Aren't religious people supposed to be tolerant, accepting and forgiving?

pete6032

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2010
7,443
3,004
136


Or maybe I have them confused with small minded, vindictive and hateful?
Those are not real Christians. Robert Jeffress is a total nut job. Real Christians would celebrate protecting minority groups. Basically any southern Baptist or non denom is likely a cultural Christian who uses the gospel as a tool to justify hate. It's bizarre to see but here we are.
 
Last edited:

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,015
4,785
136
These religious nutjobs are the modern day equivalent of what Jesus referred to as the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Scribes. He went toe to toe with them as they stalked a poor prostitute around town then caught up with her while he was speaking to her at the well with the intent of stoning her to death. This is when he told them let he who is without sin cast the first stone and they all had to high tail it out of there because of their hypocrisy just like today.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
These religious nutjobs are the modern day equivalent of what Jesus referred to as the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Scribes. He went toe to toe with them as they stalked a poor prostitute around town then caught up with her while he was speaking to her at the well with the intent of stoning her to death. This is when he told them let he who is without sin cast the first stone and they all had to high tail it out of there because of their hypocrisy just like today.
Just gonna add that the definition of a prostitute or adulteress in Jesus' time included a woman who had been divorced from her husband without a letter of Get, and then took shelter (usually not by choice) in a household controlled by a male who wasn't a family member.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
Those are not real Christians. Robert Jeffress is a total nut job. Real Christians would celebrate protecting minority groups. Basically any southern Baptist or non denom is likely a cultural Christian who uses the gospel as a tool to justify hate. It's bizarre to see but here we are.
There is a specific, biblical term for them.

They are Mammonites.

Mammonites don't just worship Mammon - they worship those people who've been blessed by Mammon with wealth.

Never mind saying they "aren't real Christians". They're fucking Mammonites. They worship Mammon dressed up like Jesus.

It's always so much better to use the most specific language possible when describing groups of people who try to pretend to be something else.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
There is a specific, biblical term for them.

They are Mammonites.

Mammonites don't just worship Mammon - they worship those people who've been blessed by Mammon with wealth.

Never mind saying they "aren't real Christians". They're fucking Mammonites. They worship Mammon dressed up like Jesus.

It's always so much better to use the most specific language possible when describing groups of people who try to pretend to be something else.

I don't agree. I think saying they aren't true Christians is a no true scotsman fallacy.
 

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
755
533
136
Those are not real Christians. Robert Jeffress is a total nut job. Real Christians would celebrate protecting minority groups. Basically any southern Baptist or non denom is likely a cultural Christian who uses the gospel as a tool to justify hate. It's bizarre to see but here we are.
If he says he's a christian I take him at his word. Pete, I think you overestimate what the term christian means for the vast majority of self-described christians. Robert Jeffress is not an exception.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stryker7314

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
I don't agree. I think saying they aren't true Christians is a no true scotsman fallacy.
You don't agree with who?

It's not a matter of whether one Christian is as much of a Christian as another Christian. There are Southern Baptists who are just as Christian as a Roman Catholic Christian. Etc., ad nauseam.

Christians exist. Of all sorts.

But Mammonites are not Christians. They literally worship Mammon and those blessed by Mammon. Their version of Mammon cosplays as Jesus, because Jesus is the candy apple hiding the razor blade. Just because they call Mammon "Jesus" doesn't make them a Christian.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
You don't agree with who?

It's not a matter of whether one Christian is as much of a Christian as another Christian. There are Southern Baptists who are just as Christian as a Roman Catholic Christian. Etc., ad nauseam.

Christians exist. Of all sorts.

But Mammonites are not Christians. They literally worship Mammon and those blessed by Mammon. Their version of Mammon cosplays as Jesus, because Jesus is the candy apple hiding the razor blade. Just because they call Mammon "Jesus" doesn't make them a Christian.

That's your pet theory. I don't give a crap about "Mammons." Calling them "mammons" is just another way of saying they are false Christians, not true Christians. These people call themselves Christian and think of themselves as Christian. They behave badly in the name of Christianity. It does no one any service to say they aren't true Christians or call them "Mammons." It's all the same fallacy.

