949
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2025
949 points (99.1% liked)
Political Memes
9817 readers
2882 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So he doesn't actually practice Christianity, then. He just uses it as an accessory.
Most do.
An awful lot of people identify as Christians while ignoring the calls for charity and compassion and being wary of hoarding wealth.
Enough folk to say that greed and cruelty are in fact Christian values for some Christians.
And you're not going to be able to convince any of them they're not really all that Christian.
It really doesn't take many verses to convince somebody who truly believes in God and believes Jesus died for their sins.
Just because there is propaganda doesn't mean that it is ironclad. And it's not "Source: Trust me bro", it's "Source: Jesus and his disciples".
It's source: Jesus and his disciples as compiled decades later with some efforts at editing and revision. (e.g. ~~Proverbs~~ Thessalonians is allegedly sourced from Paul even though the scholarly consensus is that it's counterfeit, and written after Paul by a ghostwriter.)
The bible is not univocal, not inerrant and not divinely inspired, so, as scholar Dan McClellan notes, every Christian has to negotiate with the text to arrive at doctrinal mores and values they agree with.
Ultimately, the bible can be used to justify anything, and it is!
Considering the most obvious biblical take on slavery and on women, the bible isn't that great a source for personal and social values to begin with.
Proverbs is Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and attributed to King Solomon, not Paul.
I might be thinking of Thessalonians. Not a biblical scholar, I, but there are still known late-age revisions known by scholarly consensus that are yet regarded as canon by major religious ministries.
The bible also teems with internal conflicts and passages that are commonly misinterpreted in modern theology, so it has to be negotiated with.
My point stands. Real Christians would pay attention to Christ - they see the source as valid. Of course the texts have been manipulated over many years - and have less than ideal takes on slavery and on women.
Fortunately, Christ's teachings are still pretty clear and are easily quotable and digestible. It's harder to twist Jesus to serve hateful narratives than it is to quote Jesus and the love he obviously taught.
You don't have to twist Jesus to make him seem like a bastard. He kinda preaches love, sometimes, but also preaches doing a bunch of shitty, immature, and sometimes downright heinous shit.
Surely there are examples (of which I am aware of a few), but they do not take from his overall teachings. I'm not the devoted Christian that the other commenter mistakenly views me as, but someone who understands the gist of the New Testament because I was forced into Christian High School and studied the Bible as a whole. It was a subject that I was graded on, so I'd like to say I probably understand the general themes better than most.
Although I do repress a lot from that time and I suffered multiple TBIs, so maybe I'm completely off-base. I don't believe that I am, though.
The gist of the New Testament is "everyone thinks the old God is vengeful and mean, so we're gonna send a new one down to rehab his image, but in reality, he's (literally) still the same old vengeful bastard who condones violence, rape, and killing, but somehow got billions of people to look the other way on that because he says love thy neighbor once"
That's what I get from my reading of it anyways
I mostly agree with you here.
This no true scotsman does not actually help anyone as it allows people to completely skirt the problems with religion by ignoring any symptoms as incorrect practices.
In reality, all religious people are cherry picking. Its inherent unless you want to live like a caveman. Can you imagine if people actually did all of the things prescribed at various points of the bible?
No cooking, washing dishes, doing chores on saturdays, no eating pork, no mixed fabric clothing, having slaves and concubines, not taking loans etc etc.
People like to pretend the bible is all well and good because they sanitize the hell out of it, only pay attention to very carefully worded and translated 10 commandments, ignore the first half, and then a huge chunk of the second half and call it good.
In reality, unless we dismiss basically every Christian as non Christian, we have no reason to dismiss bad people who are Christians as non Christians.
They're just bad people who are also Christians, and a good chunk of the times, it is where that Christianity, the logic required to stay with it, and the social situations that occur as a result in weaker resistance to awful ideologies, charlatans etc.
