The funniest shit would be if he starts excommunicating Americans, a large chunk of whom are protestants and shouldn’t fucking care but watch them do it anyway because US fundamentalism is so fucked up they don’t even know what the hell they’re worshipping any more and default to anything that looks like authority
That’s right, they are crusaders.
deleted by creator
Do people called Christian need a name change before joining the armed forces?
Oh, yeah, that will get everyone upset.
The only requirement to be a Christian is to believe in the Resurrection and its purpose according to scripture. Anything else is just argumentative between sects of the religion.
To be Christ-like is what he really was referring to, and most people, whatever beliefs they have or don’t have, would have a hard time with that measurement because it is set so high. Almost too high for a human to meet. But it’s a goal, not a final outcome, and that’s really key. Even as a non-believer I can appreciate the better parts of the Bible, just like any other religious or philosophical text. It’s a shame that too many of the believers of the religion don’t understand or care to understand some of the basics, the ones that they’ll even quote themselves while being okay with harming others.
I would posit that if you genuinely and sincerely believed what the Bible says, you’d be extremely heavily incentivised not to fuck about bombing people. Far more likely that whoever he might be talking about doesn’t actually believe it at all, but is pretending to in order to manipulate others.
1 John 4:20 begs to differ.
You and I are on the same page, and the Pope is basically trotting out the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. I get that he’s trying to sway people away from war and I applaud his efforts, but to quote Steven Weinberg: “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
No, as the head of the orthodox Christian faith, he gets to define it however he wants. You can disagree, and that’s fine, but, according to Orthodox Christianity, in this moment, he is correct. For the Scotsman example, it’s like the king of Scotland saying anyone outside out their borders is not a Scotsman, which would be correct. It’s not a no true Scotsman fallacy, just as the king of the Scots can define what a Scotsman is, the Pope can define what a Christian is (according to the orthodoxy).
No, as the head of the orthodox Christian faith, he gets to define it however he wants.
My friend, the Pope is not even a member of the Orthodox Christian faith
They should rename the fallacy “no true Christian” at this point as 99.9% of times I see that fallacy, it’s in this context.
My friend, the Pope is not even a member of the Orthodox Christian faith
I think you’re thinking of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, where I meant little o orthodox. He’s also head of the big and little c catholic church, which, again, gives him authority to define it as he wishes. You don’t have to agree with it, and that’s fine.
They should rename the fallacy “no true Christian” at this point as 99.9% of times I see that fallacy, it’s in this context.
It certainly would be more relatable to more people. Again, I disagree that it applies in this case. It isn’t some random person saying these people aren’t Christian. It’s the person in charge of Christianity (at least, his flavor of it, by catholic implies all of them). The reason there are so many forms of Christianity is because people won’t always agree. That still doesn’t make this fallacious though.
Well its not quite the same. A no true Scotsman fallacy is an appeal to purity based solely on membership of a group. When the group is defined by adherence to a code of conduct then it’s not a fallacy. For example “no true vegan eats animal meat”.
Christian is literally defined as being a follower of the teachings of Christ. The specifics of those teachings vary by what parts of the New Testament you consider apocryphal. But broad strokes all agree that it’s something along the lines of rejection of worldly things, forgive your enemies, love God and your neighbor, etc.
The Old Testament has a very different tone because its a mix of myth + law + history for a Bronze Age civilization. The Bible explicitly says that the fire and brimstone, wrathful old God has been superseded by Jesus’s new covenant. Basically it’s there for continuity and pedigree but if you follow the OT rules over the New Testament then you’re not a Christian.
There’s a good argument to be made that almost no modern denomination (including the Catholic Church) can claim to be Christian because their creeds integrate too many obviously counter-Christian values. But that doesn’t make the Pope wrong here. Using selected passages from the Bible to justify bombing innocent people makes you a militant Biblicist, not a Christian.
The only requirement to be a Christian is to believe in the Resurrection and its purpose according to scripture. Anything else is just argumentative between sects of the religion.
I’d say even that is up for argument.
I’m sure many would claim that the message is more about how to live your life in the here and now. At least that’s how I heard some say it, and that’s how I choose to interpret the Pope’s message.
PS: oof, I just realized that you differentiate between being Christian and living according to Jesus’ message.
Hell, Secular Christianity might even have a following, not believing in any of the fantasy stuff, but following the lessons of Christ
I would say, as a person no longer practicing any type of religion but that was also intensively raised catholic, that this is basically my belief system.
I still hold valuable many of the virtues that I learned, partially (not nearly entirely), through being raised as a christian. Like tolerance, empathy/sympathy, being charitable, being patient and kind, etc. But that is also why I drifted away from the religion upon becoming old enough to see that catholicism/christianity doesnt exactly inspire those traits in people in the holistic sense. And then go on to learn how much religion has been used as a tool of control, and a legitimization of a litany of awful things in the world.
They practice those virtues towards one another, but treat the rest of the world as others of varying degrees. Most christian denominations are hardly tolerant of each other, let alone anyone outside that sphere. Hell, a lot of christian denominations are even intolerant of separate sects of their same religion. Obviously from there its easy enough to jump to severely judging other people based on their (a)religion, “lifestyle” aka being LGBTQ, or anything else that dosnt fit within their belief system or (usually very narrow) worldview.
I remember when I was a teenager, a woman approached me on a train platform and asked me for money, and my strongly religious father chided me afterwards for giving her money because she might have just been a scammer. (He is charitable to be fair, but only gives money to formal organizations and the church). That was a big moment for me being like, how is that practicing real charity to refuse someone in that situation if you can help them? People say the same about “what if they buy drugs with it?” Ethically, I have always believed that removing agency from the person asking you for money, by refusing out of that type of belief, is not very “christian” in the sense of its virtues.
What if the person genuinely needs it, but you refuse because you think they dont, or that theyll use it negatively, and then they suffer further hardship? Giving without expectation is charitable, and giving the person agency to make the right choice is patience and tolerance. But christianity doesnt necessarily align with that concept, despite the fact that I cant imagine jesus being like “That homeless guy might buy alcohol, I shouldnt give him the $5 he asked for”
Yeah, thats exactly the kind of sentiment I was thinking of, there’s probably enough people thinking the same way to consider it an informal sect
Nicely pedanted.
Yeah, but what’s he know?
You “drop” bombs and “launch” missiles.
Proves that he is no true christian.
What about mortars.
Mortars are hybrid, first you launch the mortar round, then it drops on the target.
I believe the proper verb for that is to “fire”. Could be wrong though.
How convenient for Christianity.
Any comment on those who direct their subordinates to launch bombs? Because I’m seeing quite a few loopholes here
The biggest loophole is that you drop bombs, you launch missiles.
Between my mouth that lives to eat dead things and my ass that loves to shit deader things… I mean. All you can eat salad. Who wants to toss this salad? 🥗
They very much are Christians, which is the problem
heretics
The Pope does NOT Represent ME!
-People who think The Bible TM should be LAW!
Cool. So Catholics aren’t Christians. Or does it not count because they didnt have bombs in the 12th century?
Those Catholics in specific aren’t christ-like or christ followers (christian in that sense) but they might have been believers (another type of christian)
Makes sense? Might be a language thing
It’s not that hard to find catholic church saying they did unchristian-like things - but bitching about previous management years ago & with no consequences is cheap, even worth it.