Mammons, by the way, are not real, so they can't really "be" mammons, can they? Just like virtually everything else in the Bible isn't real, and its entire content is subject to wide ranging interpretations to suit the present culture, politics or personality of the people who follow it. The truth is, too many who have called themselves Christians through the ages have made decidedly negative contributions to humanity. That is a material fact. What you want to call them is more a matter of semantics.

It is pointless to argue biblical interpretation to play definitional games over who is a Christian and who is not. If they call themselves Christian, and think of themselves as Christian, then for all practical purposes, in the real world, that is exactly what they are.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
It seems like the issue arises from Christianity being full of vaguery, and it boils down to people choosing to interpret that in different ways. I look at the difference as those that think everything that doesn't align with Christianity to be wrong (to varying degrees) and potentially sinful. On the flip side, you have those that hold their beliefs as more of a personal choice, and while they may not agree with what others do from a religious standpoint, they realize that it isn't their job to interfere.

I think another issue is that some Christians (and even non-Christians) are too accepting of information from those of a higher power or echelon than them. For example, there's the danger of people of the faith pushing their constituents to vote a specific way. These people are often seen as an authoritative figure in the religion, and their judgment should be sound.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,975
7,892
136
That's your pet theory. I don't give a crap about "Mammons." Calling them "mammons" is just another way of saying they are false Christians, not true Christians. These people call themselves Christian and think of themselves as Christian. They behave badly in the name of Christianity. It does no one any service to say they aren't true Christians or call them "Mammons." It's all the same fallacy.

Mammons, by the way, are not real, so they can't really "be" mammons, can they? Just like virtually everything else in the Bible isn't real, and its entire content is subject to wide ranging interpretations to suit the present culture, politics or personality of the people who follow it. The truth is, too many who have called themselves Christians through the ages have made decidedly negative contributions to humanity. That is a material fact. What you want to call them is more a matter of semantics.

It is pointless to argue biblical interpretation to play definitional games over who is a Christian and who is not. If they call themselves Christian, and think of themselves as Christian, then for all practical purposes, in the real world, that is exactly what they are.

Seems to me the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is one of the more nuanced and tricky fallacies to identify. There's no universally-accepted or legal definition of Scotsman, after all (which is why only people resident in Scotland got to vote in in their Independence Referendum, to the chagrin of many people who considered themselves Scottish despite not living in the place). Likewise with many other groups, there's always scope for argument.

How you classify groups depends on your own position in the world. To a Libertarian, Communists and fascists and social conservatives are all "collectivists". To a communist, liberals and conservatives and libertarians are all "bourgeois".
So I don't see how one can determine which of you is correct. Though I'm tempted to say something weird happened to Christianity when it crossed the Atlantic.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,720
136
JFC.

Religion is a method of getting a certain mass to march at the same tempo.
It is a good thing.
Until its not.
Shell the a*bombs and let ww3 be fought with sticks and stones and religion is, once again, what is gonna pull us together.
Right now? Obsessive behavior cause "Christ" means you live in the past. Please catch up.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,719
47,408
136
Evangelical Christians were early and enthusiastic fans of Donald Trump. We have known how amoral they are for a long time.
 

Juiblex

Banned
Sep 26, 2016
500
252
136
Christians are supposed to be tolerant, accepting, and forgiving. Some Christians struggle with these values due to losing focus with God and instead focus on the flesh. It sounds like these people need to pray and rebuild their connection to God. Just one Christians opinion. That being said, I'm not sure if the liberal agenda is really one of unity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Annisman*

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
Seems to me the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is one of the more nuanced and tricky fallacies to identify. There's no universally-accepted or legal definition of Scotsman, after all (which is why only people resident in Scotland got to vote in in their Independence Referendum, to the chagrin of many people who considered themselves Scottish despite not living in the place). Likewise with many other groups, there's always scope for argument.

How you classify groups depends on your own position in the world. To a Libertarian, Communists and fascists and social conservatives are all "collectivists". To a communist, liberals and conservatives and libertarians are all "bourgeois".
So I don't see how one can determine which of you is correct. Though I'm tempted to say something weird happened to Christianity when it crossed the Atlantic.

