This is just “I cherry pick differently for equally arbitrary reasons and am therefor the arbiter of what qualifies as truly Christian”. The fact you say mostly really hammers that in. Like you feel you’re more “Christian” than them to a degree that matters.
I invite you to do more research on this. It’s not cherry picking, I assure you.
Yeah, like literally the leaders of every sect out there…
There are plenty of denominations and sects of Christianity out there that don’t teach hate. Why wouldn’t there be? Jesus taught love.
Doesn’t mean he isn’t Christian though, unless you also don’t think the pope is…
Anybody can claim to be whatever they want to. If somebody is doing the direct opposite of what Jesus taught while deferring to the Bible like Mike Johnson, I’d argue that they aren’t following Jesus or are like him. I’d argue that Mike Johnson is closer to the Pharisees that Jesus notably had issues with, than a Christian.
Christ + ian (from, related to, or like)
I believe that the pope is a Christian though, and clearly other people do too - otherwise he likely wouldn’t be the pope.
Why are you defending Mike Johnson? Feel free to respond with a rebuttal, but you won’t be getting anything else out of me.
I invite you to do more research on this. It’s not cherry picking, I assure you.
You quite literally confirm that you are cherry picking by acknowledging that indeed there are ridiculous rules and guidance that are in the bible that you don’t follow. You therefore would inherently be cherry picking if you did not follow every single one of them or, to give you as fair a shake as possible, the vast majority of them.
There are plenty of denominations and sects of Christianity out there that don’t teach hate. Why wouldn’t there be? Jesus taught love.
That’s a nice idea in theory, but plenty doesn’t mean most, and I think most would be false which is why you went with plenty.
Most sects of Christianity, at some point, due to the fact their morals were roughly frozen about a millennia ago, will inevitably run into some pretty backwards points of view that don’t really have any basis in compassion or empathy and end up either creating out groups to be looked down upon, undue pressure on members, or discriminatory views against marginalized people.
More than any of that, the very fact that its all based on belief based on faith, believing without knowing, means that a critical vulnerability is inherently open the second you allow that belief in.
If you can believe anything without any evidence, then its suddenly a lot easier to believe other things for the same reasons as well. After all, your indoctrination (as most people are indoctrinated as children), will have tried to disarm your attempts to reason your way out of believing without evidence.
Anybody can claim to be whatever they want to. If somebody is doing the direct opposite of what Jesus taught while deferring to the Bible like Mike Johnson, I’d argue that they aren’t following Jesus or are like him. I’d argue that Mike Johnson is closer to the Pharisees that Jesus notably had issues with, than a Christian.
I would argue most Christians, yourself included don’t actually qualify as Christians if we go down this line of thought to its logical conclusion.
I believe that the pope is a Christian though, and clearly other people do too - otherwise he likely wouldn’t be the pope.
Why do you believe a position that is in charge of covering up the sexual abuse of minors, and causing an aids epidemic in Africa is any more Christian than Mike Johnson, someone who is guilty of supporting the current American fascist regime?
They both have done heinous and reprehensible acts, yet we allow the Pope position to be qualified as Christian because they are traditionally good at weaponized civility?
Why are you defending Mike Johnson?
Not a single thing I have said could possibly be read to be defending Mike Johnson, and as such I can’t read what you’ve written here as anything but the most clear evidence of bad faith.
Feel free to respond with a rebuttal, but you won’t be getting anything else out of me.
This is to be expected behaviour with such a ridiculous strawman argument at the end there.
If your views are so fragile that you must lie about the point of view of the person you are arguing with, self reflection is the only remedy.
Not a single thing I have said could possibly be read to be defending Mike Johnson, and as such I can’t read what you’ve written here as anything but the most clear evidence of bad faith.
You are defending his supposed faith and his identification as a Christian, when it couldn’t be further from the truth.
