• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    Ā·
    11 months ago

    Thatā€™s not correct in any way. The word ā€œChristianā€ has a specific definition. If someone claims theyā€™re a ā€œChristianā€ but donā€™t believe in Jesus, then theyā€™re not a Christian. They canā€™t be. If someone claims to be a ā€œCatholicā€ but doesnā€™t ā€œacceptā€ Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, theyā€™re not a Catholic. I can claim to be a musician but, if I canā€™t play any instruments, Iā€™m not.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        Yeahā€¦ if we used the definitions of social media, then the existence of trans people is a religious belief and wokeness is a religion. Itā€™s the single stupidest chain of sentiment to come out since the belief in a flat earth.

    • teft@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      Ā·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If someone claims to be a ā€œCatholicā€ but doesnā€™t ā€œacceptā€ Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, theyā€™re not a Catholic.

      Thatā€™s not true. There have been quite a number of schisms in the catholic church which resulted in a split on who people thought was the pope. The guy who doesnā€™t come out on top in that situation is called an antipope. Sometimes it was difficult to decide in history which person was the pope and which was antipope. There have been about 40 of them with the last being in the 15th century.

      The Palmarian Church is a catholic splinter group that has an antipope.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        Ā·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yes it is. Catholic dogma dictates that the Pope is the true representative of God and that he functions as the literal mouthpiece of God. Schisms might be true but, according to Catholicism, there canā€™t be a mistake when it comes to the Pope and what he says when speaking on doctrine. Itā€™s called Papal Infallibility.

        Accordingly, that means any schisms from Catholicism, by definition, arenā€™t Catholic because they break the promise Jesus made to Peter.

        Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          Ā·
          11 months ago

          This assumes that Catholic dogma is objectively true, and leans heavily on history being written by the victors.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            Ā·
            11 months ago

            No it doesnā€™t. It leans on Catholic dogma being defined by Catholics. Papal infallibility comes from Jesusā€™ promise to Peter that whoever leads the Church will always be guided by God. Since it comes directly from Jesus, the figurehead of Catholicism, the only ā€œtruthā€ that needs to be accepted is that Jesus + Pope (Peter) is Catholicism. Thereā€™s no question of truth or victory. The very foundation of the idea of Catholicism relies on the idea that the Pope is never wrong on issues of doctrine and dogma.

        • teft@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          Ā·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          That doesnā€™t change the fact that Palmerians consider themselves the one true catholic church and that they consider their members catholic. They would claim their anti-pope is the infallible one, not Pope Francis.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            Ā·
            11 months ago

            It doesnā€™t matter what they consider themselves, though. Thatā€™s the point. If the Pope is the mouthpiece of god and is infallible, then their sect (and by extension their anti-pope) cannot be Catholics since dogma and doctrine dictate that the actual Pope is infallible and beyond contestation.

            • teft@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              Ā·
              11 months ago

              If both churches consider themselves with infallible popes declaring gods will on earth, who is right? Do you see the dilemma? Neither can say that the other sect are true Catholics.

              So if someone claims to be catholic but doesnā€™t accept Pope Francis that doesnā€™t make them not a catholic, it just means they donā€™t think Pope Francis is the legitimate pope. They would consider him an antipope and his statements ex cathedra are therefore fallible since they arenā€™t really statements ex cathedra in their minds.

              • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                Ā·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                If both churches consider themselves with infallible popes declaring gods will on earth, who is right?

                Neither of them. Claims donā€™t beget fact.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                Ā·
                11 months ago

                No. Youā€™re wrong. The original Catholic dogma, directly from St. Peter and promised by Jesus, states that the Pope will forever be the mouthpiece of god. To directly contradict that at a point in the future after the founding of the church when the lineage of the church is unbroken is to become, by definition, something other than a Catholic. Otherwise, youā€™re saying that Jesus lied or that the Pope is wrong, both ideas that go completely against the central tenets of the religion.

                Whether or not both churches consider themselves anything is irrelevant. One side can say that they are the true Catholics if they were the ones to create the belief system, dogma, and tenets. The other side canā€™t say that the actual Catholics arenā€™t true Catholics because Catholic belief is defined by the infallibility of the leader of the organization. By direct influence of their god, he is perfect in all matters of dogma, religion, and definition. In order to defy that, youā€™re defying the god upon which the religion is founded which makes their beliefs heresy and hypocrisy.

                I canā€™t even believe this is being debated right now, especially like this.

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    Ā·
                    11 months ago

                    Itā€™s not a biblical question. Itā€™s a dogmatic question. Reading the Bible, in part or in its entirety, isnā€™t going to help answer this question.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      Ā·
      11 months ago

      If someone claims theyā€™re a ā€œChristianā€ but donā€™t believe in Jesus, then theyā€™re not a Christian.

