Leopards Ate My Face

4467 readers

1013 users here now

Rules:

If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.

Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheTechnician27

418_im_a_teapot

305

Greedy fake Christian appoints greedy fake Christian (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by [email protected] to c/leopardsatemyface

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] yesman 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

We can abstain from defining people’s sincere beliefs on their behalf without pretending that obvious fraud is the real deal.

This is a straw-person argument. Claiming two beliefs being valid is not the same as two beliefs that are equal.

You can prefer liberation theology to prosperity gospel. I do. But that's a question of politics, not theology. A non-believer taking such a side is making a mistake because doing so implies the following:

Jesus existed
Jesus had a message
that message was accurately recorded
that message was accurately transmitted
that message was transmitted intact
you've been exposed to and understood it correctly

That's conceding that the Bible is a unique moral document, probably miraculous.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is a straw-person argument

Thanks for warning me in advance, but it would have been more clear formatted as a headline or followed by a colon rather than a period.

Claiming two beliefs being valid is not the same as two beliefs that are equal

I'm not talking about validity or equality of beliefs, I'm talking about sincerity.

If I sincerely profess to belong to an obscure sect of Christianity whose founder believed that Jesus went to America, underwear is magic, and black people are inherently inferior to white people, that makes me sincerely Christian no matter the validity of those beliefs.

If I, on the other hand, don't consider myself Christian but pretend to be in public for personal gain, that doesn't make me a "less validly believing Christian", that makes me a fraud.

Likewise, if I preach that god almighty will bring joy to anyone who forks over cash to me, that doesn't make me a practitioner of a "less valid denomination", that makes me a "multilevel marketing" (AKA pyramid scheme) salesperson with even worse aesthetics and morals.

The strawman is that you're pretending that I'm making a "no true Scotsman" argument, when in reality I'm just stating the obvious fact that, contrary to your claim that you'd have to be religious to spot someone lying about faith, both of them are grifters and completely aware of it themselves. To the extent that they're capable of self-awareness at all.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thanks for warning me in advance, but it would have been more clear formatted as a headline or followed by a colon rather than a period.

That's a incendiary affliction of the third degree!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago