I totally get your point, but I think there is validity in calling into question your right to identify as a member of a given religion when you go directly against your religion's teachings.
Except what are the "real" teachings? How do you know? Who is the authority? Where is the solid evidence. The god of the Bible is silent on the matter of our interpretations over the centuries (if he even exists).
The Bible seems to condemn homosexuality in a few places and condemns "sexual immorality". But interpretations of these passages and how they relate to many other passages are numerous, each person claiming to have it all figured out. Some think the OT doesn't count anymore. Some think it still does but Jesus is essentially a get out of jail free card, some think Jesus is all about love, some define love to include various levels punishment, some believe God creates pre-damned people. Some think homosexuality is fine but the passages refer to sexual abuse. So we come back to the question: which interpretation is "correct"?
These books are translated from content written millennia ago. The gospels were written a generation after Jesus and we don't have the sources. The oldest version of books in the OT dates centuries after the originals. Thus, evidence is weak that the originals said the same thing as the current version. We have insufficient evidence for divine inspiration in the writing, copying or translating of said materials.
When evidence is lacking then the only alternative, belief (faith) provides a very unreliable source of information.
Yes there's no reliable manual, but generally people who were actually educated in the text mean following what has been written about Jesus: loving everyone independently of identity, forgiving people who offend you, helping the poor and the weak, refusing violence, doing funny rituals with fermented grape juice etc.
I should have mentioned I was a Christian for 40 years and did quite a fair bit of bible study so I'm coming at this as a former "insider".
Certainly the things you list are among the main tenets that I suppose many Christians follow. Those were the main things I prioritized.
But in those decades I was exposed to a number of different schools of thought and I observed that the messages believers prioritized were not universal.
How is anti lgbt sentiment anti Christian? It's very Christian.
Jesus talked very little about LGBT and a lot more about not forcing your beliefs onto other and not being a dick to people simply because they do things differently from you.
Not to mention that their stance on God hating gays is literal blasphemy, because again, there isn't much said about being gay by Jesus
To add on, the parable of The Good Samaritan also highlights his opinions on how Christians should treat people that are of a different, "reviled" culture than their own (Samaria in the story) by defining who a "neighbor" is and emphasis on loving your neighbor as yourself.
People do some wild backflips to try to wriggle out of accepting the good Samaritan story. They'll say it's an elaborate metaphorically for blah blah instead of a simple story that shows the point in plain text.
But a lot of alleged christians don't really follow the texts. Don't pray in the closet. Don't treat the least among them well.
Most things Christians believe have absolutely zero to do with Jesus. It's a big book.
That's like saying most of the things people like about Lord of the Rings has nothing to do with Frodo, no shit, but he's still the main character.
Jesus as far as I know didn't address homosexuality at all in the gospels.
Yet there's the OT to contend with. You can find passages that, at least in English translations, condemn homosexual acts. Find a concordance and search for homosexuality and Bob's your uncle. And there are quite a few "sexual morality" statements in the NT. (Does that include homosexuality? No idea).
And there's also the rest of the NT to deal with. Believers are commanded to proselytize. And not just once or twice. That isn't forcing your beliefs on others but it is definitely not being quiet and keeping to yourself either.
There are also many passages in OT and NT that condemn those who "do things differently". Christianity is not necessarily a "live and let live religion" looking at those passages. It is often more of a "my way or the highway (to hell...)" kind of thing per most common denominations (but not all).
You may think you have an accurate interpretation but there are many others who say the same thing about their own unique interpretations that differ from yours in various ways.
From the modern viewpoint of secularists, sure it is. But if we take the values or Christianity on face value, they don't say that.
The fact that so many Christians are hateful towards LGBT+ does present a difficult bind though: is true Christianity the writ values, or the modern zeitgeist? The pope himself ran into this very question recently when he started firing Catholic priests for not towing the progressive line that he has drawn. Who is right, the pope or his flock?
(Also, see the great answer that someone gave on No True Scotsman in this same comment tree)
In the case of the Catholics, at least, the doctrine of papal infallibility decrees that, at least on paper, the Pope as the successor to Peter and Paul is always correct on matters of doctrine. In practice, if the flock disagrees they can always schism again. shrugs
There is no such thing as a religion having objective "teachings."
It's always been subjective.
Normal people are Jews and Muslims, and extremists like the genocidal Israeli colonizers, and the similarly genocidal Wahhabist/Salafi terrorists are still Jews and Muslims.
There is no "true" understanding of these religions.
There is no such thing as a religion having objective âteachings.â
So what is the Bible? Or the Qur'an?
Aggregations of objective teachings which contradict each other (within the same book).
The Bible is an assembled collection of curated religious stories and traditions. I can't speak to the history of all of it but the first books of the OT were drawn from religious stories and traditions of north and south Judah and adapted to create religious (and thus political) unity by the king at the time in the face of the threat of rival, neighboring countries. Of the many gods worshipped at the time the OT books essentially retcon two of them to be one god, denounce polytheism, and create a mythical historical narrative of the country's population. Mythical because archaeological evidence contradicts a great deal of the stories.
The NT is a collection of Epistles, gospels, etc., chosen from a large pool of similar sorts of writings and assembled into what we have today. I don't know a great deal about what drove those selections and only vaguely know that some of the other writings were quite different theologically.
Fiction.
If someone claims to be "a Christian," they are. There is no other qualification. Whether such a person adheres more or less to common Christian principles is a separate issue, let alone that there are so many splinter groups of "Christians" that the phrase "common Christian principles" barely has any meaning anyway.
I'm a lamp. Fight me.
Yeah, but are you oil based, or electricity based? That matters you know.
See it's pretty easy to square the "I'm a lamp" circle, though. What do you mean by "I'm a lamp"? You could mean basically anything, even things you don't mean it to mean, I could just come up with random shit it could mean and I'd be no less wrong. In a vacuum, much like identifying as a christian, it's a pretty meaningless claim, the only commonality of the claim as it exists is that you decided to use that specific word. You know, much like a christian.
Are you a lamp cos you get turned on when I twist your switch?
"Lamp" is not a religion.
Illuminating comment
and 'woosh' is not a noise.
But a double woosh will create a gentle breeze.
IDK, some people are pretty religious about their software stack.
Then why are things like excommunication (where you get kicked out of the religion for going directly against beliefs) a thing?
Excommunicated Catholics can still be Christians. The term means someone who believes in Christ, and everything else is negotiable. No one Christian or sect can decide what Christianity is for everyone else.
The term means someone who "follows the teachings of Christ", not simply that someone believes in Christ. There are plenty of people/figures that believe in Christ who are not Christians. Satan, for example, is a believer in Christ who is also not a Christian.
That sounds like semantics to me, because everyone gets to interpret the teachings of Christ for themselves.
Satan is a good example, considering that the character is an amalgam of several biblical references to evil forces like the evil spirit tempting Christ, the Snake in Genesis, and the Red Dragon in Revelations. Most of the mythology of Satan is an invention of Catholic writers.
Also, not for nothing, but Satan (presuming he's real) would not be a "believer" as much as a colleague. Satan would know for sure that Jesus was real, was really God, and was the only path to Heaven. Of course, if we presume Satan is real, and the Bible is the literal word of God, then the only rational conclusion is that Jesus is Satan. But that's an entirely separate discussion.
