• ilinamorato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    11 months ago

    “No True Scotsman” is when you attempt to protect your generalized statement by placing counterexamples outside the bounds of the statement. But in the case of Christianity, people who don’t love are self-selecting out of that group by the words of the founder himself, who said “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

    I’m not saying they aren’t a Christian, and the OP isn’t saying that either. The person who is hateful is saying that they aren’t a Christian, as surely as a person who kicks puppies for fun is saying that they aren’t a dog lover. They could swear up and down later that they can’t be a puppy kicker because they’re a dog lover, but the fact that they’re kicking puppies self-selects them out of that group.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Incidentally, the wording of the fallacy here is an important point to observe. The qualifications for being a Scotsman are that someone is geographically or genetically connected to Scotland; and while there are fiddly gray areas at the edges, no one can say that you’re not a Scotsman because of a thing you do because the qualification is a connection to a place.

      But the qualifications for being a Christian are explicitly a thing you do. Well, a thing you do and a thing you believe, but those two things are inherently linked by the fact that the object of belief (Jesus) commands the action (love).

      • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Incorrect. Anyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian, at least in Protestantism. You don’t have to do good works or anything of the kind to be a Christian. You just have to admit that you are a sinner, profess to regret those sins, and “accept Jesus into your heart”. That’s it.

        In theory, accepting Jesus into your heart is supposed to improve your behavior, but it isn’t a requirement (obviously, with all of those rapey priests!!). As I’m sure you know, you can be the worst kind of sinner all of your life, but as long as you accept Jesus and confess your sins to Him before you die, you’re all good!

        Ah Christianity…the ultimate get-out-of-hell-free card, and no one can gain-say you. It is just between you and your Saviour. It is just so darn convenient, like a drive-thru. No wonder it is so popular.

        • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Incorrect. Anyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian, at least in Protestantism.

          No. Anyone who believes in and follows Jesus is Christian; we just usually only have someone’s word to go by.

          You don’t have to do good works or anything of the kind to be a Christian.

          True, but a lack of love and good works proves that the repentance was a sham. “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.” Seasons of rebellion and momentary mistakes happen, but if a person’s life is marked by constant, unrestrained evil, they’re showing a lack of fruit that probably means they aren’t repentant.

          You just have to admit that you are a sinner, profess to regret those sins, and “accept Jesus into your heart”. That’s it.

          Yeah, that’s not Christianity. Not historically speaking, at least. It’s a shockingly new development and almost entirely centered on American individualism, and Christians from longer ago than the 1700s wouldn’t recognize any of that. Scripturally and historically, Christianity requires belief and repentance; which look, superficially and in the moment, like admitting you’re a sinner and accepting Jesus into your heart, but prove themselves to be something different over time.

          In theory, accepting Jesus into your heart is supposed to improve your behavior, but it isn’t a requirement

          Actually, it is. The writer of Hebrews says (13:12) equates sanctification with salvation. Historically, believing that one can happen without the other is just a bizarre idea because they were considered synonymous.

          (obviously, with all of those rapey priests!!).

          Indeed, they aren’t repentant, and are thus not Christians.

          As I’m sure you know, you can be the worst kind of sinner all of your life, but as long as you accept Jesus and confess your sins to Him before you die, you’re all good!

          Again, historically and theologically, this is unrecognizable as Christianity.

          Ah Christianity…the ultimate get-out-of-hell-free card, and no one can gain-say you.

          In America, at least. But the Church has, throughout the ages, excommunicated people for being horrible and “showing their faith to be a shipwreck.” We hear about unrepentant, non-Christian people (particularly among the puritans) who used excommunication as a weapon against those they didn’t like (particularly women), but it has been used correctly throughout history as well; to get the wolves away from the sheep.

          It is just between you and your Saviour. It is just so darn convenient, like a drive-thru. No wonder it is so popular.

          Individualism is popular now, to our great shame, but a community of faith urging one another toward sanctification is in the Bible, in the early church, and in the continuing line of Christianity throughout history.

          Incidentally, the “drive-thru” analogy is pretty close to what Luther was “protesting” against in the first place. I think there’s another Reformation coming, and this one is going to be about the people who value and respect and love breaking away from the people who don’t.

          • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            No. Anyone who believes in and follows Jesus is Christian; we just usually only have someone’s word to go by.

