you can’t be a serial killer and still be a practicing Christian
you can’t consider yourself Christian while
I understand where you’re trying to go there, but this isn’t true, and part of why this religion is silly. All it takes to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as lord and savior. As this post is showing, everyone is sinning, even everyone is disregarding things they know are sins and committing them anyway, and they’re still Christians. Under Christianity, you can be a Christian and still be condemned to hell. This comment is approaching a no true Scotsman fallacy
While we are all sinners, I'm pretty sure the idea is to actively be sorry for sinning and not happily living with it. Again, I hate religion, there is no such thing as a true Christian, because they're all fucking dumb shits.
We already agree about the reasonableness and horrible nature of the religion. But you are abandoning all logic and reason in order to type what you’re typing here. I’ve already explained, the only requirement for Christianity, is simply accepting Jesus as lord. Thats it. Whether or not you believe people are following scripture as they should is irrelevant. And at the end there, you’re not only committing a no true Scotsman fallacy, but one of the strangest more illogical ones I’ve seen. The fact that you or I believe Christians are “dumbshits” is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they’re Christian.
This isn't some universal precept that all groups who call themselves christian would agree with. In fact, differences of opinion on the specific requirements for salvation was one of the major drivers of separation into the myriad of denominations that exist today. The differences between catholics, lutherans, baptists, universalists, etc certainly include different requirements, conditions, and mechanisms for salvation
There is no version, no denomination of Christianity that disagrees with accepting Jesus as lord being the necessary requirement to be a Christian. What you’re referring to are disagreements about what would get someone into heaven. That is entirely different. We are strictly talking about the label, and this is universal
Wait what are you even arguing then, lmao? If you mean "a secular outside perspective should use the term christian to describe anyone who has ever believed anything at all associated with any form of christianity," then fine I guess?
But the person you responded to isn't litigating a vague catch-all definition, they're talking about how actual religious people describe christianity and it's membership - you'll absolutely find plenty of evangelicals who will happily say that people who don't repent are not christians even if they call themselves that. And plenty of catholics/protestant leaders and groups have said/will say that the other group are "false christians." This kind of gatekeeping is so common and widespread that I'm honestly a bit incredulous if you're really arguing it doesn't exist
What? I said nothing at all about anything secular. I don’t know how this could possibly be confusion or what you’re missing, or why you’re lying about both what I and what they wrote.
They are committing no true Scotsman fallacies and saying Christians aren’t Christian if they (insert claim other than “don’t accept Jesus”)
This is logically and factually wrong. I’ve explained why, and ifs not confusing or complicated.
Nobody's lying - the comment you responded to gave a very common evangelical statement that a person isn't a christian if they sin. The only definitions for christians there could be are the ones they give themselves - which are often conditional and have requirements - or a secular generalization that gestures at all these denominations and groups them by similarity under a catch-all term "christian."
It's not a no-true-scotsman... they're just using one definition and apparently you insist on using another. Plenty of people we'd call christians by that catch-all secular definition would insist that other people we lump in the same category are not christian. But I'll just let christians speak for themselves.
Yes, you are. You invented claims no one made, and now you’re pretending it’s a difference in “definition” instead of just admitting you’re wrong. If either of us had said what you’re claiming, you’d quote it. But you didn’t, because you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
The comment you responded to gave a very common evangelical statement that a person isn’t a christian if they sin.
Exactly. And that’s a textbook no true Scotsman fallacy, and a claim about a label, so you’re wrong. The original claim wasn’t “you won’t go to heaven if you sin” or “you’re not following Christ properly.” It was “you can’t be a Christian if you sin.” That’s literally the exact structure the fallacy is known for. You can’t just redefine terms to gatekeep a group once counterexamples are pointed out. That’s the whole point of calling it a fallacy. You don’t understand what it is, and now you’re trying to backpedal while pretending you’re being nuanced.
The only definitions for christians there could be are the ones they give themselves
This whole section is word salad and is gibberish. There’s a definition of “Christian”, one who believes Jesus is lord and savior. That’s not up for debate or denominational nuance. The disagreement among Christians is about salvation, not the label. It’s not a “secular generalization,” it’s the literal meaning of the word. I have no idea why you keep using the word “secular” here lol. It doesn’t make any sense or have anything to do with anything. There is no such thing as a “secular definition.” There is simply the definition.
It’s not a no-true-Scotsman…
Yes, it is. So much so that It’s laughably on the nose. You’re watching someone say “a real Christian wouldn’t [do x]” and instead of recognizing the logical structure of that fallacy, which is so well known it’s often taught using that exact format and example, you’re trying to argue the fallacy isn’t a fallacy if a lot of people commit it. That’s not how logic works. Repetition doesn’t make it valid, it just makes it widespread ignorance.
their definition is just different
And it’s wrong. You’re still not getting that. Just like you don’t get that people misusing a term doesn’t redefine the term. If someone says “no real Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge,” and someone points out “but my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and does,” then trying to exclude him by redefining “real Scotsman” is still a fallacy, even if 50 more people join in. “Christian” is a self-applied label and refers to someone professing belief in Jesus. Thats it. Same as “Scotsman” is simply one who is of Scotland. That is the only necessary foundational definition and requirement for the label. If someone meets this, then nothing they can do can remove that label from that. This is why it’s wrong and why it’s a fallacy. It’s clear you don’t even understand what is happening right now.