LOL. Iâm very intrigued by that last paragraph but Iâll ignore it for now so as not to get off on a tangent. Feel free to expound on that, though.
semantics
Itâs not about the interpretation, though, itâs about the ideas underpinning the interpretation. There are some things about Jesusâ philosophy and what it means to be one of his followers that arenât as open to interpretation specifically because his followers supposedly asked these questions. The Golden Rule, for example, although it can be phrased in many different ways is unequivocal in its meaning (especially considering that similar ideas existed long before the Bible) - treat others the way you want to be treated. Likewise, âtake the log out of your eyeâŚâ can be phrased differently but, regardless of language, is understood to mean âworry about yourselfâ. The idea of the religious Satan even, although open to lots of visual interpretation, is impossible to interpret as a being for good, for example, if you believe that Jesus is âgoodâ since heâs meant to be the antithesis of Jesusâ ideals. This extends to several ideas including âhateâ, âwealthâ, and âprayerâ and underpins the stories of people like Lazarus and Mary Magdalene. So, unless the semantic argument is that âfollowingâ Jesus doesnât include taking his actions as a guide, I donât actually think itâs semantic.
Also, you donât have to convince me of the rest of what you said. I donât believe in any of this and, in my mind, all of it is an invention of Catholic writers. It makes no difference to me at all if people call themselves Christians because that means nothing to me. I only care how they act and whether those actions are charitable and kind. Itâs no different to someone calling me a âsinnerâ. If Godâs real, guess what? Iâm a sinner. Until you prove he/she/they are real, though, it doesnât matter to me even if whether or not Iâm a sinner isnât predicated on my belief in them.
I would concede that a self proclaimed Christians ought to act in a manner consistent with the teachings, but Christianity has a massive penitent-man-shaped hole in the rules for conduct. On top of that, there are literally thousands of sects that each have their own interpretation of what rules they must follow and which rules are optional. Many consider other sects of Christianity to be heretical. So who has the last word there? Who decides the rules for everyone else? The answer is that every Christian decides for themselves. And when they fall short (which is almost universally accepted across all variations that it will happen), a Christian need only ask forgiveness for their transgressions to rejoin the flock. Sometimes there's a pennance, but that's also built on the honor system. It's not a situation that allows for outsiders to evaluate the soul of a believer.
Now, if you're saying that many Christians are feigning faith, I would not have a hard time believing that, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. Whoever is the final arbiter of the accuracy and sincerity of Christian bona fides, I know for absolute certainty that it ain't me. I'm not going to tell someone who claims to be a Christian that their faith is insincere, or their beliefs are inaccurate to biblical proscription. For practical purposes, and mostly because it's easiest for me to remember, anyone claiming to be a Christian is a Christian. Full stop.
If any Christians out there want to stake exclusive claim on the term, their beef is with the pretenders. They need to work it out and get back to me, because it's not up to me to make those determinations.
Thatâs a bit of an aside, though. Weâre not talking about the specific doctrine of each sect of Christianity, weâre talking about what it means to be a Christian, in general, by definition. Whatâs the one thing that they all claim to have in common? Another user here explained it much better than I have but, by definition, Christians are only defined by the idea that Jesus is the son of god and that, therefore, we should live our lives with him as an example. If you donât live by that example, you arenât a Christian. Thatâs the most simplified way that definition can be formed. If we need to stay objective about it, then Christians must (again, by definition) do the things that Christ did and not do the things that he didnât do or that he spoke against.
Some of this is starting to get semantical but the gist of it is that, if someone telling you that theyâre something is best for you because it makes it simple for you, then thatâs great but thatâs not a sufficient barometer against which to compare any more than someone calling themselves a bicyclist can be considered one despite not owning a bicycle. This isnât gender weâre talking about where itâs a self-actualization of oneâs internal view of themselves. This is someone claiming to live a lifestyle that they either do or donât. The entire issue, as the original article that this post is about highlights, is that Christians can vary the definition of what it means to be a Christian at will when it needs to suit their purposes because âbeing a Christianâ doesnât have to mean actually being a Christian. It just needs to mean that you said youâre a Christian. Therefore, you can point to anyone saying theyâre a Christian and claim theyâre not a ârealâ Christian (whatever that means). Someone else brought up the âNo True Scotsmanâ fallacy but they actually meant the inverse of it. In the fallacy, thereâs no âtrueâ Scotsman because the only thing that defines whether or not someone is a Scotsman is whether they were born in Scotland. Similarly, whether someone is a Christian is only determined by whether or not they follow the teachings of Jesus and live by his example.
Excommunication is a political tool. That's why victims of priest sexual abuse are excommunicated for speaking out, while priests are rewarded and given a new church/batch of victims
Thatâs not correct in any way. The word âChristianâ has a specific definition. If someone claims theyâre a âChristianâ but donât believe in Jesus, then theyâre not a Christian. They canât be. If someone claims to be a âCatholicâ but doesnât âacceptâ Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, theyâre not a Catholic. I can claim to be a musician but, if I canât play any instruments, Iâm not.
Everyone knows words are stripped of their definitions on social media.
Yeah... if we used the definitions of social media, then the existence of trans people is a religious belief and wokeness is a religion. It's the single stupidest chain of sentiment to come out since the belief in a flat earth.
If someone claims to be a âCatholicâ but doesnât âacceptâ Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, theyâre not a Catholic.
That's not true. There have been quite a number of schisms in the catholic church which resulted in a split on who people thought was the pope. The guy who doesn't come out on top in that situation is called an antipope. Sometimes it was difficult to decide in history which person was the pope and which was antipope. There have been about 40 of them with the last being in the 15th century.
Yes it is. Catholic dogma dictates that the Pope is the true representative of God and that he functions as the literal mouthpiece of God. Schisms might be true but, according to Catholicism, there canât be a mistake when it comes to the Pope and what he says when speaking on doctrine. Itâs called Papal Infallibility.
Accordingly, that means any schisms from Catholicism, by definition, arenât Catholic because they break the promise Jesus made to Peter.
That doesn't change the fact that Palmerians consider themselves the one true catholic church and that they consider their members catholic. They would claim their anti-pope is the infallible one, not Pope Francis.
It doesnât matter what they consider themselves, though. Thatâs the point. If the Pope is the mouthpiece of god and is infallible, then their sect (and by extension their anti-pope) cannot be Catholics since dogma and doctrine dictate that the actual Pope is infallible and beyond contestation.
If both churches consider themselves with infallible popes declaring gods will on earth, who is right? Do you see the dilemma? Neither can say that the other sect are true Catholics.
So if someone claims to be catholic but doesn't accept Pope Francis that doesn't make them not a catholic, it just means they don't think Pope Francis is the legitimate pope. They would consider him an antipope and his statements ex cathedra are therefore fallible since they aren't really statements ex cathedra in their minds.
If both churches consider themselves with infallible popes declaring gods will on earth, who is right?
Neither of them. Claims don't beget fact.
No. You're wrong. The original Catholic dogma, directly from St. Peter and promised by Jesus, states that the Pope will forever be the mouthpiece of god. To directly contradict that at a point in the future after the founding of the church when the lineage of the church is unbroken is to become, by definition, something other than a Catholic. Otherwise, you're saying that Jesus lied or that the Pope is wrong, both ideas that go completely against the central tenets of the religion.
Whether or not both churches consider themselves anything is irrelevant. One side can say that they are the true Catholics if they were the ones to create the belief system, dogma, and tenets. The other side can't say that the actual Catholics aren't true Catholics because Catholic belief is defined by the infallibility of the leader of the organization. By direct influence of their god, he is perfect in all matters of dogma, religion, and definition. In order to defy that, you're defying the god upon which the religion is founded which makes their beliefs heresy and hypocrisy.
I can't even believe this is being debated right now, especially like this.
Read the whole Bible, not just the canonical bit.
It's not a biblical question. It's a dogmatic question. Reading the Bible, in part or in its entirety, isn't going to help answer this question.
This assumes that Catholic dogma is objectively true, and leans heavily on history being written by the victors.