            This a pointless distinction. You have no knowledge of the true nature of the relationship between a person and their Savior. So, on this mortal plane you only have someone’s word. I, therefore, return to my point that anyone who claims to be Christian is a Christian, as far as any mortal being knows. I though the latter clarification was fairly obvious since I’m presumably talking to another human.

            Indeed, they aren’t repentant, and are thus not Christians. (Quote referring to rapey priests)

            See, now there’s the rub. How do you know the priests aren’t repentant? Even if they’ve committed hundreds rapes, they may still ask and receive the forgiveness of Jesus. The Bible does not define how many times you can commit the same sin and ask for forgiveness before Jesus doesn’t believe you anymore. The flesh is weak, but Jesus is forgiving.

            The way religious communities have dealt with this epistemological problem of not being able to peer into someone’s heart is by distinguishing between what is acceptable in the community vs. what may be acceptable to God. The community judged their body and left God to judge their soul. Death-bed conversions were and are absolutely acceptable in Christianity and always have been. Indeed, torturing someone until they confess was common practice back in the day, partly because they believed in truth through duress, but also because it was a chance for a Christian to rescue his soul before death. Hate the sin, not the sinner. The sinner’s soul can always be saved right up to their last breath.

            I think your grasp of what Christianity actually is may be contaminated by what you want it to be. But even what you want it to be contains the seeds of its own destruction. It is not logically consistent to say that Christianity is based on a personal relationship with God, while at the same time taking it upon yourself to judge who is a “real” Christian.

            Luther tried that when the Catholic Church abused its authority and here we are again. Except this time we can’t point to a single authoritarian Catholic Church, but have to deal with a massive de-centralized super-community of corrupt churches. Luther wounded the big Dragon, but replaced it with a Hydra that keeps growing new heads, each one claiming to be the “real” Christians!

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              This a pointless distinction. You have no knowledge of the true nature of the relationship between a person and their Savior. […] anyone who claims to be Christian is a Christian, as far as any mortal being knows.

              You know based upon how they act. If a person says they’re an avid hiker, but after observing them for a decade you never see them hiking, you know their statement was false. If you ask them after that decade and they still profess that they’re an avid hiker, you know they’re lying. This is what Jesus meant by “they’ll know you’re my disciples if you love one another.”

              How do you know the priests aren’t repentant? Even if they’ve committed hundreds rapes, they may still ask and receive the forgiveness of Jesus.

              Because true repentance brings with it a change in behavior. “Slipping up” once or twice with something minor (edit: oh geez, that’s…a very poor choice of words. How about “something inconsequential”) is one thing. But big abuses, and patterns of abuse over decades, and efforts to hide or dismiss it once it comes to light shows a lack of repentance. This is what Jesus meant by “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” He’s speaking there specifically about false teachers seeking to harm others.

              Certainly, they could ask for and receive the forgiveness of Jesus. But by continuing in a pattern of sinful behavior, they prove that they have not, even if they claim to have done so.

              The Bible does not define how many times you can commit the same sin and ask for forgiveness before Jesus doesn’t believe you anymore.

              No, but Jesus does know the human heart, and will not be fooled by people trying to exploit apparent loopholes to look holy without actually pursuing sanctification. “You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence,” Jesus said. Or John the Baptist, who told the same corrupt religious leaders to “bear fruit in keeping with repentance.” So the Bible doesn’t give a limit because there’s a judge on the matter with perfect understanding.

              Death-bed conversions were and are absolutely acceptable in Christianity and always have been. […] The sinner’s soul can always be saved right up to their last breath.

              Sure, but if they believe God is that easily fooled by someone who knowingly waits until the last possible instant to “convert” so that they can sin during their lives, why would they believe even then? We’re not talking about some impersonal magic rules or an easily-befuddled genie, we’re talking about an intimate and infinite God who created the universe and knows your heart better than you do; and if you’re just checking the box at the end of your life in hopes of avoiding the flames, there’s no way it’s true repentance.

              Indeed, torturing someone until they confess was common practice back in the day, partly because they believed in truth through duress, but also because it was a chance for a Christian to rescue his soul before death.

              Yeah, inquisition is a terrible, dark, vile, truly despicable chapter in the church’s history. And while I think there may have been a few who were hoodwinked into believing that, the people who were teaching it had to have known that it was bunk.

