but by the time Paul’s writing becomes cannon it no longer is. That’s the 80s?
There are different views on Jesus. Some would say he died because of the sin of the world, because he was sinless and so couldn't live in a world full of sins. Some see him as a revolutionary who was cought and put to death to prevent the revolution. Some see it all very symbolic and allegorical. Some even deny Jesus was a real historic figure and see him purely as myth and still take value from his stories.
Ok? Im not sure what your point is. The redemption from sin is literally the one thing they all accept.
You said "died to redeem sin" and I put Christians who believe he died for other reasons or don't even believe he existed at all and therefore didn't die. Not sure if you're moving the goalpost
It's the same thing. If Christ's death doesn't redeem sin what's the point of Christ's death?
Maybe there is no point, maybe he didn't die, maybe you should carefully read the comments you reply to