No it doesnât. It leans on Catholic dogma being defined by Catholics. Papal infallibility comes from Jesusâ promise to Peter that whoever leads the Church will always be guided by God. Since it comes directly from Jesus, the figurehead of Catholicism, the only âtruthâ that needs to be accepted is that Jesus + Pope (Peter) is Catholicism. Thereâs no question of truth or victory. The very foundation of the idea of Catholicism relies on the idea that the Pope is never wrong on issues of doctrine and dogma.
If someone claims theyâre a âChristianâ but donât believe in Jesus, then theyâre not a Christian.
That's fair. It still hinges on a belief claim only. Based on a person's other actions, you can doubt that claim, but the singular authority for what a person actually believes is what that person claims to believe.
Thatâs only true if that claim is made in good faith. I can claim to be a Christian all I want but, if I donât believe in god, then my claim isnât coming from a place of good faith (literally). I canât make the claim and that claim be true if Iâve twisted the definition of what Iâm claiming in order to make that claim. If I claim to be vegan but I have redefined âveganâ to ignore the use of animal products and am only focused on eating animals and animal products, then Iâm a liar rather than what youâre inferring which is that my claim is true because I believe it to be true. A âveganâ walking around in leather pants is not a vegan, regardless of what they believe or claim.
Whether someone is a "vegan" depends on behavior in ways that "Christian" doesn't. Even so, being "vegan" - even when the person does not directly and knowingly consume animal products - completely ignores the fact that they are indirectly making use of animal products, because they depend on a society that currently uses animal products, and where that society got to the technological level it's at through the use of animal products over many millenia.
And we're back to No True Scotsman, adjusting the definition to fit the circumstances.
No it doesn't. Being vegan doesn't mean that you believe you're not using or consuming animal products. It means you don't consume animal products. Period. It's why the Vegan Police came after Todd. The only person adjusting the definition to fit the circumstances is you. If a central tenet of being a vegan is that the very first vegan ever said that anyone who eats or uses an animal product can't be vegan, then that person isn't vegan whether they intended that or not. The Catholic Church is founded on the idea that the Pope is the mouthpiece of god. To say that any Pope chosen in the lineage of that church is "not the real pope" is blasphemy and, by definition, not Catholic.
The Catholic Church is founded on the idea that the Pope is the mouthpiece of god.
Who decides who the "right" Pope is? You must certainly know that issues of succession (oh so topically) are often contested, and the Catholic Church is not immune to that.
God does. That's the point. The Catholic belief, which is written into the very doctrine and dogma of the religion, is that God is guiding the process and that God chooses the Pope. The whole religion is based on the idea that Jesus took the wheel and handed it to Peter afterwards who then handed it to the next person. Papal infallibility, as a concept, is the promise that the leadership of the Catholic Church is free from human error so, yes, according to their own beliefs, they are explicitly immune from that.
God does.
And that's why this is entirely a circular and nonsensical thing.
Of course it is. But you're the one arguing against your definition of these terms, not their own. From a standpoint of furthering discussion, I'm an atheist. I don't believe any of this. But I know what the religion dictates as the definition of who they are and, based on that, you're wrong about how they view themselves and how they've defined themselves.
Again, history is written by the victors. It "just so happens" that the Pope is the Pope because the portion of the Catholic Church which says he's the Pope has the social, economic, and political power to make that "true." Which would be the case no matter which portion achieved that set of powers; we could just as easily be referring to a whole different set of Popes, past and present.
I'm not talking about how they view or define themselves. If Catholic dogma wants to say that that's what God intended, that's fine. Neither of us has to believe it. If some other set of Popes ended up existing, that would have been "what God intended."
What does this have to do with history? Youâre not making any sense whatsoever. Weâre not discussing who has social, economic, or political power. Weâre talking about the fact that, since its inception, the doctrines of Catholicism define the religion as being led by the Pope, a person who is chosen by God to be his mouthpiece. By their own standard, it is impossible for there to be a âwrongâ Pope because God is the one choosing who that person is. Because of this, anyone who claims that the wrong Pope was chosen is themselves wrong because God cannot be wrong and the Pope, by extension of God, cannot be wrong and is infallible.
You might not be talking about how they view or define themselves but thatâs literally what this entire conversation and thread have been about. Just because you misunderstood that and interjected yourself doesnât mean everyone else is wrong. You are.
The voice is still an instrument. Stop being a pedant.
You can play any instrument you like. Whether you're "good at it" is a separate issue.
Sure⌠but if you donât play at all, youâre not a musician no matter how much you believe it to be true.
As with "vegan", "musician" depends on behavior in ways that "Christian" does not.
No, it does not. What ways does it depend on? You either follow the tenets and doctrine of the religion or you don't. If your actions directly contradict the meaning of the word, then it doesn't depend on anything. It's a binary concept.
If your actions directly contradict the meaning of the word, then it doesnât depend on anything.
Using this weirdo logic to define whether or not a person is a Christian means that you have to know the entirety of actions of their whole life to see if they entirely followed the tenants and doctrine of the religion or not, because the instant they don't they're not a Christian.
Since only God would be capable of such knowledge, only God would be capable of labeling people Christian or not...so effectively nobody's a Christian.
Seems wrong in an obvious and fundamental way (because it makes the categorizations all pointless), but hey whatever grips your gourd, friendo.
âŚknow the entirety of actionsâŚ
No, you donât. Those things are not tenets of Christianity or Catholicism. What weâre discussing here is whether breaking the central tenets of the religion disqualifies someone from including themselves in that group and itâs pretty clear that the answer is yes.
As an example, you canât be a Jew and deny the Ten Commandments. Period. If someone went around saying that it was OK to kill people and that stealing is justified, they cannot call themselves Jews without also being liars. It has nothing to do with whether they themselves have stolen or may have accidentally killed someone (which, in both cases, would make them imperfect Jews). It has to do with whether or not they believe that their actions are wrong by virtue of going against the only rules the religion has at its core.
Lastly, since this will be my last response to you⌠you donât have to be such a rude, insufferable asshole in your responses, âfriendoâ. I am not your friend. Your inability to understand basic statements followed by your complete incredulity, once the misunderstanding is pointed out, just show that itâs a waste of time talking to you. Your absolute toxicity, though, is what makes you and your opinions meaningless.
As an example, you canât be a Jew and deny the Ten Commandments. Period.
So is it what people say or their actions that defines group membership? You can't seem to make your mind up.
Thatâs not correct in any way. The word âChristianâ has a specific definition.
Webster isn't any more of a dictator of truth than anyone else. There's a reason why Socrates spent a lot of time debating definitions with people. They're hard to actually get right.
If someone claims theyâre a âChristianâ but donât believe in Jesus, then theyâre not a Christian. They canât be.
But what if they also claim to believe in Jesus? How do you measure or test belief? How do you know what's in the mind or soul of a person?
If someone claims to be a âCatholicâ but doesnât âacceptâ Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, theyâre not a Catholic.
What if they attend Catholic mass? Hell, what if they're a member of the priesthood?
I can claim to be a musician but, if I canât play any instruments, Iâm not.
Even this is a bad argument. Aren't singers musicians? How about rappers?
All of this debate is really over whether or not something is no longer a thing if they're not a high quality version of that thing. I think it's a fairly shallow debate because a wobbly stool is still a stool. A shitty singer is still a musician. A broken chair is still a chair, and similarly just because someone's a bad Christian doesn't mean they're not a Christian.
... if theyâre not a high quality version of that thing.
And who is the arbiter of quality, and who draws the line in the sand?
I know this has all kind of devolved into a semantic argument, and a weird discussion about Popery, and I think at this point it's worth reiterating my initial point: If someone claims to belong to a religion, they do. Whether that claim enables anyone to make predictions or judgments about a person's other statements or actions is another question entirely.