              I think your grasp of what Christianity actually is may be contaminated by what you want it to be.

              I mean, I’m just reading the founding document, through the lens of the majority of Christians over the course of history and around the world. What it’s become in America in the past century or so flies in the face of what it has always been, and what it was intended to be.

              But even what you want it to be contains the seeds of its own destruction. It is not logically consistent to say that Christianity is based on a personal relationship with God,

              I don’t say that. The “personal relationship” thing is just not in the Bible. That’s a recent addition to satisfy the independent American, (edit: reintroduced from an ancient heresy called gnosticism) and nobody would’ve recognized that faith before American evangelicals invented (edit: rediscovered) it. Christianity was always intended to be–and has historically been–practiced in community, with people in one another’s lives so that they can see sin in one another and exhort one another toward sanctification.

              while at the same time taking it upon yourself to judge who is a “real” Christian.

              Once again, I am not making that judgment. The unrepentant person does not bear fruit in keeping with repentance, and thus it becomes obvious over time that they have not repented.

              And to be clear here: I am not talking about a teenage girl who gets pregnant before she’s married. I’m talking about Fortune 500 CEOs who gleefully fleece their customers and their employees from Monday through Saturday, then show up at church on Sunday in some pretense of piety. I’m talking about police officers who worship next to Black men on Sunday morning and then have them in a chokehold on the curb on Friday night. I’m talking about politicians who claim that they’ve never needed to repent in their lives and that their favorite book of the Bible is “Two Corinthians,” and who tear-gas people protesting the murder of Image-Bearers so that they can have a photo op with a Bible that’s never been opened.

              They’re all bearing unrepentant fruit, and I think it’s important to recognize them as such.

              Luther tried that when the Catholic Church abused its authority and here we are again.

              Indeed. I don’t remember if you’re the one I mentioned this to, but I think there’s another Reformation coming. I hope so, at least.

              Except this time we can’t point to a single authoritarian Catholic Church, but have to deal with a massive de-centralized super-community of corrupt churches. Luther wounded the big Dragon, but replaced it with a Hydra that keeps growing new heads, each one claiming to be the “real” Christians!

              Yes, agreed. The Second Reformation is going to be a long road to travel indeed. If there is any comfort, it is that there are many more Luthers this time. (And hopefully they’re less antisemitic.)

              • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Re: the personal relationship with God thing

                It’s not exactly a new thing, read up on Christian Gnosticism, that goes back to when what we know as the Bible was being constructed. Largely I agree with your points though. I’d write more but I’m on break at work right now, sorry.

                • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Ah! Fair point about gnosticism, though I think most Christians throughout history would consider that a heresy. But you’re right, that does precede American individualistic Jesus-fandom by many centuries. Good point.

              • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I don’t say that. The “personal relationship” thing is just not in the Bible. That’s a recent addition to satisfy the independent American, and nobody would’ve recognized that faith before American evangelicals invented it. Christianity was always intended to be–and has historically been–practiced in community, with people in one another’s lives so that they can see and exhort one another toward sanctification.

                Okay, I didn’t realize that was a more recent phenomenon. I did a quick lookup and it seems that this “personal relationship” thing started during the Enlightenment. And, as you say, some people argue that the “accept Jesus into your heart” thing really got going with American evangelical grifter-preachers like Billy Graham. I will read some more. Thanks for the tip.

                I’m not sure if that Second Reformation you speak of will ever happen. Christianity has lost almost all credibility. Something less fraught with horrible historical baggage will have to take its place. Christianity is pre-scientific. Luther and the Protestants were able to shed their brand of Christianity of its Roman imperial trappings, which was due, but half of Christians are still Catholic. But even Luther is pre-scientific. Educated people just aren’t going to go back to believing in some invisible sky daddy. I mean, come on, an all-powerful, invisible, father figure who delivers justice to the oppressed (but only in the NEXT life) and who loves you no matter what? It is too obviously a wishful construct of childish human consciousness. And some Middle Eastern dude whose death saved all of humanity and who said he’s coming back any time now, but that was 2000 years ago? It’s too much. We know too much now to read the Bible as though it is literally true. We’ve moved on. Something more believable will have to take its place.