      Thatā€™s fair. It still hinges on a belief claim only. Based on a personā€™s other actions, you can doubt that claim, but the singular authority for what a person actually believes is what that person claims to believe.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        Thatā€™s only true if that claim is made in good faith. I can claim to be a Christian all I want but, if I donā€™t believe in god, then my claim isnā€™t coming from a place of good faith (literally). I canā€™t make the claim and that claim be true if Iā€™ve twisted the definition of what Iā€™m claiming in order to make that claim. If I claim to be vegan but I have redefined ā€œveganā€ to ignore the use of animal products and am only focused on eating animals and animal products, then Iā€™m a liar rather than what youā€™re inferring which is that my claim is true because I believe it to be true. A ā€œveganā€ walking around in leather pants is not a vegan, regardless of what they believe or claim.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          Ā·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Whether someone is a ā€œveganā€ depends on behavior in ways that ā€œChristianā€ doesnā€™t. Even so, being ā€œveganā€ - even when the person does not directly and knowingly consume animal products - completely ignores the fact that they are indirectly making use of animal products, because they depend on a society that currently uses animal products, and where that society got to the technological level itā€™s at through the use of animal products over many millenia.

          And weā€™re back to No True Scotsman, adjusting the definition to fit the circumstances.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            Ā·
            11 months ago

            No it doesnā€™t. Being vegan doesnā€™t mean that you believe youā€™re not using or consuming animal products. It means you donā€™t consume animal products. Period. Itā€™s why the Vegan Police came after Todd. The only person adjusting the definition to fit the circumstances is you. If a central tenet of being a vegan is that the very first vegan ever said that anyone who eats or uses an animal product canā€™t be vegan, then that person isnā€™t vegan whether they intended that or not. The Catholic Church is founded on the idea that the Pope is the mouthpiece of god. To say that any Pope chosen in the lineage of that church is ā€œnot the real popeā€ is blasphemy and, by definition, not Catholic.

            • Nougat@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              Ā·
              11 months ago

              The Catholic Church is founded on the idea that the Pope is the mouthpiece of god.

              Who decides who the ā€œrightā€ Pope is? You must certainly know that issues of succession (oh so topically) are often contested, and the Catholic Church is not immune to that.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                Ā·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                God does. Thatā€™s the point. The Catholic belief, which is written into the very doctrine and dogma of the religion, is that God is guiding the process and that God chooses the Pope. The whole religion is based on the idea that Jesus took the wheel and handed it to Peter afterwards who then handed it to the next person. Papal infallibility, as a concept, is the promise that the leadership of the Catholic Church is free from human error so, yes, according to their own beliefs, they are explicitly immune from that.

                • Nougat@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  Ā·
                  11 months ago

                  God does.

                  And thatā€™s why this is entirely a circular and nonsensical thing.

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    Ā·
                    11 months ago

                    Of course it is. But youā€™re the one arguing against your definition of these terms, not their own. From a standpoint of furthering discussion, Iā€™m an atheist. I donā€™t believe any of this. But I know what the religion dictates as the definition of who they are and, based on that, youā€™re wrong about how they view themselves and how theyā€™ve defined themselves.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      Ā·
      11 months ago

      You can play any instrument you like. Whether youā€™re ā€œgood at itā€ is a separate issue.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        Sureā€¦ but if you donā€™t play at all, youā€™re not a musician no matter how much you believe it to be true.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            Ā·
            11 months ago

            No, it does not. What ways does it depend on? You either follow the tenets and doctrine of the religion or you donā€™t. If your actions directly contradict the meaning of the word, then it doesnā€™t depend on anything. Itā€™s a binary concept.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              Ā·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              If your actions directly contradict the meaning of the word, then it doesnā€™t depend on anything.

              Using this weirdo logic to define whether or not a person is a Christian means that you have to know the entirety of actions of their whole life to see if they entirely followed the tenants and doctrine of the religion or not, because the instant they donā€™t theyā€™re not a Christian.

              Since only God would be capable of such knowledge, only God would be capable of labeling people Christian or notā€¦so effectively nobodyā€™s a Christian.

              Seems wrong in an obvious and fundamental way (because it makes the categorizations all pointless), but hey whatever grips your gourd, friendo.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                Ā·
                11 months ago

                ā€¦know the entirety of actionsā€¦

                No, you donā€™t. Those things are not tenets of Christianity or Catholicism. What weā€™re discussing here is whether breaking the central tenets of the religion disqualifies someone from including themselves in that group and itā€™s pretty clear that the answer is yes.