From my point of view, you are either following Christ’s teachings or you are not. A true Christian would resonate with Christ’s teachings and be demonstrating them - not demonstrating the opposite and twisting Jesus’ teachings from a position of power. I don’t believe Mike Johnson is a sheep led astray or someone has been manipulated into hate, but someone who is empowered by hate, who thrives on his authority, and is a person who literally says he believes God elevated him specifically into authority.
You assume bad faith from me and good faith from Mike Johnson (by taking him at his word that he is a Christian) - a person who has shown they are not in good faith to anybody honestly looking.
You are defending his supposed faith and his identification as a Christian, when it couldn’t be further from the truth.
The fact you think or are willing to lie to pretend you believe that rebutting your no true scotsman argument is somehow a defence of this man is telling.
It’s either that you see being Christian as being a compliment, which by itself shows a feeling of superiority to those who are not Christian, or you feel that him being Christian somehow means something greater at large that you would rather not discuss.
From my point of view, you are either following Christ’s teachings or you are not.
That can be your point of view, but your point of view would be (by your own admission) cherry picked and based on whatever set of rules you decided fit within a book filled with rules and contradictions to those rules.
A true Christian would resonate with Christ’s teachings and be demonstrating them - not teaching the opposite and twisting Jesus’ teachings from a position of power.
There are almost certainly people with different views than you who run the same line, in fact, I am sure of it, because I’ve seen it multiple times.
I don’t believe Mike Johnson is a sheep led astray or someone has been manipulated into hate, but someone who is empowered by hate, who thrives on his authority, and is a person who literally believes God elevated him specifically into authority.
What you let loose at the end, is the idea that you think that Mike Johnson holds his beliefs vehemently, and that you belief he thinks he is doing as is right by god.
How then, can you call him any more or less Christian than yourself or anyone else if from his point of view, picking and choosing what he sees fit, he is a Christian?
If there are no hard qualifiers, as you admit there are not, as the religion and the various sects are largely based on interpretations of a book translated and added to multiple times over thousands of years, how can you disqualify so easily when convenient to you?
Personally, I don’t think most of the people leading any given religion actually believes in the core beliefs of said religion, as doing so would make it harder to change as needed, but you seem to think opposite, which oddly conflicts with the whole angle you are going for of them not being real Christians.
You assume bad faith from me and good faith from Mike Johnson, a person who has shown they are not in good faith on many different occasions.
I don’t assume bad faith from you, the evidence demonstrates it. Here you are again, outright lying about my point of view because you can’t really argue on the other points; the points of contention.
To assert that I, someone who you can see clearly is progressive, supports progressive policies and finds what is happening abhorrent align with Mike Johnson in any way, just because I did not let your fallacious dismissal of that which you think “hurts” your religion slide can’t be be seen as anything else.
Dude, it isn’t a stretch to say that somebody who doesn’t follow Jesus and does the exact opposite isn’t a Christian. It takes basic critical thinking to arrive at that conclusion. Do you truly believe he hasn’t been exposed to the many verses where Jesus teaches the exact opposite of the types of polices he advocates for and the rhetoric he uses? I really find it hard to believe that, but I could see how regular people could be manipulated.
I consciously chose to not counter your arguments or “points of contention” because they were not worth my time to address and I specifically warned you that I wouldn’t engage further. You only got further engagement because you claimed bad faith on my part - which I specifically addressed and you did not sufficiently counter.
There are no shades of gray - either you are a Christian or you are not and I’m sure in his heart of hearts he is using religion as a tool for his own personal gain. I’ll trust that almost every word out of his mouth is a lie, and you are free to take him at his word that he considers himself a Christian in good faith. Have at it.
With this latest reply you’ve opted to go the route of simply saying “I’m right, you’re wrong” while not responding to any criticisms or flaws with your reasoning because it’s “not worth your time” meanwhile you have the time to be increasingly aggressive in restating the same things.
It would seem to me that you’ve proven that it’s not about time at all but a lack of merit to the primary point that you are asserting so strongly.