I agree that No True Scotsmen is a tricky fallacy to pin down, because group identities can be fuzzy. This is especially true with religions, because they are based on scriptures which are so vague that they function like a blank canvas upon which anyone can project whatever they want. If you want your religion to stand for tolerance and peace, because you happen to be a tolerant and peaceful person, then you'll find a way to interpret it that way. Likewise, if you are the opposite.

Because these religions are subject to such varying interpretations, I find the discussion of who is a "true" member of that religion pointless because it is usually self-serving. If Christians want to argue amongst themselves over interpretations of their scripture, that is fine. But my only concern is how the people who identify as Christian are behaving in the real world. In that regard, I find it more than annoying when people who belong to a religion attempt to define all the bad behaving people out of their group in order to prop up their own sense of self-virtue.

If you cannot admit that there are people who belong to a group to which you also belong who behave badly but are nonetheless part of that group, you are in a state of denial. Pete Buttigieg had the right approach by arguing that liberal views are more consistent with the teaching of Jesus than are modern conservative views. Yet he wasn't saying anything about who was a Christian and who was not because that entire discussion is fraught with too much personal bias and is not helpful in the least. It's better to clean up your own house than pretend that people who are in the house with you aren't really in it.
 
Last edited:

Leymenaide

Senior member
Feb 16, 2010
749
364
136
Religions are only tolerant of those that are part of their particular cult.

and never forget that Good Christians built and ran Auschwitz.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
That's your pet theory. I don't give a crap about "Mammons." Calling them "mammons" is just another way of saying they are false Christians, not true Christians. These people call themselves Christian and think of themselves as Christian. They behave badly in the name of Christianity. It does no one any service to say they aren't true Christians or call them "Mammons." It's all the same fallacy.

Mammons, by the way, are not real, so they can't really "be" mammons, can they? Just like virtually everything else in the Bible isn't real, and its entire content is subject to wide ranging interpretations to suit the present culture, politics or personality of the people who follow it. The truth is, too many who have called themselves Christians through the ages have made decidedly negative contributions to humanity. That is a material fact. What you want to call them is more a matter of semantics.

It is pointless to argue biblical interpretation to play definitional games over who is a Christian and who is not. If they call themselves Christian, and think of themselves as Christian, then for all practical purposes, in the real world, that is exactly what they are.
Well, I'm trying not to turn off "Christians" from voting for the Democratic Party. And I do that by recognizing that there are actual Christians out there who believe in Jesus and follow the teaching of Jesus and are valuable members of society.

When Mammonites, who surely exist as much as any Christian, pretend to be Christian, I have no qualms about calling them out on it, because if they are Mammonites but don't realize it, there's a chance that by using the accurate biblical term for the religion they actually practice, they may realize that they've been sold a figurate Bill of Goods about their inherent beliefs on religion, and in addition, politics.

It's the same reason why I separate out nihilists from political anarchists. There is a clear distinction in what they believe and why they believe it, and grouping them together is counterproductive.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,973
35,595
136
Depends on the religion really.

Modern American evangelical christianity? No. Poseurs do and say whatever fits their agenda. By throwing in with Trump the Russian Asset in 2016 the evangelical community loudly and proudly proclaimed their critics to be 100% correct about republican willingness to prostitute themselves and their professed beliefs for power and money. The stark racial divide among the churches themselves, not just supporting policies that disenfranchise minorities and women (many of whom consider themselves christian) speaks to another of their issues due for a reckoning. The degree to which this cult of sacrifice has made itself political really only assists it in contradicting itself in many ways. The mindset that it requires in order to function does worry me a little sometimes, I won't lie. Fundies tend to ruin everyone's day in my experience, rather then save it.

Thank goodness their numbers are shrinking.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
I'm not pretending to know all Christians but I've never met a Christian who I can say I envy or admire.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,973
35,595
136
I'm not pretending to know all Christians but I've never met a Christian who I can say I envy or admire.

I can think of 3, maybe 4 for the admiration. None of them evangelical or young earth idiots I'm proud to say.