this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
248 points (76.5% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
30582 readers
3741 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
May not be stonings, but you've got the French Revolution, Stalin's purge during the Soviet Union and Cultural Revolution - all mass executions caused by Atheist states.
The Holocaust wasn't motivated by religion either- Actual bible-believing Christians were against it. The predecessor to our "progressive" Christians ("Christ of the culture" mentality)
Yea. Humans never needed an excuse for violence.
Or rather, we always found an excuse, religion is merely one of them.
Even then, most of the time Religion was used as a justification for the actual intent which was usually some form of colonial subjugation. "We're spreading the Gospel" wasn't the actual intent, moreso just what you told people at home questioning the ethics of you conquering faraway lands
I'm not so sure of that Christian version of "no true Scotsman", but it's true that religion is typically just a tool used by people with power to direct the people to violence, rather than the source of it.
But man is it an effective tool for that purpose.
"No true Scotsman" isn't just a thing you can scream at everything.
The No True Scotsman tale is as follows:
I don't know about you, but having sugar on your porridge isn't a large scale distinction as okay-ing the mass murder of an ethnic group.
A more accurate example within Christianity will be:
Sounds an awful lot like the scenario that you described. In fact it matches the archetypical example so well that it's kinda wild that you quoted it when trying to say it doesn't apply
What type of horse kicked you in the head to make you think that mass murder is as trivial as sugar on porridge or saying no-no words?
What type of horse kicked you in the head to make you think that "no true Scotsman" cannot apply to serious topics?
Why do you think the example being trivial means that they all have to be trivial to apply? Examples are not all encompassing, nor do they seek to additional constraints that were not part of the definition.
The whole point of the fallacy is to disingenuously distance the group from acts that members of the group have done.
There's nothing disingenuous about it. If you don't hold to a belief system, you don't hold to a belief system. A genocide of a people that God once considered "chosen" purely on the grounds of race is not part of the Christian belief system. My overall point is that you cannot blame Christianity for the holocaust - the main proponents of the Holocaust weren't Christian at all.
If you're going to be strict, there exist no true Christian, because every single Christian has violated some Christian tenant, especially because some tenants are contradictory.
But if you allow enough wiggle room to allow for the existence of Christians, then you're going to run straight into true Scotsman when you try to exclude specific groups
Good point.
Username checks out, lol.
The example used to illustrate the No True Scotsman fallacy in no way means that it only covers similarly minor things. That's not how logic works, you've completely missed the point.
The claim "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," is falsifiable, because we can first determine whether someone is a Scotsman and then check if they put sugar on their porridge or not. But if it's, "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," where a true Scotsman is defined as someone who would never put sugar on their porridge, then it's a truism, it's just saying, "People who don't put sugar on their porridge don't put sugar on their porridge (also, this has something to do with Scotsmen for some reason)." It's not predictive and it's not falsifiable, and it's just as true for any other group of people defined the same way as it is of Scotsmen. The actual material world has no bearing on the claim and the claim tells us absolutely nothing about the material world.
Likewise, if you're saying "No true Christian would ever commit mass murder," then it's a meaningless claim because you're defining a "true Christian" as someone who would never commit mass murder. So really the claim is, "People who don't commit mass murder don't commit mass murder (also, this has something to do with Christians for some reason)." If I define a true Buddhist or a true Muslim or a true Communist or a true Liberal or a true man or whatever else as being someone of that group who doesn't commit mass murder, then it's just as true of any of those groups as it is of Christianity. The claim that "true Christians" or "bible-believing Christians" don't commit mass murder is a meaningless truism, it's not predictive and it's not falsifiable, even if someone you think is a true, bible-believing Christian and has every appearance of being so goes off and commits mass murder, you only conclude that you were wrong about the person being a true Christian. And that would be equally true of any other group or ideology you apply the standard to.
If you actually follow Christ, you wouldn't commit mass murder. It's like claiming to be a vegan yet eating meat.
Is the defining quality of Christianity a set of political beliefs based on your personal interpretation of the Bible? Would it be accurate to say, "There's never been a Christian president in the US," if none of them have lived up to your particular moral standards? Do I, and everyone else, have to consult you specifically any time we want to know if someone is or isn't a Christian?
No, obviously not.
Unlike veganism, the question of what the defining quality of a Christian is is more debatable. If you want to define it as, "following Christ's teachings," then it's impossible to establish any sort of reasonably objective standard since people have vastly different interpretations of those teachings. Have you sold all your possessions and given them to the poor? I doubt it. A strict reading of the text might consider that a requirement.
From an academic perspective, it isn't appropriate to weigh in on one's own personal interpretation of which sects and which people should be considered heretical. We should use unbiased terminology that's consistent with common use and can be commonly understood and based on observable things including (but not necessarily limited to) self-identification. When we debate whether or not someone is/was a Christian, trying to match our own personal interpretation of Christ's teachings with our own personal evaluation of their moral qualities would be an absolute nightmare, and it would be impossible to discuss anything past sectarian lines.
And again, it's not just Christianity that this comes up with. A Buddhist might argue that the Japanese temples that endorsed the country's actions during WWII weren't "real" Buddhists, that if they were actually following Buddha's teachings they wouldn't have done that. Should I also consult you personally every time I want to know who is and isn't a Buddhist? Or do I need to read the whole Pali canon and derive my own interpretation and denounce every Buddhist sect that deviates from it as not being real Buddhists - even if I myself am not one and don't have a dog in that fight?
I mean that buddhist objection sounds reasonable
Ok, what about Buddhist sects that discriminate based on sex?
Found the Heritage Foundation shitposting account.
Btw:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity
https://theopolisinstitute.com/evangelicals-for-adolf-christians-in-hitlers-germany/
And, of course, Stalin actually politically allied with the Orthodox Church during WW2.
Yeah, it's reinforcing my point. That's why I specified "bible-believing". Just identifying as a Christian because it's your culture isn't the same as being an actual believer.
And before you pull out a "no true scotsman", that argument is moot. It's like saying "vegans don't eat meat", then someone else says "xyz is a vegan and eats meat". It's a valid objection to say that somebody isn't actually something, unlike the "no true scotsman" where ethnicity and nationality are being debated over something trivial like sugar on porridge. You need to hold actual Christian beliefs to be a true Christian.
So literally no one except the people you find personally convenient for your argument, awesome.
edgy teenage bullshit argument
🙄
Dachau literally had barracks for clergy
St James, the Brother of our Lord wrote the following:
James 1:26-27
Now, to address your allegation referring to a "Heritage Foundation" (which I had to google) you're probably referring to an American "conservative" think-tank. They are apparently behind the "Project 2025" satanic mandate laid out by the antichrists of American politics. Doesn't St James write to keep ourselves unstained from the world? Why would I ever align myself with the leader of the USA? Do you automatically assume that because I follow Christ? Would Christ approve of what your president is doing? If Christ will return today, I tell you, it'll be worse for the USA and the anglosphere in general facing God's judgement than many other countries. I would never worship anyone other than God, unlike the cultists in that cesspit of a nation. You lot will have a lot to answer for, committing such evil, some doing so claiming in the Name of God, and others rejecting and blaspheming Him! Repent and turn to the Gospel. Don't follow the ones who'll die, who tickle ears and show off spectacles. follow He who was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father almighty - for He will return in Glory to judge the living and the dead! His Kingdom will have no end!
Lol, you're so full of shit. Good luck in the war.
Which war are you referring to?