If someone claims to belong to a religion, they do.
I think this is 100% true for generic things like "Christianity". When they're more official organizations...still maybe, but if someone's been excommunicated from something it makes sense to me from a practical standpoint that they no longer belong to that thing.
Webster isn't any more of a...
We're not talking about the definition from Webster. We're talking about the definition from Jesus that was given to Saint Peter, the very first Pope. The definition here is not in question because the idea was defined by the people who founded the religion.
How do you measure or test belief?
You don't have to. Being a Christian isn't only predicated on believing in Jesus. If that was the case, then Satan is also a Christian because he's personally met Jesus and, therefore, would be forced to "believe" in him. Luckily, Jesus himself supposedly stated and passed down what it means to be a Christian and those people supposedly wrote it down.
What if they attend Catholic mass? Hell, what if they're a member of the priesthood?
Also irrelevant. A priest who molests children cannot be a Christian whether they were inducted into the priesthood or whether they attend Mass because the very rules of the religion, as instructed by their figurehead, remove them from the group based on their actions. It's repeated numerous times throughout the Bible that Christians will be known by their actions.
Even this is a bad argument. Aren't singers musicians? How about rappers?
It's not a bad argument, you just misunderstood it. The voice is an instrument.
All of this debate is really over whether or not something is no longer a thing if they're not a high quality version of that thing. I think it's a fairly shallow debate because a wobbly stool is still a stool. A shitty singer is still a musician. A broken chair is still a chair, and similarly just because someone's a bad Christian doesn't mean they're not a Christian.
No. Again, you've misunderstood the argument. If I started a religion today and I said that the only qualification of the religion is that people have to kiss me on the mouth, then it's not possible for someone who has not kissed me on the mouth to be part of the religion. They can follow everything else I've said to the letter but, as long as they haven't kissed me directly on the mouth, they cannot be a part of this particular religion because they are missing the central qualification. It's not about whether someone is "good" or "bad" at doing something. It's whether they're doing that thing at all.
Itâs not a bad argument, you just misunderstood it. The voice is an instrument.
Ok then, so who is this person that can "claim to be a musician" but isn't?
As for the rest of your load of gish gallop: the bible, like all other texts, is up for interpretation and has been re-interpreted many times with many different takeaways. It's not even the original text, was translated multiple times, and there is no way we can be assured that the King James Bible (Taylor's Version) is the real deal. Definitions from it aren't more authoritative than Webster....they're even less so.
who is this person
Someone who doesnât play any instrument, including singing. There are unending numbers of people who will tell you theyâre not musicians because they donât even try. Anyone who doesnât try but tells you theyâre a musician is a liar. Thatâs the point.
load of gish gallop
Nothing that Iâve said should have been overwhelming or inundating. My premise is incredibly simple. You just keep misunderstanding it repeatedly because it seems that youâre not even reading whatâs being said.
Weâre not talking about interpretation from the Bible. Weâre talking about the definition used by Catholics that is part of their dogma and doctrine. Weâre talking about quoting the (supposed) words of Jesus in places where there is no debate on the meaning. You can try to dismiss and downplay what Iâve said all you want but none of what Iâve said is inaccurate whereas your response is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
Someone who doesnât play any instrument, including singing.
Lol, so someone who wants to claim to be a musician but can't even sing badly (or rap badly, because rappers are still musicians)? That's who we've excluded? Wow, what a useful definition for musician. đ
Who is this person who wants to go around claiming musician creds and then can't attempt a couple of bars?
Your argument just sucks dude, get over yourself.
EDIT: Thanks for the downvote!
Congratulations, you understand my example. Thatâs my entire point. Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician. If you donât do the thing that defines the word that means âsomeone who does this thingâ, then you canât be that thing. Thatâs the argument! If someone claims to be a Christian and doesnât follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian. If you donât like the musician example, come up with a better one.
My argument doesnât suck. You suck.
Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician.
But given that bar there's nobody that could claim to be a musician and then not just shit out a couple of bars and be one by your definition. So, again, your definition sucks (EDIT: and it happens to actually prove that what someone else is saying about "claiming to be a Christian makes you a Christian" is essentially true...because I can claim to be a musician and then sing a little happy birthday and I fit your definition).
If someone claims to be a Christian and doesnât follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian.
Now it's "follow the example". So is that words? Actions? Both? Who determines what is "Christ-like"? You? Are you the guy who determines who is and isn't a Christian?
You suck.
Right back at ya slick.
Are you being intentionally obtuse here or what? The definition isnât about being capable of singing (even poorly). Itâs about whether or not the person does that thing in their life. If you donât like the music example, choose a different profession. For example, if I claim to be a golfer, I canât be one if I donât play golf. I canât claim to be a golfer and then âshit out golf clubs and whack a ball aroundâ. Youâre just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that âshit[ting] out a couple barsâ doesnât make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.
Now itâs âfollow the exampleâ
What do you mean here? This implies that my position on this has changed somewhere. Iâve already clarified in my 1st response to you that âbelief in Jesusâ isnât enough to make someone Christian. Itâs what started your whole fake confusion about being a musician. This kind of nonsense just leads me to believe that youâre not arguing in good faith here (which is already obvious but I try give people the benefit of the doubt).
To answer your question, Christ determines what is âChrist-likeâ. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.
Youâre just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that âshit[ting] out a couple barsâ doesnât make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.
You've done nothing but argue semantics the entire thread. I've golfed before but I'm not a golfer largely because I don't claim to be nor aspire to be a golfer despite having golfed at one point. People's identity is to a large extent wrapped up in the claims they make about themselves. I understand that there's a common understanding of what a "golfer" or a "barber" or a "Christian" is, but you're the guy trying to invent the new one. I'm trying to follow your "logic" here to get an actual definition of a Christian that excludes this Mike Johnson character (for instance).
If someone says they're a Christian, says they believe in Christ (for whatever that means), and they go around spouting quotes from the Bible, they're a Christian by my logic. They're a Christian by most people's logic. You're trying to define it some other way, so provide your criteria.
To answer your question, Christ determines what is âChrist-likeâ. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.
Well Christ isn't around to call balls and strikes, so then by your definition nobody can be a Christian.
This is not about logic! Weâre discussing religion, for Peteâs sake.
Itâs not my definition, itâs the definition of what it means to be a Christian from the source of the word. Itâs literally in the name - Christian. Spouting Bible verses doesnât make someone a Christian. They could be Jewish, after all! Believing in Jesus doesnât make someone a Christian - that would mean that Muslims are Christians since they believe Jesus was simply a human prophet (rather than the son of Allah). Just because youâre intellectually lazy and because your logic only extends so far as immediately obvious âif a then bâ situations doesnât mean that thereâs anything wrong with my argument.
The entire point of this thread is that âChristiansâ arenât using their own logic and definitions. They can say that âMike Johnsonâ isnât a Christian because theyâre perverting the definition of the word to include whatever specific flavor they like. Even if he did fit that specific flavor, they just move the goalposts and then he suddenly becomes ânot a Christianâ again.
by your definition nobody
Yet again⌠itâs not my definition. Christ was the one that defined what it means to be Christ-like. If someoneâs actions do not reflect the actions of Christ, then theyâre not âChrist-likeâ. I donât understand how much more this can be spelled out for you.
I claim to be Welsh, and you can't tell me I'm not.
Youâre not
I understand your point and generally agree, with an aside: The actual Nazis werenât socialists, just because they added that to their factionâs official title.
Itâs weird to me that you agree and yet have provided an excellent example disproving the entire point.