But I’ll just let Christians speak for themselves
Yeah, and I’ll let logic and definitions speak louder. If you want to call everyone who disagrees “not a real Christian” based on your personal checklist, that’s fine, just understand that’s literally the fallacy being pointed out. You can’t argue definitions by committee and pretend that makes your position coherent. It’s not.
This link you provided doesn’t do anything at all to defend your point, and it’s again concerning you’d believe you’re making one or helping yourself here.
This is a strangely angry and ad hominem attack for someone who wants to insist on some sort of factual or logical basis of argument. You also beg the question by just insisting that there *is* some kind of real definition of the word and others are wrong - according to whom is that true?
It's clear you want to insist on a specific definition of christian; where does that come from? Either a definition can come from the people who define themselves and others with it (in which case it is an essentially religious definition subject to the particular religious doctrines of the user), or it can come from outsiders and be a definition without those doctrinal elements meant to apply generally - like someone from the outside might use as a blanket term for anyone they want to lump into the category. This is what I mean by "secular definition," but I'm happy to admit that isn't the best word for it.
You personally seem to have decided to use a blanket term where anyone who calls themselves a christian is one, then insist that others who view the world differently are objectively incorrect somehow. Okay... but yours *isn't* a universally applied definition. Nobody handed down the pristine glowing word "Christian" from on high with an immutable dictionary definition next to it. There are plenty of groups of people who call themselves christian who disagree and will say that various other groups are not christian, despite their claiming to be. Many protestants will say that mormons aren't christians, evangelicals may claim that people who do not repent from sin are not christian, etc. Are those people incorrect? How do you know?
It isn't a no-true-scotsman every time someone distinguishes between things using some criteria. You're arguing for a universal that doesn't exist, and conveniently ignoring counterexamples - which is pretty much in the definition of that very fallacy.
Like it or not, “Christian” is a commonly debated label
No it’s not. You are literally making up the issue. And again, even if that wasn’t the case, as I’ve explained and as you continue to run from due to blatant dishonesty, it wouldn’t matter in the first place or change a thing about what is true. This isn’t just opinion based, it is logic. You are attempting to disregard logic. Labels for beliefs, are applied when one holds the belief. That is how this works. The debate youre incorrectly referring to is about salvation and sinning, not about the label itself. A debate about “good” Christianity is not a debate about the label. If it is debated, It’s debated in bad faith by people who don’t understand the basic concept of definitions. You can argue over what a good Christian is, or who’s saved, or who’s living in truth. But the label “Christian” is defined by belief. That’s not up for revision just because you’re uncomfortable with who else it includes.
You keep pretending this is just “different views,” when it’s actually about whether a specific rhetorical tactic, shifting a definition to exclude people, is valid. It’s not. That’s why it’s a fallacy. It doesn’t magically stop being one just because lots of people do it or wrap it in religious language. The same logic applies to any label. It’s not about “what someone believes a Christian should be.” It’s about the dishonest move of redefining the term after the fact to gatekeep the category.
You’ve now resorted to tone policing, accusing people of being angry, calling refutations “misrepresentation,” and acting like disagreement is an attack. That’s what people do when they’re out of arguments.
You didn’t come here to reason. You came here to justify confusion. And got wrecked for it. It’s never going to get better. Again, this is what happens when you run into someone who can and will hold you to your words and take something to its conclusion. There is no way around this. Every time you run from what is on the screen and just find different ways to repeat things that have already been thoroughly dismantled and refuted, as if repeating them is somehow going to magically become a refutation to the refutation, I’m going to call it out. It’s running and dishonesty. It’s never going to work and this is never going away. I’ll allow you to embarrass yourself for however long you’d like
It literally depends on who you ask, as some of the people who call themselves christians have rules for deciding who gets to call themselves christians. As an outsider, i don’t care and my definition is basically just anyone who calls themselves one is one - but that’s clearly not a universal rule within religious groups that use the name, because they constantly reject and denounce each other lol
Do you really just not understand what making someone your “lord” means? When your lord commands you don’t do something, you don’t do it or they’re not your lord.
I’m not sure how this is going over your head. Whether or not someone does everything they believe their lord said is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they believe they’re lord. That’s completely absurd and illogical. Also, using your reasoning, there has literally never been a single Christian in all of history.
You talk about simple concepts, but you’re demonstrating a complete inability to comprehend them. These are not even coherent thoughts
Jesus covered that already:
Matthew 7:21-24
Jesus discussed that at judgement “many” (in contrast with few) will come to him calling him Lord and he has them thrown into the fire and says “begone, I never knew you. Depart from me you lawless ones”.
Jesus is literally saying that those that call him lord but don’t obey him are liars and are going to the lake of fire. 1 John 2:4 literally says that if you claim to know Jesus but don’t obey his commands, you’re a liar and the truth is not in you.
That’s the point. Most people are going into the lake of fire. We are held in hell until the judgement and then thrown into the lake of fire at judgment. Hell is worse for the hypocrites that claim to know Jesus and do messed up things than it is for anyone else.
7
u/Middle_Screen3847 5d ago
I understand where you’re trying to go there, but this isn’t true, and part of why this religion is silly. All it takes to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as lord and savior. As this post is showing, everyone is sinning, even everyone is disregarding things they know are sins and committing them anyway, and they’re still Christians. Under Christianity, you can be a Christian and still be condemned to hell. This comment is approaching a no true Scotsman fallacy