I have to wonder why you are so invested in believing that bad people can’t truly be Christians when you’ve already acknowledged that other bad people can indeed be Christian and you’ve acknowledged further, that being a Christian has no hard definitions given the highly intepretive nature of this religion (as can be seen via the many sects, readings, translations, breakoffs and more).
Its almost as if you badly want to associate being Christian with being supirior to non Christians and allowing awful people to correctly declare their religious statuses hurts your wanting to denigrate others by asserting that your faith makes you a better person.
That’s just one plausible explanation. Of course I wouldn’t need to hypothesize if you engaged honestly and actually covered any of the many holes in your reasoning but you ~“don’t have the time” (as your multiple comments avoiding answering oh so clearly show).
Mike Johnson isn’t a “bad” person, but we can form a pattern from his actions and words. He’s likely a person who is using religion for his personal gain, just like many religious leaders likely are.
I’d say that a Christian is a person who follows Christ. It’s not complicated. Religion has been used by those who hold power to oppress and control the masses for centuries - this is nothing new.
Not only because you just, a few comments ago, accused me of defending him, but just on its face.
How is a man doing his best to deprive millions of healthcare, starve children and support a Christo whitenationalist fascist regime headed by a pedophile not a bad person???
I am utterly befuddled at your moral compass.
I’d say that a Christian is a person who follows Christ. It’s not complicated.
Sure it’s not complicated if not for the many complications I’ve already listed but you’ve just decided to keep ignoring.
At this point you keep responding but refuse to address anything I’ve said so what point is there?
Wasn’t one of your reasons for not responding that you said it wasn’t worth your time?
Religion has been used by those who hold power to oppress and control the masses for centuries - this is nothing new.
And yet none of this is an explanation for how Mike Johnson or any number of other powerful figures who do things you disagree with aren’t Christian.
That’s a pretty broad brushing of a diverse religious group. It sounds like you’re clumping in Catholics with everyone else. Catholics are all about casting people out of the church for not being catholic enough and not so much for sexual predators. But there’s so many small churches based on Christianity, so many different practices…. You just lumped them all together with your grievances with the Catholic Church. It gives intolerance, kind of hypocritical.
That’s a pretty broad brushing of a diverse religious group.
That’s a ridiculous assertion. I’m sure the follow up sentence ought completely clear up what you must mean here
It sounds like you’re clumping in Catholics with everyone else.
What in the world???
Are you really taking my very obvious example of a person no one would argue is not Christian, to imply that every Christian must somehow be Catholic?
I cant even begin to see how you misinterpreted my comment in that way.
You just lumped them all together with your grievances with the Catholic Church. It gives intolerance, kind of hypocritical.
I did no such thing, and I refuse to believe that you think I did, given that this example couldn’t be any clearer.
Its especially ridiculous given my example is used as a means to establish that the definition of Christian is indeed far wider not narrower than the poster I responded to.
This is precisely the opposite of your claim of me narrowing the definition of Christianity with that example. It’s uttterly backwards.
I invite you to do more research on this. It’s not cherry picking, I assure you.
There are plenty of denominations and sects of Christianity out there that don’t teach hate. Why wouldn’t there be? Jesus taught love.
Anybody can claim to be whatever they want to. If somebody is doing the direct opposite of what Jesus taught while deferring to the Bible like Mike Johnson, I’d argue that they aren’t following Jesus or are like him. I’d argue that Mike Johnson is closer to the Pharisees that Jesus notably had issues with, than a Christian.
Christ + ian (from, related to, or like)
I believe that the pope is a Christian though, and clearly other people do too - otherwise he likely wouldn’t be the pope.
Why are you defending Mike Johnson? Feel free to respond with a rebuttal, but you won’t be getting anything else out of me.
You quite literally confirm that you are cherry picking by acknowledging that indeed there are ridiculous rules and guidance that are in the bible that you don’t follow. You therefore would inherently be cherry picking if you did not follow every single one of them or, to give you as fair a shake as possible, the vast majority of them.