Because itâs an immature understanding of life to vote anything as black and white. Life is full color, and a bazillion shades of gray, besides. Grow up.
No one is "voting" anything as black and white, especially with regard to a question from an objective claim. If the claim is that someone is something simply because they tell you they are and you've disproved the claim with your example then the claim is objectively false.
Maybe you should stop telling people to grow up until you've done so first. In the words of Jesus, take the log out of your eye first.
Do you feel clever? Nuance exists and so do incorrect autocorrects. As far as removing the beam: take your own advice.
I wasn't trying to be clever. How could I know that was an auto-correct? Also, I'm not a Christian. What do I care about the advice?
Then why would you suggest that to me? Why on earth would you suggest that to me?
Self reflection isnât poison, and Iâve no problem doing that. Arrogant people do.
Because you were being hypocritical and acting like a child while telling me to grow up.
I never said it was. There's clearly something wrong with you...
It is similar to me calling myself Afro-American (I'm not). No one can stop me, but does it mean anything at that point?
I totally get your point, but I think there is validity in calling into question your right to identify as a member of a given religion when you go directly against your religion's teachings.
Except what are the "real" teachings? How do you know? Who is the authority? Where is the solid evidence. The god of the Bible is silent on the matter of our interpretations over the centuries (if he even exists).
The Bible seems to condemn homosexuality in a few places and condemns "sexual immorality". But interpretations of these passages and how they relate to many other passages are numerous, each person claiming to have it all figured out. Some think the OT doesn't count anymore. Some think it still does but Jesus is essentially a get out of jail free card, some think Jesus is all about love, some define love to include various levels punishment, some believe God creates pre-damned people. Some think homosexuality is fine but the passages refer to sexual abuse. So we come back to the question: which interpretation is "correct"?
These books are translated from content written millennia ago. The gospels were written a generation after Jesus and we don't have the sources. The oldest version of books in the OT dates centuries after the originals. Thus, evidence is weak that the originals said the same thing as the current version. We have insufficient evidence for divine inspiration in the writing, copying or translating of said materials.
When evidence is lacking then the only alternative, belief (faith) provides a very unreliable source of information.
Yes there's no reliable manual, but generally people who were actually educated in the text mean following what has been written about Jesus: loving everyone independently of identity, forgiving people who offend you, helping the poor and the weak, refusing violence, doing funny rituals with fermented grape juice etc.
I should have mentioned I was a Christian for 40 years and did quite a fair bit of bible study so I'm coming at this as a former "insider".
Certainly the things you list are among the main tenets that I suppose many Christians follow. Those were the main things I prioritized.
But in those decades I was exposed to a number of different schools of thought and I observed that the messages believers prioritized were not universal.
How is anti lgbt sentiment anti Christian? It's very Christian.
Jesus talked very little about LGBT and a lot more about not forcing your beliefs onto other and not being a dick to people simply because they do things differently from you.
Not to mention that their stance on God hating gays is literal blasphemy, because again, there isn't much said about being gay by Jesus
To add on, the parable of The Good Samaritan also highlights his opinions on how Christians should treat people that are of a different, "reviled" culture than their own (Samaria in the story) by defining who a "neighbor" is and emphasis on loving your neighbor as yourself.
People do some wild backflips to try to wriggle out of accepting the good Samaritan story. They'll say it's an elaborate metaphorically for blah blah instead of a simple story that shows the point in plain text.
But a lot of alleged christians don't really follow the texts. Don't pray in the closet. Don't treat the least among them well.
Most things Christians believe have absolutely zero to do with Jesus. It's a big book.
That's like saying most of the things people like about Lord of the Rings has nothing to do with Frodo, no shit, but he's still the main character.
Jesus as far as I know didn't address homosexuality at all in the gospels.
Yet there's the OT to contend with. You can find passages that, at least in English translations, condemn homosexual acts. Find a concordance and search for homosexuality and Bob's your uncle. And there are quite a few "sexual morality" statements in the NT. (Does that include homosexuality? No idea).
And there's also the rest of the NT to deal with. Believers are commanded to proselytize. And not just once or twice. That isn't forcing your beliefs on others but it is definitely not being quiet and keeping to yourself either.
There are also many passages in OT and NT that condemn those who "do things differently". Christianity is not necessarily a "live and let live religion" looking at those passages. It is often more of a "my way or the highway (to hell...)" kind of thing per most common denominations (but not all).
You may think you have an accurate interpretation but there are many others who say the same thing about their own unique interpretations that differ from yours in various ways.
From the modern viewpoint of secularists, sure it is. But if we take the values or Christianity on face value, they don't say that.
The fact that so many Christians are hateful towards LGBT+ does present a difficult bind though: is true Christianity the writ values, or the modern zeitgeist? The pope himself ran into this very question recently when he started firing Catholic priests for not towing the progressive line that he has drawn. Who is right, the pope or his flock?
(Also, see the great answer that someone gave on No True Scotsman in this same comment tree)
In the case of the Catholics, at least, the doctrine of papal infallibility decrees that, at least on paper, the Pope as the successor to Peter and Paul is always correct on matters of doctrine. In practice, if the flock disagrees they can always schism again. shrugs
There is no such thing as a religion having objective "teachings."
It's always been subjective.
Normal people are Jews and Muslims, and extremists like the genocidal Israeli colonizers, and the similarly genocidal Wahhabist/Salafi terrorists are still Jews and Muslims.
There is no "true" understanding of these religions.
So what is the Bible? Or the Qur'an?
Aggregations of objective teachings which contradict each other (within the same book).
The Bible is an assembled collection of curated religious stories and traditions. I can't speak to the history of all of it but the first books of the OT were drawn from religious stories and traditions of north and south Judah and adapted to create religious (and thus political) unity by the king at the time in the face of the threat of rival, neighboring countries. Of the many gods worshipped at the time the OT books essentially retcon two of them to be one god, denounce polytheism, and create a mythical historical narrative of the country's population. Mythical because archaeological evidence contradicts a great deal of the stories.
The NT is a collection of Epistles, gospels, etc., chosen from a large pool of similar sorts of writings and assembled into what we have today. I don't know a great deal about what drove those selections and only vaguely know that some of the other writings were quite different theologically.
Fiction.
If someone claims to be "a Christian," they are. There is no other qualification. Whether such a person adheres more or less to common Christian principles is a separate issue, let alone that there are so many splinter groups of "Christians" that the phrase "common Christian principles" barely has any meaning anyway.
I'm a lamp. Fight me.
Yeah, but are you oil based, or electricity based? That matters you know.
See it's pretty easy to square the "I'm a lamp" circle, though. What do you mean by "I'm a lamp"? You could mean basically anything, even things you don't mean it to mean, I could just come up with random shit it could mean and I'd be no less wrong. In a vacuum, much like identifying as a christian, it's a pretty meaningless claim, the only commonality of the claim as it exists is that you decided to use that specific word. You know, much like a christian.
Are you a lamp cos you get turned on when I twist your switch?
"Lamp" is not a religion.
Illuminating comment
and 'woosh' is not a noise.
But a double woosh will create a gentle breeze.
IDK, some people are pretty religious about their software stack.
Then why are things like excommunication (where you get kicked out of the religion for going directly against beliefs) a thing?
Excommunicated Catholics can still be Christians. The term means someone who believes in Christ, and everything else is negotiable. No one Christian or sect can decide what Christianity is for everyone else.
The term means someone who "follows the teachings of Christ", not simply that someone believes in Christ. There are plenty of people/figures that believe in Christ who are not Christians. Satan, for example, is a believer in Christ who is also not a Christian.
That sounds like semantics to me, because everyone gets to interpret the teachings of Christ for themselves.
