“No true Scotsman” is when you modify the initial claim to conveniently skirt evidence to the contrary. Saying “I’m ashamed these people are allowed to call themselves Scotsmen/Christians” is another matter
I mean partaking in the American civil religion does seem to violate one of the first rules of Christianity. They’re supposed to be kinda monotheistic from what I hear
Usually, when various Christian denominations call some writings (which other denominations consider canonical) apocryphal, they at least recognise that those writings are roughly as old as the canonical writings and the subject matter concerns the same topics (i.e. accounts on lives of Biblical figures, and doctrinal material). Just that they don’t agree it’s valid teaching or doctrine. Apocryphal, as said.
I mean, American Evangelicals wouldn’t just randomly slap demonstrably modern material that is explicitly not religious doctrine, not even worded as such, in the book and call it Biblical canon, right? …right? …that’d be patently stupid, right? …nobody would do that? …people would have at least some problem with that?
(Me, I’m not American, and an ex-Christian. I actually liked the Deck of Cards better. These days, I just do the same thing with Tarot deck I guess. …confuse myself endlessly with esoteric imagery.)
That seems to be a desecration of the Bible. I wonder if “Christians” will even raise an eyebrow.
It’s okay, he doesn’t seem to sell to actual Christians.
Have they changed the fallacy to “No true Christian” yet?
“No true Scotsman” is when you modify the initial claim to conveniently skirt evidence to the contrary. Saying “I’m ashamed these people are allowed to call themselves Scotsmen/Christians” is another matter
I mean partaking in the American civil religion does seem to violate one of the first rules of Christianity. They’re supposed to be kinda monotheistic from what I hear
They wont
They are: https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/28/us/donald-trump-bible-christianity-cec/index.html
Usually, when various Christian denominations call some writings (which other denominations consider canonical) apocryphal, they at least recognise that those writings are roughly as old as the canonical writings and the subject matter concerns the same topics (i.e. accounts on lives of Biblical figures, and doctrinal material). Just that they don’t agree it’s valid teaching or doctrine. Apocryphal, as said.
I mean, American Evangelicals wouldn’t just randomly slap demonstrably modern material that is explicitly not religious doctrine, not even worded as such, in the book and call it Biblical canon, right? …right? …that’d be patently stupid, right? …nobody would do that? …people would have at least some problem with that?
(Me, I’m not American, and an ex-Christian. I actually liked the Deck of Cards better. These days, I just do the same thing with Tarot deck I guess. …confuse myself endlessly with esoteric imagery.)
Thank you. I really like your post and wanted to give you more than just an upvote
From a fellow ex-christian. Ex since the age of 11.