That’s not correct in any way. The word “Christian” has a specific definition. If someone claims they’re a “Christian” but don’t believe in Jesus, then they’re not a Christian. They can’t be. If someone claims to be a “Catholic” but doesn’t “accept” Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, they’re not a Catholic. I can claim to be a musician but, if I can’t play any instruments, I’m 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 “Catholic” but doesn’t “accept” Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, they’re 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 can’t be a mistake when it comes to the Pope and what he says when speaking on doctrine. It’s called Papal Infallibility.
Accordingly, that means any schisms from Catholicism, by definition, aren’t Catholic because they break the promise Jesus made to Peter.
This assumes that Catholic dogma is objectively true, and leans heavily on history being written by the victors.
No it doesn’t. It leans on Catholic dogma being defined by Catholics. Papal infallibility comes from Jesus’ 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 “truth” that needs to be accepted is that Jesus + Pope (Peter) is Catholicism. There’s 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 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 doesn’t matter what they consider themselves, though. That’s 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.
If someone claims they’re a “Christian” but don’t believe in Jesus, then they’re 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.
That’s only true if that claim is made in good faith. I can claim to be a Christian all I want but, if I don’t believe in god, then my claim isn’t coming from a place of good faith (literally). I can’t make the claim and that claim be true if I’ve twisted the definition of what I’m claiming in order to make that claim. If I claim to be vegan but I have redefined “vegan” to ignore the use of animal products and am only focused on eating animals and animal products, then I’m a liar rather than what you’re inferring which is that my claim is true because I believe it to be true. A “vegan” 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? You’re not making any sense whatsoever. We’re not discussing who has social, economic, or political power. We’re 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 “wrong” 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 that’s literally what this entire conversation and thread have been about. Just because you misunderstood that and interjected yourself doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong. You are.
You're talking about "the Catholic Church and its deity is the very end of any discussion about who is the rightful Pope," and I'm talking about "But it has happened that multiple people, each with their own supporters, claimed to be the rightful Pope at the same time."
When that happens, which one of those is "the Catholic Church"? In the moment, there is no way to tell. Looking back across history, we can see the outcome.
I'm really not sure why this is hard for you to comprehend, or why you're entirely hung up on Catholic dogma.
I’m not hung up on dogma. I’ve simply referred to it because you’re moving the goalposts you set at the very beginning of the discussion by saying that all someone has to do is believe they’re a Christian in order to be a Christian and that idea is demonstrably and unequivocally false.
And no… it hasn’t happened that multiple people claimed to be the rightful Pope because the entire process by which the Pope is chosen when a former Pope dies happens in entirely closed quarters and everyone in the room who votes is bound by the doctrine. There’s no place for anyone to “claim” anything because it’s an election done in view of everyone doing the voting. Whoever gets the 2/3 majority needed is the person that was chosen by God. Full stop. To go against that is to blaspheme and go against both God and his mouthpiece. You can’t be Catholic unless you accept that the Pope is infallible and chosen by god.
I love that you’re trying to twist this as something that I’m not comprehending despite the fact that you’re the who can’t comprehend it and invoked the “No True Scotsman” fallacy incorrectly.
You can play any instrument you like. Whether you're "good at it" is a separate issue.
Sure… but if you don’t play at all, you’re 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 doesn’t 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.
…know the entirety of actions…
No, you don’t. Those things are not tenets of Christianity or Catholicism. What we’re discussing here is whether breaking the central tenets of the religion disqualifies someone from including themselves in that group and it’s pretty clear that the answer is yes.
As an example, you can’t 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 don’t have to be such a rude, insufferable asshole in your responses, “friendo”. 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 it’s a waste of time talking to you. Your absolute toxicity, though, is what makes you and your opinions meaningless.
As an example, you can’t 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.
You can if you sing.
The voice is still an instrument. Stop being a pedant.
That’s not correct in any way. The word “Christian” 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 they’re a “Christian” but don’t believe in Jesus, then they’re not a Christian. They can’t 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 “Catholic” but doesn’t “accept” Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, they’re 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 can’t play any instruments, I’m 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.
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.
It’s 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 doesn’t play any instrument, including singing. There are unending numbers of people who will tell you they’re not musicians because they don’t even try. Anyone who doesn’t try but tells you they’re a musician is a liar. That’s the point.
load of gish gallop
Nothing that I’ve said should have been overwhelming or inundating. My premise is incredibly simple. You just keep misunderstanding it repeatedly because it seems that you’re not even reading what’s being said.
We’re not talking about interpretation from the Bible. We’re talking about the definition used by Catholics that is part of their dogma and doctrine. We’re 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 I’ve said all you want but none of what I’ve said is inaccurate whereas your response is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
Someone who doesn’t 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. 🙄
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. That’s my entire point. Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician. If you don’t do the thing that defines the word that means “someone who does this thing”, then you can’t be that thing. That’s the argument! If someone claims to be a Christian and doesn’t follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian. If you don’t like the musician example, come up with a better one.