That’s a nice idea in theory, but plenty doesn’t mean most, and I think most would be false which is why you went with plenty.
Most sects of Christianity, at some point, due to the fact their morals were roughly frozen about a millennia ago, will inevitably run into some pretty backwards points of view that don’t really have any basis in compassion or empathy and end up either creating out groups to be looked down upon, undue pressure on members, or discriminatory views against marginalized people.
More than any of that, the very fact that its all based on belief based on faith, believing without knowing, means that a critical vulnerability is inherently open the second you allow that belief in.
If you can believe anything without any evidence, then its suddenly a lot easier to believe other things for the same reasons as well. After all, your indoctrination (as most people are indoctrinated as children), will have tried to disarm your attempts to reason your way out of believing without evidence.
I would argue most Christians, yourself included don’t actually qualify as Christians if we go down this line of thought to its logical conclusion.
Why do you believe a position that is in charge of covering up the sexual abuse of minors, and causing an aids epidemic in Africa is any more Christian than Mike Johnson, someone who is guilty of supporting the current American fascist regime?
They both have done heinous and reprehensible acts, yet we allow the Pope position to be qualified as Christian because they are traditionally good at weaponized civility?
Not a single thing I have said could possibly be read to be defending Mike Johnson, and as such I can’t read what you’ve written here as anything but the most clear evidence of bad faith.
This is to be expected behaviour with such a ridiculous strawman argument at the end there.
If your views are so fragile that you must lie about the point of view of the person you are arguing with, self reflection is the only remedy.
You are defending his supposed faith and his identification as a Christian, when it couldn’t be further from the truth.
From my point of view, you are either following Christ’s teachings or you are not. A true Christian would resonate with Christ’s teachings and be demonstrating them - not demonstrating the opposite and twisting Jesus’ teachings from a position of power. I don’t believe Mike Johnson is a sheep led astray or someone has been manipulated into hate, but someone who is empowered by hate, who thrives on his authority, and is a person who literally says he believes God elevated him specifically into authority.
You assume bad faith from me and good faith from Mike Johnson (by taking him at his word that he is a Christian) - a person who has shown they are not in good faith to anybody honestly looking.
The fact you think or are willing to lie to pretend you believe that rebutting your no true scotsman argument is somehow a defence of this man is telling.
It’s either that you see being Christian as being a compliment, which by itself shows a feeling of superiority to those who are not Christian, or you feel that him being Christian somehow means something greater at large that you would rather not discuss.
That can be your point of view, but your point of view would be (by your own admission) cherry picked and based on whatever set of rules you decided fit within a book filled with rules and contradictions to those rules.
There are almost certainly people with different views than you who run the same line, in fact, I am sure of it, because I’ve seen it multiple times.
What you let loose at the end, is the idea that you think that Mike Johnson holds his beliefs vehemently, and that you belief he thinks he is doing as is right by god.
How then, can you call him any more or less Christian than yourself or anyone else if from his point of view, picking and choosing what he sees fit, he is a Christian?
If there are no hard qualifiers, as you admit there are not, as the religion and the various sects are largely based on interpretations of a book translated and added to multiple times over thousands of years, how can you disqualify so easily when convenient to you?
Personally, I don’t think most of the people leading any given religion actually believes in the core beliefs of said religion, as doing so would make it harder to change as needed, but you seem to think opposite, which oddly conflicts with the whole angle you are going for of them not being real Christians.
I don’t assume bad faith from you, the evidence demonstrates it. Here you are again, outright lying about my point of view because you can’t really argue on the other points; the points of contention.
To assert that I, someone who you can see clearly is progressive, supports progressive policies and finds what is happening abhorrent align with Mike Johnson in any way, just because I did not let your fallacious dismissal of that which you think “hurts” your religion slide can’t be be seen as anything else.
