Never fails, Christians (ostensibly “”““real””“” ones lol) always go to this, such a convenient out for rancid, unserious, responsibility denying dingdongs
Why is this getting upvoted? OP is using irony. The No True Scotsman fallacy requires refuting a counterexample as well as “The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, etc.” Check out the “Occurrence” section.
Because there are people who really don’t like how right wing conservative Christians behave, but also for some reason hate when other Christians agree that the behaviour is unacceptable and call them out on it.
You’re not calling out shit. You’re refusing any responsibility by claiming they’re not even really Christian. They are, and until you admit that, nobody gives a fuck about your claims to the contrary. Christians can be shit, that doesn’t make them not Christian you absolute dingus. If you’d actually read the Bible you’d know that slavery and homophobia and sexism are as fundamentally Christian as any love thy neighbor shit
You suck at telling stories like this lmao, you’re the one no true scotsmaning shitty Christians to try and avoid any flak for being associated with them. Legit this comment is utterly incomprehensible, tf is your point? Who’s guy? Who’s everyone? I assure you far from everyone thinks that republicans aren’t real Christians
The argument that everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, and also every Christian belongs to the same group and is responsible for the actions of everyone who claims to be a Christian, is patently absurd.
You can have two people with wildly different beliefs, but if they both use the label Christian somehow they are both responsible for the actions of each other.
Those people also call themselves Christian tho, and probably call you a fake Christian. That’s a big thing in Christianity, insisting that your brand of it is the only valid one. Yall are silly as hell, admit that there are shitty christians or accept that we don’t give a shit about your half ass condemnations of shitty christians
If I call myself a Scotsman, despite not meeting the definition of a Scotsman (never been to Scotland, have no Scottish heritage) then it would be fair to call me not a “True Scotsman.”
If the definition of “Christian” is “someone who follows the teachings of Jesus” then someone who spreads hate does not meet that definition.
If the definition of “Christian” is “anyone who calls themselves a Christian” then the definition is so broad it is useless as a descriptor. It includes someone who is loving and caring, and someone who abuses and murders anyone they disagree with. It tells you nothing about the individual or how they behave.
No, I’m saying that christians are people who claim to be christian.
As I said, useless as a descriptor. By that definition the word “Christian” includes someone who donates time to charities, as well as someone who spreads hate about immigrants, wants them sent back to their own countries, and wants to bomb those countries.
The word “Christian” could be applied to a person that wants to take away a woman’s right to medical care, and to a person that is pro-choice.
Hell, the word “Christian” could apply to someone who has never set foot inside a church, has never seen a Bible, and has no idea what’s even in it, as long as they “claim they are a Christian.”
By that definition if I tell you someone is a Christian it doesn’t tell you if that person loves Trans people or hates them. As I said, a useless descriptor.
Incredibly convenient thing for “polite Christians” (read: enablers) to say while the overwhelmingly powerful structure borne of their freely given money, time, and prejudices ruins the country.
No True Scotsman
Never fails, Christians (ostensibly “”““real””“” ones lol) always go to this, such a convenient out for rancid, unserious, responsibility denying dingdongs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition
Why is this getting upvoted? OP is using irony. The No True Scotsman fallacy requires refuting a counterexample as well as “The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, etc.” Check out the “Occurrence” section.
Because there are people who really don’t like how right wing conservative Christians behave, but also for some reason hate when other Christians agree that the behaviour is unacceptable and call them out on it.
You’re not calling out shit. You’re refusing any responsibility by claiming they’re not even really Christian. They are, and until you admit that, nobody gives a fuck about your claims to the contrary. Christians can be shit, that doesn’t make them not Christian you absolute dingus. If you’d actually read the Bible you’d know that slavery and homophobia and sexism are as fundamentally Christian as any love thy neighbor shit
Republicans: Act in hateful ways
Guy: “That behavior is contrary to the book you claim to follow”
Everyone: cheers
Christian: “I agree!”
You: “nO tRuE sCoTsMaN!!!1!”
???
You suck at telling stories like this lmao, you’re the one no true scotsmaning shitty Christians to try and avoid any flak for being associated with them. Legit this comment is utterly incomprehensible, tf is your point? Who’s guy? Who’s everyone? I assure you far from everyone thinks that republicans aren’t real Christians
Let me simplify it for you:
The argument that everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, and also every Christian belongs to the same group and is responsible for the actions of everyone who claims to be a Christian, is patently absurd.
You can have two people with wildly different beliefs, but if they both use the label Christian somehow they are both responsible for the actions of each other.
Those people also call themselves Christian tho, and probably call you a fake Christian. That’s a big thing in Christianity, insisting that your brand of it is the only valid one. Yall are silly as hell, admit that there are shitty christians or accept that we don’t give a shit about your half ass condemnations of shitty christians
Okay: there are shitty Christians.
Now what? Do I now have permission to call out their shitty behaviour and not somehow be responsible for it myself?
If I call myself a Scotsman, despite not meeting the definition of a Scotsman (never been to Scotland, have no Scottish heritage) then it would be fair to call me not a “True Scotsman.”
If the definition of “Christian” is “someone who follows the teachings of Jesus” then someone who spreads hate does not meet that definition.
If the definition of “Christian” is “anyone who calls themselves a Christian” then the definition is so broad it is useless as a descriptor. It includes someone who is loving and caring, and someone who abuses and murders anyone they disagree with. It tells you nothing about the individual or how they behave.
If that’s your definition then there are no Christians.
Dolly Parton
I don’t think Dolly Parton hates her family.
Ok, so you’re going with the word is useless as a descriptor.
No, I’m saying that christians are people who claim to be christian.
As I said, useless as a descriptor. By that definition the word “Christian” includes someone who donates time to charities, as well as someone who spreads hate about immigrants, wants them sent back to their own countries, and wants to bomb those countries.
The word “Christian” could be applied to a person that wants to take away a woman’s right to medical care, and to a person that is pro-choice.
Hell, the word “Christian” could apply to someone who has never set foot inside a church, has never seen a Bible, and has no idea what’s even in it, as long as they “claim they are a Christian.”
By that definition if I tell you someone is a Christian it doesn’t tell you if that person loves Trans people or hates them. As I said, a useless descriptor.
Incredibly convenient thing for “polite Christians” (read: enablers) to say while the overwhelmingly powerful structure borne of their freely given money, time, and prejudices ruins the country.
Replace the word “Christian” with “American” and your statement is just as valid.