Satan is a good example, considering that the character is an amalgam of several biblical references to evil forces like the evil spirit tempting Christ, the Snake in Genesis, and the Red Dragon in Revelations. Most of the mythology of Satan is an invention of Catholic writers.
Also, not for nothing, but Satan (presuming he's real) would not be a "believer" as much as a colleague. Satan would know for sure that Jesus was real, was really God, and was the only path to Heaven. Of course, if we presume Satan is real, and the Bible is the literal word of God, then the only rational conclusion is that Jesus is Satan. But that's an entirely separate discussion.
LOL. Iâm very intrigued by that last paragraph but Iâll ignore it for now so as not to get off on a tangent. Feel free to expound on that, though.
Itâs not about the interpretation, though, itâs about the ideas underpinning the interpretation. There are some things about Jesusâ philosophy and what it means to be one of his followers that arenât as open to interpretation specifically because his followers supposedly asked these questions. The Golden Rule, for example, although it can be phrased in many different ways is unequivocal in its meaning (especially considering that similar ideas existed long before the Bible) - treat others the way you want to be treated. Likewise, âtake the log out of your eyeâŚâ can be phrased differently but, regardless of language, is understood to mean âworry about yourselfâ. The idea of the religious Satan even, although open to lots of visual interpretation, is impossible to interpret as a being for good, for example, if you believe that Jesus is âgoodâ since heâs meant to be the antithesis of Jesusâ ideals. This extends to several ideas including âhateâ, âwealthâ, and âprayerâ and underpins the stories of people like Lazarus and Mary Magdalene. So, unless the semantic argument is that âfollowingâ Jesus doesnât include taking his actions as a guide, I donât actually think itâs semantic.
Also, you donât have to convince me of the rest of what you said. I donât believe in any of this and, in my mind, all of it is an invention of Catholic writers. It makes no difference to me at all if people call themselves Christians because that means nothing to me. I only care how they act and whether those actions are charitable and kind. Itâs no different to someone calling me a âsinnerâ. If Godâs real, guess what? Iâm a sinner. Until you prove he/she/they are real, though, it doesnât matter to me even if whether or not Iâm a sinner isnât predicated on my belief in them.
I would concede that a self proclaimed Christians ought to act in a manner consistent with the teachings, but Christianity has a massive penitent-man-shaped hole in the rules for conduct. On top of that, there are literally thousands of sects that each have their own interpretation of what rules they must follow and which rules are optional. Many consider other sects of Christianity to be heretical. So who has the last word there? Who decides the rules for everyone else? The answer is that every Christian decides for themselves. And when they fall short (which is almost universally accepted across all variations that it will happen), a Christian need only ask forgiveness for their transgressions to rejoin the flock. Sometimes there's a pennance, but that's also built on the honor system. It's not a situation that allows for outsiders to evaluate the soul of a believer.
Now, if you're saying that many Christians are feigning faith, I would not have a hard time believing that, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. Whoever is the final arbiter of the accuracy and sincerity of Christian bona fides, I know for absolute certainty that it ain't me. I'm not going to tell someone who claims to be a Christian that their faith is insincere, or their beliefs are inaccurate to biblical proscription. For practical purposes, and mostly because it's easiest for me to remember, anyone claiming to be a Christian is a Christian. Full stop.
If any Christians out there want to stake exclusive claim on the term, their beef is with the pretenders. They need to work it out and get back to me, because it's not up to me to make those determinations.
Thatâs a bit of an aside, though. Weâre not talking about the specific doctrine of each sect of Christianity, weâre talking about what it means to be a Christian, in general, by definition. Whatâs the one thing that they all claim to have in common? Another user here explained it much better than I have but, by definition, Christians are only defined by the idea that Jesus is the son of god and that, therefore, we should live our lives with him as an example. If you donât live by that example, you arenât a Christian. Thatâs the most simplified way that definition can be formed. If we need to stay objective about it, then Christians must (again, by definition) do the things that Christ did and not do the things that he didnât do or that he spoke against.
Some of this is starting to get semantical but the gist of it is that, if someone telling you that theyâre something is best for you because it makes it simple for you, then thatâs great but thatâs not a sufficient barometer against which to compare any more than someone calling themselves a bicyclist can be considered one despite not owning a bicycle. This isnât gender weâre talking about where itâs a self-actualization of oneâs internal view of themselves. This is someone claiming to live a lifestyle that they either do or donât. The entire issue, as the original article that this post is about highlights, is that Christians can vary the definition of what it means to be a Christian at will when it needs to suit their purposes because âbeing a Christianâ doesnât have to mean actually being a Christian. It just needs to mean that you said youâre a Christian. Therefore, you can point to anyone saying theyâre a Christian and claim theyâre not a ârealâ Christian (whatever that means). Someone else brought up the âNo True Scotsmanâ fallacy but they actually meant the inverse of it. In the fallacy, thereâs no âtrueâ Scotsman because the only thing that defines whether or not someone is a Scotsman is whether they were born in Scotland. Similarly, whether someone is a Christian is only determined by whether or not they follow the teachings of Jesus and live by his example.
Excommunication is a political tool. That's why victims of priest sexual abuse are excommunicated for speaking out, while priests are rewarded and given a new church/batch of victims
Thatâs not correct in any way. The word âChristianâ has a specific definition. If someone claims theyâre a âChristianâ but donât believe in Jesus, then theyâre not a Christian. They canât be. If someone claims to be a âCatholicâ but doesnât âacceptâ Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, theyâre not a Catholic. I can claim to be a musician but, if I canât play any instruments, Iâm not.
Everyone knows words are stripped of their definitions on social media.
Yeah... if we used the definitions of social media, then the existence of trans people is a religious belief and wokeness is a religion. It's the single stupidest chain of sentiment to come out since the belief in a flat earth.
That's not true. There have been quite a number of schisms in the catholic church which resulted in a split on who people thought was the pope. The guy who doesn't come out on top in that situation is called an antipope. Sometimes it was difficult to decide in history which person was the pope and which was antipope. There have been about 40 of them with the last being in the 15th century.
The Palmarian Church is a catholic splinter group that has an antipope.
Yes it is. Catholic dogma dictates that the Pope is the true representative of God and that he functions as the literal mouthpiece of God. Schisms might be true but, according to Catholicism, there canât be a mistake when it comes to the Pope and what he says when speaking on doctrine. Itâs called Papal Infallibility.
Accordingly, that means any schisms from Catholicism, by definition, arenât Catholic because they break the promise Jesus made to Peter.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
That doesn't change the fact that Palmerians consider themselves the one true catholic church and that they consider their members catholic. They would claim their anti-pope is the infallible one, not Pope Francis.
It doesnât matter what they consider themselves, though. Thatâs the point. If the Pope is the mouthpiece of god and is infallible, then their sect (and by extension their anti-pope) cannot be Catholics since dogma and doctrine dictate that the actual Pope is infallible and beyond contestation.
If both churches consider themselves with infallible popes declaring gods will on earth, who is right? Do you see the dilemma? Neither can say that the other sect are true Catholics.
So if someone claims to be catholic but doesn't accept Pope Francis that doesn't make them not a catholic, it just means they don't think Pope Francis is the legitimate pope. They would consider him an antipope and his statements ex cathedra are therefore fallible since they aren't really statements ex cathedra in their minds.
Neither of them. Claims don't beget fact.
No. You're wrong. The original Catholic dogma, directly from St. Peter and promised by Jesus, states that the Pope will forever be the mouthpiece of god. To directly contradict that at a point in the future after the founding of the church when the lineage of the church is unbroken is to become, by definition, something other than a Catholic. Otherwise, you're saying that Jesus lied or that the Pope is wrong, both ideas that go completely against the central tenets of the religion.