Dude, it isn’t a stretch to say that somebody who doesn’t follow Jesus and does the exact opposite isn’t a Christian. It takes basic critical thinking to arrive at that conclusion. Do you truly believe he hasn’t been exposed to the many verses where Jesus teaches the exact opposite of the types of polices he advocates for and the rhetoric he uses? I really find it hard to believe that, but I could see how regular people could be manipulated.
I consciously chose to not counter your arguments or “points of contention” because they were not worth my time to address and I specifically warned you that I wouldn’t engage further. You only got further engagement because you claimed bad faith on my part - which I specifically addressed and you did not sufficiently counter.
There are no shades of gray - either you are a Christian or you are not and I’m sure in his heart of hearts he is using religion as a tool for his own personal gain. I’ll trust that almost every word out of his mouth is a lie, and you are free to take him at his word that he considers himself a Christian in good faith. Have at it.
With this latest reply you’ve opted to go the route of simply saying “I’m right, you’re wrong” while not responding to any criticisms or flaws with your reasoning because it’s “not worth your time” meanwhile you have the time to be increasingly aggressive in restating the same things.
It would seem to me that you’ve proven that it’s not about time at all but a lack of merit to the primary point that you are asserting so strongly.
I have to wonder why you are so invested in believing that bad people can’t truly be Christians when you’ve already acknowledged that other bad people can indeed be Christian and you’ve acknowledged further, that being a Christian has no hard definitions given the highly intepretive nature of this religion (as can be seen via the many sects, readings, translations, breakoffs and more).
Its almost as if you badly want to associate being Christian with being supirior to non Christians and allowing awful people to correctly declare their religious statuses hurts your wanting to denigrate others by asserting that your faith makes you a better person.
That’s just one plausible explanation. Of course I wouldn’t need to hypothesize if you engaged honestly and actually covered any of the many holes in your reasoning but you ~“don’t have the time” (as your multiple comments avoiding answering oh so clearly show).
Mike Johnson isn’t a “bad” person, but we can form a pattern from his actions and words. He’s likely a person who is using religion for his personal gain, just like many religious leaders likely are.
I’d say that a Christian is a person who follows Christ. It’s not complicated. Religion has been used by those who hold power to oppress and control the masses for centuries - this is nothing new.
It is utterly insane to me you can verbatim say
Not only because you just, a few comments ago, accused me of defending him, but just on its face.
How is a man doing his best to deprive millions of healthcare, starve children and support a Christo whitenationalist fascist regime headed by a pedophile not a bad person???
I am utterly befuddled at your moral compass.
Sure it’s not complicated if not for the many complications I’ve already listed but you’ve just decided to keep ignoring.
At this point you keep responding but refuse to address anything I’ve said so what point is there?
Wasn’t one of your reasons for not responding that you said it wasn’t worth your time?
And yet none of this is an explanation for how Mike Johnson or any number of other powerful figures who do things you disagree with aren’t Christian.
That’s a pretty broad brushing of a diverse religious group. It sounds like you’re clumping in Catholics with everyone else. Catholics are all about casting people out of the church for not being catholic enough and not so much for sexual predators. But there’s so many small churches based on Christianity, so many different practices…. You just lumped them all together with your grievances with the Catholic Church. It gives intolerance, kind of hypocritical.
That’s a ridiculous assertion. I’m sure the follow up sentence ought completely clear up what you must mean here
What in the world???
Are you really taking my very obvious example of a person no one would argue is not Christian, to imply that every Christian must somehow be Catholic?
I cant even begin to see how you misinterpreted my comment in that way.
I did no such thing, and I refuse to believe that you think I did, given that this example couldn’t be any clearer.
Its especially ridiculous given my example is used as a means to establish that the definition of Christian is indeed far wider not narrower than the poster I responded to.
This is precisely the opposite of your claim of me narrowing the definition of Christianity with that example. It’s uttterly backwards.