                Also, Protestantism is currently associated with American evangelical right wing nutters. Besides the church scandals, the politicization of Christianity, including the attacks on women’s rights, homosexuality, the book banning, the stacking of SCOTUS with Christian zealots who only seem to want to restrict rights, and the election of a Christian Nationalist to the Speaker role are not putting Christianity in a good light. If anything, the crazy moralistic and hypocritical side of Christianity seems to be taking centre stage. Western populations outside of the US are rejecting Christianity in droves and that rejection is particularly pronounced among young people. If Trump and the Christian anti-science right-wingers take office again, it might well be the final nail in the coffin for religion in most of the West.

                Many of the poor countries of the global South are still pretty Christian, but their version of Christianity is very, very conservative. And by “conservative”, I mean the “let’s burn all the gays” type of conservative. Extremist Muslims and Jews massacring each other in the Middle East, and Modi with his Hindu Nationalism, just make the societal mood toward religion worse, leading many to believe that ALL religion is inherently harmful.

                Honestly, rather than the Second Reformation you speak of, I think we are more likely see further bans on religious expression in public life, and possibly some form of state protection for children to prevent them from being religiously indoctrinated. If all the “reasonable” people leave religion behind, only the extremists will be left, which will further convince the population that religion is harmful. It seems like Christianity has entered that downward spiral.

                • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  […] it seems that this “personal relationship” thing started during the Enlightenment. And, as you say, some people argue that the “accept Jesus into your heart” thing really got going with American evangelical grifter-preachers like Billy Graham. I will read some more. Thanks for the tip.

                  Yeah, for sure. Someone else pointed out that it’s also a repackaging of an ancient and widely-discredited heresy called Gnosticism, so perhaps “recent” is an overstatement; but for the vast majority of Christian history, it has not been considered orthodox.

                  Christianity has lost almost all credibility.

                  I don’t disagree, though I might clarify that Christianity has lost almost all credibility in the West due to the association with people who claim the name but have nothing to do with its tenets.

                  Educated people just aren’t going to go back to believing in some invisible sky daddy.

                  I don’t think that necessarily matches up with the data. Globally, Christians have on average the same amount or more schooling than non-Christians. The association of anti-intellectualism with Christians is also a recent American phenomenon, the Dark Ages excepted.

                  I mean, come on, an all-powerful, invisible, father figure who delivers justice to the oppressed (but only in the NEXT life) and who loves you no matter what? […] And some Middle Eastern dude whose death saved all of humanity and who said he’s coming back any time now, but that was 2000 years ago? It’s too much.

                  Yeah, I agree, it’s unusual. But if it was completely explainable, if it matched all of our expectations and experiences, it wouldn’t be divine. A transcendent God would have to do things and know things we don’t expect or understand, or we would be his equal.

                  It is too obviously a wishful construct of childish human consciousness.

                  I have to be honest, if I were trying to imagine and craft a religion for myself, it would be a lot heavier on me always getting what I want and a lot lower on the self-sacrifice. (/s, but only a little bit)

                  Honestly, and I legitimately just realized this, it would look a lot more like the false faith that people like Johnson believe in.

                  Protestantism is currently associated with American evangelical right wing nutters. […very fair criticism…] If anything, the crazy moralistic and hypocritical side of Christianity seems to be taking centre stage.

                  Yep. They are. For those of us who try not to be in that camp, it’s very frustrating. But I think they are honestly the loud minority.

                  Western populations outside of the US are rejecting Christianity in droves and that rejection is particularly pronounced among young people. If Trump and the Christian anti-science right-wingers take office again, it might well be the final nail in the coffin for religion in most of the West.

                  This has been oft-prophesied. I will say that, if this anti-science right-wing nonsense masquerading as Christianity dies, what small remnant of Christians might continue on will be much healthier with their absence.

                  Extremist Muslims and Jews massacring each other in the Middle East, and Modi with his Hindu Nationalism, just make the societal mood toward religion worse, leading many to believe that ALL religion is inherently harmful.

                  I would hope people are able to see the difference between religion and extremism. Not that extremists make that easy.

                  Honestly, rather than the Second Reformation you speak of, I think we are more likely see further bans on religious expression in public life, and possibly some form of state protection for children to prevent them from being religiously indoctrinated.