                As an example, you canā€™t be a Jew and deny the Ten Commandments. Period. If someone went around saying that it was OK to kill people and that stealing is justified, they cannot call themselves Jews without also being liars. It has nothing to do with whether they themselves have stolen or may have accidentally killed someone (which, in both cases, would make them imperfect Jews). It has to do with whether or not they believe that their actions are wrong by virtue of going against the only rules the religion has at its core.

                Lastly, since this will be my last response to youā€¦ you donā€™t have to be such a rude, insufferable asshole in your responses, ā€œfriendoā€. I am not your friend. Your inability to understand basic statements followed by your complete incredulity, once the misunderstanding is pointed out, just show that itā€™s a waste of time talking to you. Your absolute toxicity, though, is what makes you and your opinions meaningless.

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  Ā·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  As an example, you canā€™t be a Jew and deny the Ten Commandments. Period.

                  So is it what people say or their actions that defines group membership? You canā€™t seem to make your mind up.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      Ā·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Thatā€™s not correct in any way. The word ā€œChristianā€ has a specific definition.

      Webster isnā€™t any more of a dictator of truth than anyone else. Thereā€™s a reason why Socrates spent a lot of time debating definitions with people. Theyā€™re hard to actually get right.

      If someone claims theyā€™re a ā€œChristianā€ but donā€™t believe in Jesus, then theyā€™re not a Christian. They canā€™t be.

      But what if they also claim to believe in Jesus? How do you measure or test belief? How do you know whatā€™s in the mind or soul of a person?

      If someone claims to be a ā€œCatholicā€ but doesnā€™t ā€œacceptā€ Pope Francis as the legitimate Pope, theyā€™re not a Catholic.

      What if they attend Catholic mass? Hell, what if theyā€™re a member of the priesthood?

      I can claim to be a musician but, if I canā€™t play any instruments, Iā€™m not.

      Even this is a bad argument. Arenā€™t singers musicians? How about rappers?

      All of this debate is really over whether or not something is no longer a thing if theyā€™re not a high quality version of that thing. I think itā€™s a fairly shallow debate because a wobbly stool is still a stool. A shitty singer is still a musician. A broken chair is still a chair, and similarly just because someoneā€™s a bad Christian doesnā€™t mean theyā€™re not a Christian.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        Webster isnā€™t any more of aā€¦

        Weā€™re not talking about the definition from Webster. Weā€™re talking about the definition from Jesus that was given to Saint Peter, the very first Pope. The definition here is not in question because the idea was defined by the people who founded the religion.

        How do you measure or test belief?

        You donā€™t have to. Being a Christian isnā€™t only predicated on believing in Jesus. If that was the case, then Satan is also a Christian because heā€™s personally met Jesus and, therefore, would be forced to ā€œbelieveā€ in him. Luckily, Jesus himself supposedly stated and passed down what it means to be a Christian and those people supposedly wrote it down.

        What if they attend Catholic mass? Hell, what if theyā€™re a member of the priesthood?

        Also irrelevant. A priest who molests children cannot be a Christian whether they were inducted into the priesthood or whether they attend Mass because the very rules of the religion, as instructed by their figurehead, remove them from the group based on their actions. Itā€™s repeated numerous times throughout the Bible that Christians will be known by their actions.

        Even this is a bad argument. Arenā€™t singers musicians? How about rappers?

        Itā€™s not a bad argument, you just misunderstood it. The voice is an instrument.

        All of this debate is really over whether or not something is no longer a thing if theyā€™re not a high quality version of that thing. I think itā€™s a fairly shallow debate because a wobbly stool is still a stool. A shitty singer is still a musician. A broken chair is still a chair, and similarly just because someoneā€™s a bad Christian doesnā€™t mean theyā€™re not a Christian.

        No. Again, youā€™ve misunderstood the argument. If I started a religion today and I said that the only qualification of the religion is that people have to kiss me on the mouth, then itā€™s not possible for someone who has not kissed me on the mouth to be part of the religion. They can follow everything else Iā€™ve said to the letter but, as long as they havenā€™t kissed me directly on the mouth, they cannot be a part of this particular religion because they are missing the central qualification. Itā€™s not about whether someone is ā€œgoodā€ or ā€œbadā€ at doing something. Itā€™s whether theyā€™re doing that thing at all.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Itā€™s not a bad argument, you just misunderstood it. The voice is an instrument.

          Ok then, so who is this person that can ā€œclaim to be a musicianā€ but isnā€™t?