Whether or not both churches consider themselves anything is irrelevant. One side can say that they are the true Catholics if they were the ones to create the belief system, dogma, and tenets. The other side can't say that the actual Catholics aren't true Catholics because Catholic belief is defined by the infallibility of the leader of the organization. By direct influence of their god, he is perfect in all matters of dogma, religion, and definition. In order to defy that, you're defying the god upon which the religion is founded which makes their beliefs heresy and hypocrisy.
I can't even believe this is being debated right now, especially like this.
Read the whole Bible, not just the canonical bit.
It's not a biblical question. It's a dogmatic question. Reading the Bible, in part or in its entirety, isn't going to help answer this question.
This assumes that Catholic dogma is objectively true, and leans heavily on history being written by the victors.
No it doesnât. It leans on Catholic dogma being defined by Catholics. Papal infallibility comes from Jesusâ promise to Peter that whoever leads the Church will always be guided by God. Since it comes directly from Jesus, the figurehead of Catholicism, the only âtruthâ that needs to be accepted is that Jesus + Pope (Peter) is Catholicism. Thereâs no question of truth or victory. The very foundation of the idea of Catholicism relies on the idea that the Pope is never wrong on issues of doctrine and dogma.
That's fair. It still hinges on a belief claim only. Based on a person's other actions, you can doubt that claim, but the singular authority for what a person actually believes is what that person claims to believe.
Thatâs only true if that claim is made in good faith. I can claim to be a Christian all I want but, if I donât believe in god, then my claim isnât coming from a place of good faith (literally). I canât make the claim and that claim be true if Iâve twisted the definition of what Iâm claiming in order to make that claim. If I claim to be vegan but I have redefined âveganâ to ignore the use of animal products and am only focused on eating animals and animal products, then Iâm a liar rather than what youâre inferring which is that my claim is true because I believe it to be true. A âveganâ walking around in leather pants is not a vegan, regardless of what they believe or claim.
Whether someone is a "vegan" depends on behavior in ways that "Christian" doesn't. Even so, being "vegan" - even when the person does not directly and knowingly consume animal products - completely ignores the fact that they are indirectly making use of animal products, because they depend on a society that currently uses animal products, and where that society got to the technological level it's at through the use of animal products over many millenia.
And we're back to No True Scotsman, adjusting the definition to fit the circumstances.
No it doesn't. Being vegan doesn't mean that you believe you're not using or consuming animal products. It means you don't consume animal products. Period. It's why the Vegan Police came after Todd. The only person adjusting the definition to fit the circumstances is you. If a central tenet of being a vegan is that the very first vegan ever said that anyone who eats or uses an animal product can't be vegan, then that person isn't vegan whether they intended that or not. The Catholic Church is founded on the idea that the Pope is the mouthpiece of god. To say that any Pope chosen in the lineage of that church is "not the real pope" is blasphemy and, by definition, not Catholic.
Who decides who the "right" Pope is? You must certainly know that issues of succession (oh so topically) are often contested, and the Catholic Church is not immune to that.
God does. That's the point. The Catholic belief, which is written into the very doctrine and dogma of the religion, is that God is guiding the process and that God chooses the Pope. The whole religion is based on the idea that Jesus took the wheel and handed it to Peter afterwards who then handed it to the next person. Papal infallibility, as a concept, is the promise that the leadership of the Catholic Church is free from human error so, yes, according to their own beliefs, they are explicitly immune from that.
And that's why this is entirely a circular and nonsensical thing.
Of course it is. But you're the one arguing against your definition of these terms, not their own. From a standpoint of furthering discussion, I'm an atheist. I don't believe any of this. But I know what the religion dictates as the definition of who they are and, based on that, you're wrong about how they view themselves and how they've defined themselves.
Again, history is written by the victors. It "just so happens" that the Pope is the Pope because the portion of the Catholic Church which says he's the Pope has the social, economic, and political power to make that "true." Which would be the case no matter which portion achieved that set of powers; we could just as easily be referring to a whole different set of Popes, past and present.
I'm not talking about how they view or define themselves. If Catholic dogma wants to say that that's what God intended, that's fine. Neither of us has to believe it. If some other set of Popes ended up existing, that would have been "what God intended."
What does this have to do with history? Youâre not making any sense whatsoever. Weâre not discussing who has social, economic, or political power. Weâre talking about the fact that, since its inception, the doctrines of Catholicism define the religion as being led by the Pope, a person who is chosen by God to be his mouthpiece. By their own standard, it is impossible for there to be a âwrongâ Pope because God is the one choosing who that person is. Because of this, anyone who claims that the wrong Pope was chosen is themselves wrong because God cannot be wrong and the Pope, by extension of God, cannot be wrong and is infallible.
You might not be talking about how they view or define themselves but thatâs literally what this entire conversation and thread have been about. Just because you misunderstood that and interjected yourself doesnât mean everyone else is wrong. You are.
You can if you sing.
The voice is still an instrument. Stop being a pedant.
You can play any instrument you like. Whether you're "good at it" is a separate issue.
Sure⌠but if you donât play at all, youâre not a musician no matter how much you believe it to be true.
As with "vegan", "musician" depends on behavior in ways that "Christian" does not.
No, it does not. What ways does it depend on? You either follow the tenets and doctrine of the religion or you don't. If your actions directly contradict the meaning of the word, then it doesn't depend on anything. It's a binary concept.
Using this weirdo logic to define whether or not a person is a Christian means that you have to know the entirety of actions of their whole life to see if they entirely followed the tenants and doctrine of the religion or not, because the instant they don't they're not a Christian.
Since only God would be capable of such knowledge, only God would be capable of labeling people Christian or not...so effectively nobody's a Christian.
Seems wrong in an obvious and fundamental way (because it makes the categorizations all pointless), but hey whatever grips your gourd, friendo.
No, you donât. Those things are not tenets of Christianity or Catholicism. What weâre discussing here is whether breaking the central tenets of the religion disqualifies someone from including themselves in that group and itâs pretty clear that the answer is yes.
As an example, you canât be a Jew and deny the Ten Commandments. Period. If someone went around saying that it was OK to kill people and that stealing is justified, they cannot call themselves Jews without also being liars. It has nothing to do with whether they themselves have stolen or may have accidentally killed someone (which, in both cases, would make them imperfect Jews). It has to do with whether or not they believe that their actions are wrong by virtue of going against the only rules the religion has at its core.
Lastly, since this will be my last response to you⌠you donât have to be such a rude, insufferable asshole in your responses, âfriendoâ. I am not your friend. Your inability to understand basic statements followed by your complete incredulity, once the misunderstanding is pointed out, just show that itâs a waste of time talking to you. Your absolute toxicity, though, is what makes you and your opinions meaningless.
So is it what people say or their actions that defines group membership? You can't seem to make your mind up.
Webster isn't any more of a dictator of truth than anyone else. There's a reason why Socrates spent a lot of time debating definitions with people. They're hard to actually get right.
But what if they also claim to believe in Jesus? How do you measure or test belief? How do you know what's in the mind or soul of a person?
What if they attend Catholic mass? Hell, what if they're a member of the priesthood?
Even this is a bad argument. Aren't singers musicians? How about rappers?
All of this debate is really over whether or not something is no longer a thing if they're not a high quality version of that thing. I think it's a fairly shallow debate because a wobbly stool is still a stool. A shitty singer is still a musician. A broken chair is still a chair, and similarly just because someone's a bad Christian doesn't mean they're not a Christian.
And who is the arbiter of quality, and who draws the line in the sand?
I know this has all kind of devolved into a semantic argument, and a weird discussion about Popery, and I think at this point it's worth reiterating my initial point: If someone claims to belong to a religion, they do. Whether that claim enables anyone to make predictions or judgments about a person's other statements or actions is another question entirely.