My argument doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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 isn’t about being capable of singing (even poorly). It’s about whether or not the person does that thing in their life. If you don’t like the music example, choose a different profession. For example, if I claim to be a golfer, I can’t be one if I don’t play golf. I can’t claim to be a golfer and then “shit out golf clubs and whack a ball around”. You’re just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that “shit[ting] out a couple bars” doesn’t make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.
Now it’s “follow the example”
What do you mean here? This implies that my position on this has changed somewhere. I’ve already clarified in my 1st response to you that “belief in Jesus” isn’t enough to make someone Christian. It’s what started your whole fake confusion about being a musician. This kind of nonsense just leads me to believe that you’re 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 “Christ-like”. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.
You’re just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that “shit[ting] out a couple bars” doesn’t 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 “Christ-like”. 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! We’re discussing religion, for Pete’s sake.
It’s not my definition, it’s the definition of what it means to be a Christian from the source of the word. It’s literally in the name - Christian. Spouting Bible verses doesn’t make someone a Christian. They could be Jewish, after all! Believing in Jesus doesn’t 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 you’re intellectually lazy and because your logic only extends so far as immediately obvious “if a then b” situations doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with my argument.
The entire point of this thread is that “Christians” aren’t using their own logic and definitions. They can say that “Mike Johnson” isn’t a Christian because they’re 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 “not a Christian” again.
by your definition nobody
Yet again… it’s not my definition. Christ was the one that defined what it means to be Christ-like. If someone’s actions do not reflect the actions of Christ, then they’re not “Christ-like”. I don’t understand how much more this can be spelled out for you.
Spouting Bible verses doesn’t make someone a Christian. They could be Jewish, after all! Believing in Jesus doesn’t 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).
Claiming to be a Christian is a large part of what it takes to be a Christian by common definition. You skipped over that part likely because it's devastating to your bad argument. 🥱
EDIT: I also think it's funny that you think "believing in Jesus" would be as simple as believing that there was a guy that walked the Earth named Jesus that said and did some holy stuff. Believing in Jesus for most people would mean believing in his divinity, not just that oh there was this swell guy that walked around at one point.
Claiming to be a Christian means nothing. I didn’t skip anything. It’s literally the same argument as the “claiming to be a golfer” and “claiming to be a musician” arguments that you can’t wrap your head around.
Claiming to be a Christian is not a part of what it takes to be a Christian anymore than claiming to be Scotsman makes someone not born in Scotland one.
Edit: Your edit is even stupider than the body of your post. Satan is not a Christian yet, by your definition, he would have to believe in Jesus’ divinity and would, therefore, be a Christian. This is how stupid your responses are.
... if they’re 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.
That’s not correct in any way. The word “Christian” has a specific definition. If someone claims they’re a “Christian” but don’t believe in Jesus, then they’re not a Christian. They can’t be. If someone claims to be a “Catholic” but doesn’t “accept” Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, they’re not a Catholic. I can claim to be a musician but, if I can’t play any instruments, I’m 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 can’t be a mistake when it comes to the Pope and what he says when speaking on doctrine. It’s called Papal Infallibility.
Accordingly, that means any schisms from Catholicism, by definition, aren’t Catholic because they break the promise Jesus made to Peter.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
This assumes that Catholic dogma is objectively true, and leans heavily on history being written by the victors.
No it doesn’t. It leans on Catholic dogma being defined by Catholics. Papal infallibility comes from Jesus’ 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 “truth” that needs to be accepted is that Jesus + Pope (Peter) is Catholicism. There’s 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 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 doesn’t matter what they consider themselves, though. That’s 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.
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.
That’s only true if that claim is made in good faith. I can claim to be a Christian all I want but, if I don’t believe in god, then my claim isn’t coming from a place of good faith (literally). I can’t make the claim and that claim be true if I’ve twisted the definition of what I’m claiming in order to make that claim. If I claim to be vegan but I have redefined “vegan” to ignore the use of animal products and am only focused on eating animals and animal products, then I’m a liar rather than what you’re inferring which is that my claim is true because I believe it to be true. A “vegan” 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? You’re not making any sense whatsoever. We’re not discussing who has social, economic, or political power. We’re 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 “wrong” 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 that’s literally what this entire conversation and thread have been about. Just because you misunderstood that and interjected yourself doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong. You are.
You're talking about "the Catholic Church and its deity is the very end of any discussion about who is the rightful Pope," and I'm talking about "But it has happened that multiple people, each with their own supporters, claimed to be the rightful Pope at the same time."