          As for the rest of your load of gish gallop: the bible, like all other texts, is up for interpretation and has been re-interpreted many times with many different takeaways. Itā€™s not even the original text, was translated multiple times, and there is no way we can be assured that the King James Bible (Taylorā€™s Version) is the real deal. Definitions from it arenā€™t more authoritative than Websterā€¦theyā€™re even less so.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            Ā·
            11 months ago

            who is this person

            Someone who doesnā€™t play any instrument, including singing. There are unending numbers of people who will tell you theyā€™re not musicians because they donā€™t even try. Anyone who doesnā€™t try but tells you theyā€™re a musician is a liar. Thatā€™s the point.

            load of gish gallop

            Nothing that Iā€™ve said should have been overwhelming or inundating. My premise is incredibly simple. You just keep misunderstanding it repeatedly because it seems that youā€™re not even reading whatā€™s being said.

            Weā€™re not talking about interpretation from the Bible. Weā€™re talking about the definition used by Catholics that is part of their dogma and doctrine. Weā€™re talking about quoting the (supposed) words of Jesus in places where there is no debate on the meaning. You can try to dismiss and downplay what Iā€™ve said all you want but none of what Iā€™ve said is inaccurate whereas your response is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              Ā·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Someone who doesnā€™t play any instrument, including singing.

              Lol, so someone who wants to claim to be a musician but canā€™t even sing badly (or rap badly, because rappers are still musicians)? Thatā€™s who weā€™ve excluded? Wow, what a useful definition for musician. šŸ™„

              Who is this person who wants to go around claiming musician creds and then canā€™t attempt a couple of bars?

              Your argument just sucks dude, get over yourself.

              EDIT: Thanks for the downvote!

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                Ā·
                11 months ago

                Congratulations, you understand my example. Thatā€™s my entire point. Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician. If you donā€™t do the thing that defines the word that means ā€œsomeone who does this thingā€, then you canā€™t be that thing. Thatā€™s the argument! If someone claims to be a Christian and doesnā€™t follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian. If you donā€™t like the musician example, come up with a better one.

                My argument doesnā€™t suck. You suck.

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  Ā·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Someone who does not play or sing cannot possibly be a musician.

                  But given that bar thereā€™s nobody that could claim to be a musician and then not just shit out a couple of bars and be one by your definition. So, again, your definition sucks (EDIT: and it happens to actually prove that what someone else is saying about ā€œclaiming to be a Christian makes you a Christianā€ is essentially trueā€¦because I can claim to be a musician and then sing a little happy birthday and I fit your definition).

                  If someone claims to be a Christian and doesnā€™t follow the example of the figurehead of Christianity, then they are not a Christian.

                  Now itā€™s ā€œfollow the exampleā€. So is that words? Actions? Both? Who determines what is ā€œChrist-likeā€? You? Are you the guy who determines who is and isnā€™t a Christian?

                  You suck.

                  Right back at ya slick.

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    Ā·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    Are you being intentionally obtuse here or what? The definition isnā€™t about being capable of singing (even poorly). Itā€™s about whether or not the person does that thing in their life. If you donā€™t like the music example, choose a different profession. For example, if I claim to be a golfer, I canā€™t be one if I donā€™t play golf. I canā€™t claim to be a golfer and then ā€œshit out golf clubs and whack a ball aroundā€. Youā€™re just being an asshole and arguing semantics over the fact that someone can use their voice. Normal, reasonable people understand that ā€œshit[ting] out a couple barsā€ doesnā€™t make one a music anymore than hitting a golf ball at a party makes you a golfer. Stop being disingenuous.

                    Now itā€™s ā€œfollow the exampleā€

                    What do you mean here? This implies that my position on this has changed somewhere. Iā€™ve already clarified in my 1st response to you that ā€œbelief in Jesusā€ isnā€™t enough to make someone Christian. Itā€™s what started your whole fake confusion about being a musician. This kind of nonsense just leads me to believe that youā€™re not arguing in good faith here (which is already obvious but I try give people the benefit of the doubt).

                    To answer your question, Christ determines what is ā€œChrist-likeā€. I would think that was obvious and implied but now you just seem to be pretending to be confused.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        ā€¦ if theyā€™re not a high quality version of that thing.

        And who is the arbiter of quality, and who draws the line in the sand?

        I know this has all kind of devolved into a semantic argument, and a weird discussion about Popery, and I think at this point itā€™s worth reiterating my initial point: If someone claims to belong to a religion, they do. Whether that claim enables anyone to make predictions or judgments about a personā€™s other statements or actions is another question entirely.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          If someone claims to belong to a religion, they do.

          I think this is 100% true for generic things like ā€œChristianityā€. When theyā€™re more official organizationsā€¦still maybe, but if someoneā€™s been excommunicated from something it makes sense to me from a practical standpoint that they no longer belong to that thing.