I think this is 100% true for generic things like "Christianity". When they're more official organizations...still maybe, but if someone's been excommunicated from something it makes sense to me from a practical standpoint that they no longer belong to that thing.
We're not talking about the definition from Webster. We're talking about the definition from Jesus that was given to Saint Peter, the very first Pope. The definition here is not in question because the idea was defined by the people who founded the religion.
You don't have to. Being a Christian isn't only predicated on believing in Jesus. If that was the case, then Satan is also a Christian because he's personally met Jesus and, therefore, would be forced to "believe" in him. Luckily, Jesus himself supposedly stated and passed down what it means to be a Christian and those people supposedly wrote it down.
Also irrelevant. A priest who molests children cannot be a Christian whether they were inducted into the priesthood or whether they attend Mass because the very rules of the religion, as instructed by their figurehead, remove them from the group based on their actions. It's repeated numerous times throughout the Bible that Christians will be known by their actions.
It's not a bad argument, you just misunderstood it. The voice is an instrument.
No. Again, you've misunderstood the argument. If I started a religion today and I said that the only qualification of the religion is that people have to kiss me on the mouth, then it's not possible for someone who has not kissed me on the mouth to be part of the religion. They can follow everything else I've said to the letter but, as long as they haven't kissed me directly on the mouth, they cannot be a part of this particular religion because they are missing the central qualification. It's not about whether someone is "good" or "bad" at doing something. It's whether they're doing that thing at all.
Ok then, so who is this person that can "claim to be a musician" but isn't?
As for the rest of your load of gish gallop: the bible, like all other texts, is up for interpretation and has been re-interpreted many times with many different takeaways. It's not even the original text, was translated multiple times, and there is no way we can be assured that the King James Bible (Taylor's Version) is the real deal. Definitions from it aren't more authoritative than Webster....they're even less so.
Someone who doesnât play any instrument, including singing. There are unending numbers of people who will tell you theyâre not musicians because they donât even try. Anyone who doesnât try but tells you theyâre a musician is a liar. Thatâs the point.
Nothing that Iâve said should have been overwhelming or inundating. My premise is incredibly simple. You just keep misunderstanding it repeatedly because it seems that youâre not even reading whatâs being said.
Weâre not talking about interpretation from the Bible. Weâre talking about the definition used by Catholics that is part of their dogma and doctrine. Weâre talking about quoting the (supposed) words of Jesus in places where there is no debate on the meaning. You can try to dismiss and downplay what Iâve said all you want but none of what Iâve said is inaccurate whereas your response is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
Lol, so someone who wants to claim to be a musician but can't even sing badly (or rap badly, because rappers are still musicians)? That's who we've excluded? Wow, what a useful definition for musician. đ
Who is this person who wants to go around claiming musician creds and then can't attempt a couple of bars?
Your argument just sucks dude, get over yourself.
EDIT: Thanks for the downvote!
Congratulations, you understand my example. Thatâs my entire point. Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician. If you donât do the thing that defines the word that means âsomeone who does this thingâ, then you canât be that thing. Thatâs the argument! If someone claims to be a Christian and doesnât follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian. If you donât like the musician example, come up with a better one.
My argument doesnât suck. You suck.
But given that bar there's nobody that could claim to be a musician and then not just shit out a couple of bars and be one by your definition. So, again, your definition sucks (EDIT: and it happens to actually prove that what someone else is saying about "claiming to be a Christian makes you a Christian" is essentially true...because I can claim to be a musician and then sing a little happy birthday and I fit your definition).
Now it's "follow the example". So is that words? Actions? Both? Who determines what is "Christ-like"? You? Are you the guy who determines who is and isn't a Christian?
Right back at ya slick.
Are you being intentionally obtuse here or what? The definition isnât about being capable of singing (even poorly). Itâs about whether or not the person does that thing in their life. If you donât like the music example, choose a different profession. For example, if I claim to be a golfer, I canât be one if I donât play golf. I canât claim to be a golfer and then âshit out golf clubs and whack a ball aroundâ. Youâre just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that âshit[ting] out a couple barsâ doesnât make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.
What do you mean here? This implies that my position on this has changed somewhere. Iâve already clarified in my 1st response to you that âbelief in Jesusâ isnât enough to make someone Christian. Itâs what started your whole fake confusion about being a musician. This kind of nonsense just leads me to believe that youâre not arguing in good faith here (which is already obvious but I try give people the benefit of the doubt).
To answer your question, Christ determines what is âChrist-likeâ. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.
You've done nothing but argue semantics the entire thread. I've golfed before but I'm not a golfer largely because I don't claim to be nor aspire to be a golfer despite having golfed at one point. People's identity is to a large extent wrapped up in the claims they make about themselves. I understand that there's a common understanding of what a "golfer" or a "barber" or a "Christian" is, but you're the guy trying to invent the new one. I'm trying to follow your "logic" here to get an actual definition of a Christian that excludes this Mike Johnson character (for instance).
If someone says they're a Christian, says they believe in Christ (for whatever that means), and they go around spouting quotes from the Bible, they're a Christian by my logic. They're a Christian by most people's logic. You're trying to define it some other way, so provide your criteria.
Well Christ isn't around to call balls and strikes, so then by your definition nobody can be a Christian.
This is not about logic! Weâre discussing religion, for Peteâs sake.
Itâs not my definition, itâs the definition of what it means to be a Christian from the source of the word. Itâs literally in the name - Christian. Spouting Bible verses doesnât make someone a Christian. They could be Jewish, after all! Believing in Jesus doesnât make someone a Christian - that would mean that Muslims are Christians since they believe Jesus was simply a human prophet (rather than the son of Allah). Just because youâre intellectually lazy and because your logic only extends so far as immediately obvious âif a then bâ situations doesnât mean that thereâs anything wrong with my argument.
The entire point of this thread is that âChristiansâ arenât using their own logic and definitions. They can say that âMike Johnsonâ isnât a Christian because theyâre perverting the definition of the word to include whatever specific flavor they like. Even if he did fit that specific flavor, they just move the goalposts and then he suddenly becomes ânot a Christianâ again.
Yet again⌠itâs not my definition. Christ was the one that defined what it means to be Christ-like. If someoneâs actions do not reflect the actions of Christ, then theyâre not âChrist-likeâ. I donât understand how much more this can be spelled out for you.
I claim to be Welsh, and you can't tell me I'm not.
Youâre not
I understand your point and generally agree, with an aside: The actual Nazis werenât socialists, just because they added that to their factionâs official title.
Itâs weird to me that you agree and yet have provided an excellent example disproving the entire point.
Because itâs an immature understanding of life to vote anything as black and white. Life is full color, and a bazillion shades of gray, besides. Grow up.
No one is "voting" anything as black and white, especially with regard to a question from an objective claim. If the claim is that someone is something simply because they tell you they are and you've disproved the claim with your example then the claim is objectively false.
Maybe you should stop telling people to grow up until you've done so first. In the words of Jesus, take the log out of your eye first.
Do you feel clever? Nuance exists and so do incorrect autocorrects. As far as removing the beam: take your own advice.
I wasn't trying to be clever. How could I know that was an auto-correct? Also, I'm not a Christian. What do I care about the advice?
Then why would you suggest that to me? Why on earth would you suggest that to me?
Self reflection isnât poison, and Iâve no problem doing that. Arrogant people do.
Because you were being hypocritical and acting like a child while telling me to grow up.
I never said it was. There's clearly something wrong with you...
It is similar to me calling myself Afro-American (I'm not). No one can stop me, but does it mean anything at that point?