                  In any occasion where religion is suppressed or banned, it flourishes underground. This is well-attested historically, not merely for Christians; and can be seen even today in places like China.

                  If all the “reasonable” people leave religion behind, only the extremists will be left, which will further convince the population that religion is harmful. It seems like Christianity has entered that downward spiral.

                  Perhaps. I think the premise is unfounded, but in any case it doesn’t change my plan. All the bad feelings and negative thoughts about Christianity are meaningless if it’s true, and I believe it is; so I’ll just keep on trying to be as loving and helpful as I can.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        The qualification for being a Christian is that you believe in Christ. That is literally it. You can be the worst person ever and be a Christian.

        In fact, most Christians believe that everyone is a sinner, so being horrible is basically expected and accepted. You just need to repent eventually.

        • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          The qualification for being a Christian is that you believe in Christ. That is literally it.

          No, the qualification for being a Christian is that you follow Christ. The Biblical writer James actually addresses this very thing ad absurdum by showing that, if the qualification is only to believe in Jesus, even the demons are Christians. Repentance is the first act of selecting into the group of “Christian.”

          You can be the worst person ever and be a Christian.

          No, you can have been the worst person ever and be a Christian. Repentance begins the journey and remains a constant throughout; as Martin Luther said in the first of his 95 Theses, “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent,’ he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

          In fact, most Christians believe that everyone is a sinner, so being horrible is basically expected and accepted.

          I’m so sorry that you’ve been given such a twisted view of this, though I totally understand why (I’ve seen this argument being made, particularly about Trump in 2016). Being horrible is explicitly not expected or accepted; Jesus himself causes people who claim faith but do awful things “vipers” and weaves a whip to use on them to prove he’s serious. The biblical writer Paul asks rhetorically, “shall I continue sinning so that grace may abound? God forbid!” And theologian after theologian for 2,000 years has said the same. If you’re gleefully continuing in being horrible, you’re proving that you aren’t a Christian; and Christians since the first century have affirmed that definition of the faith.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Finally… someone who knows what the fuck they’re talking about around here. It’s so refreshing to see someone who is actually familiar with the texts in question and the historicity of these claims.

            It’s people like you that keep me wading through all this sewage and garbage.

        • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          No, being horrible is not expected or accepted. The Puritans (read: Evangelicals) like to interpret it that way, and in fact they do that because it absolves them of personal responsibility. “Well, I don’t do that one really terrible thing, therefore I can feel secure and not worry about my behavior.”

          In reality, sin just means error, imperfection. It’s an acknowledgement that no human can be perfect the way that God is perfect, no matter what. The correct response to this should be ongoing self-evaluation, humility, and caution against slipping into the many easy faults of humanity. We should all be repenting constantly because obviously we make mistakes all the time, and all we can do is keep trying to be better, do better. This is what you find in classical literature like Thomas Kempis’s The Imitation of Christ.

          If you see someone (and I know this is common) running around claiming absolute security in their righteousness with God, then you’re seeing a person who is quite literally actively sinning.

          The knock on effect of this whole situation is that Christians who don’t believe they know all and speak for God (another sin: taking the Lord’s name in vain) don’t get public attention because we don’t run around shouting at people about our religious beliefs.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s an acknowledgement that no human can be perfect the way that God is perfect, no matter what.

            Does the scriptures speak towards why God is perfect, and why we’re imperfect?

            Specifically, if we’re made in God’s image, then doesn’t that mean God is not perfect either, or that we were purposely made imperfectly?

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              Does the scriptures speak towards why God is perfect, and why we’re imperfect?

              This is a close cousin to the problem of pain. Many smarter people than I have debated both around and around for centuries, and come no nearer an answer than when they started. The Bible gives us a how, and a who, but not a why. Honestly I wish there was more, but alas.

          • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            And who created this definition that you’re referencing? You speak as if it’s the authority on what is and isn’t Christian.

                • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Kempis is a very storied and well-respected theologian from right before the Reformation. He’s looked upon fondly by the Anglicans, Methodists, and Jesuits alike. He’s about as Christian as they come, and the fruit of his belief is abundant.

                • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Thomas Kempis is very much Christian. There are a variety of Christian authors in this vein. Modern American Evangelicalism doesn’t comprise the entirety of religious thinking.