When that happens, which one of those is "the Catholic Church"? In the moment, there is no way to tell. Looking back across history, we can see the outcome.
I'm really not sure why this is hard for you to comprehend, or why you're entirely hung up on Catholic dogma.
I’m not hung up on dogma. I’ve simply referred to it because you’re moving the goalposts you set at the very beginning of the discussion by saying that all someone has to do is believe they’re a Christian in order to be a Christian and that idea is demonstrably and unequivocally false.
And no… it hasn’t happened that multiple people claimed to be the rightful Pope because the entire process by which the Pope is chosen when a former Pope dies happens in entirely closed quarters and everyone in the room who votes is bound by the doctrine. There’s no place for anyone to “claim” anything because it’s an election done in view of everyone doing the voting. Whoever gets the 2/3 majority needed is the person that was chosen by God. Full stop. To go against that is to blaspheme and go against both God and his mouthpiece. You can’t be Catholic unless you accept that the Pope is infallible and chosen by god.
I love that you’re trying to twist this as something that I’m not comprehending despite the fact that you’re the who can’t comprehend it and invoked the “No True Scotsman” fallacy incorrectly.
You can play any instrument you like. Whether you're "good at it" is a separate issue.
Sure… but if you don’t play at all, you’re 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 don’t. Those things are not tenets of Christianity or Catholicism. What we’re discussing here is whether breaking the central tenets of the religion disqualifies someone from including themselves in that group and it’s pretty clear that the answer is yes.
As an example, you can’t 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 don’t have to be such a rude, insufferable asshole in your responses, “friendo”. 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 it’s 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.
You can if you sing.
The voice is still an instrument. Stop being a pedant.
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.
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 doesn’t play any instrument, including singing. There are unending numbers of people who will tell you they’re not musicians because they don’t even try. Anyone who doesn’t try but tells you they’re a musician is a liar. That’s the point.
Nothing that I’ve said should have been overwhelming or inundating. My premise is incredibly simple. You just keep misunderstanding it repeatedly because it seems that you’re not even reading what’s being said.
We’re not talking about interpretation from the Bible. We’re talking about the definition used by Catholics that is part of their dogma and doctrine. We’re 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 I’ve said all you want but none of what I’ve 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. 🙄
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. That’s my entire point. Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician. If you don’t do the thing that defines the word that means “someone who does this thing”, then you can’t be that thing. That’s the argument! If someone claims to be a Christian and doesn’t follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian. If you don’t like the musician example, come up with a better one.
My argument doesn’t 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 isn’t about being capable of singing (even poorly). It’s about whether or not the person does that thing in their life. If you don’t like the music example, choose a different profession. For example, if I claim to be a golfer, I can’t be one if I don’t play golf. I can’t claim to be a golfer and then “shit out golf clubs and whack a ball around”. You’re just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that “shit[ting] out a couple bars” doesn’t 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. I’ve already clarified in my 1st response to you that “belief in Jesus” isn’t enough to make someone Christian. It’s what started your whole fake confusion about being a musician. This kind of nonsense just leads me to believe that you’re 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 “Christ-like”. 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! We’re discussing religion, for Pete’s sake.
It’s not my definition, it’s the definition of what it means to be a Christian from the source of the word. It’s literally in the name - Christian. Spouting Bible verses doesn’t make someone a Christian. They could be Jewish, after all! Believing in Jesus doesn’t 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 you’re intellectually lazy and because your logic only extends so far as immediately obvious “if a then b” situations doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with my argument.
The entire point of this thread is that “Christians” aren’t using their own logic and definitions. They can say that “Mike Johnson” isn’t a Christian because they’re 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 “not a Christian” again.
Yet again… it’s not my definition. Christ was the one that defined what it means to be Christ-like. If someone’s actions do not reflect the actions of Christ, then they’re not “Christ-like”. I don’t understand how much more this can be spelled out for you.
Claiming to be a Christian is a large part of what it takes to be a Christian by common definition. You skipped over that part likely because it's devastating to your bad argument. 🥱
EDIT: I also think it's funny that you think "believing in Jesus" would be as simple as believing that there was a guy that walked the Earth named Jesus that said and did some holy stuff. Believing in Jesus for most people would mean believing in his divinity, not just that oh there was this swell guy that walked around at one point.
Claiming to be a Christian means nothing. I didn’t skip anything. It’s literally the same argument as the “claiming to be a golfer” and “claiming to be a musician” arguments that you can’t wrap your head around.
Claiming to be a Christian is not a part of what it takes to be a Christian anymore than claiming to be Scotsman makes someone not born in Scotland one.
Edit: Your edit is even stupider than the body of your post. Satan is not a Christian yet, by your definition, he would have to believe in Jesus’ divinity and would, therefore, be a Christian. This is how stupid your responses are.
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.