I don't feel that it's a very high standard to ask that Christians follow Jesus Christ's example and demonstrate understanding of his teachings - especially if they are truly Christians, who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Many of the practices and laws you mentioned are fulfilled in the New Testament and are no longer binding to Christians.
And there are surely many people (especially in power) who use Christianity as an accessory, as a tool to manipulate others into hate, and as a platform to grow their power. I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Johnson was one such example.
This is just "I cherry pick differently for equally arbitrary reasons and am therefor the arbiter of what qualifies as truly Christian". The fact you say mostly really hammers that in. Like you feel you're more "Christian" than them to a degree that matters.
Yeah, like literally the leaders of every sect out there...
Doesn't mean he isn't Christian though, unless you also don't think the pope is...
In fact this is exactly why its important not to separate these people out. These are fellow Christians that the non wealthy and powerful ?Christians lower their guards to due to religious belief.
I invite you to do more research on this. It's not cherry picking, I assure you.
There are plenty of denominations and sects of Christianity out there that don't teach hate. Why wouldn't there be? Jesus taught love.
Anybody can claim to be whatever they want to. If somebody is doing the direct opposite of what Jesus taught while deferring to the Bible like Mike Johnson, I'd argue that they aren't following Jesus or are like him. I'd argue that Mike Johnson is closer to the Pharisees that Jesus notably had issues with, than a Christian.
Christ + ian (from, related to, or like)
I believe that the pope is a Christian though, and clearly other people do too - otherwise he likely wouldn't be the pope.
Why are you defending Mike Johnson? Feel free to respond with a rebuttal, but you won't be getting anything else out of me.
You quite literally confirm that you are cherry picking by acknowledging that indeed there are ridiculous rules and guidance that are in the bible that you don't follow. You therefore would inherently be cherry picking if you did not follow every single one of them or, to give you as fair a shake as possible, the vast majority of them.
That's a nice idea in theory, but plenty doesn't mean most, and I think most would be false which is why you went with plenty.
Most sects of Christianity, at some point, due to the fact their morals were roughly frozen about a millennia ago, will inevitably run into some pretty backwards points of view that don't really have any basis in compassion or empathy and end up either creating out groups to be looked down upon, undue pressure on members, or discriminatory views against marginalized people.
More than any of that, the very fact that its all based on belief based on faith, believing without knowing, means that a critical vulnerability is inherently open the second you allow that belief in.
If you can believe anything without any evidence, then its suddenly a lot easier to believe other things for the same reasons as well. After all, your indoctrination (as most people are indoctrinated as children), will have tried to disarm your attempts to reason your way out of believing without evidence.
I would argue most Christians, yourself included don't actually qualify as Christians if we go down this line of thought to its logical conclusion.
Why do you believe a position that is in charge of covering up the sexual abuse of minors, and causing an aids epidemic in Africa is any more Christian than Mike Johnson, someone who is guilty of supporting the current American fascist regime?
They both have done heinous and reprehensible acts, yet we allow the Pope position to be qualified as Christian because they are traditionally good at weaponized civility?
Not a single thing I have said could possibly be read to be defending Mike Johnson, and as such I can't read what you've written here as anything but the most clear evidence of bad faith.
This is to be expected behaviour with such a ridiculous strawman argument at the end there.
If your views are so fragile that you must lie about the point of view of the person you are arguing with, self reflection is the only remedy.
You are defending his supposed faith and his identification as a Christian, when it couldn't be further from the truth.
From my point of view, you are either following Christ's teachings or you are not. A true Christian would resonate with Christ's teachings and be demonstrating them - not demonstrating the opposite and twisting Jesus' teachings from a position of power. I don't believe Mike Johnson is a sheep led astray or someone has been manipulated into hate, but someone who is empowered by hate, who thrives on his authority, and is a person who literally says he believes God elevated him specifically into authority.
You assume bad faith from me and good faith from Mike Johnson (by taking him at his word that he is a Christian) - a person who has shown they are not in good faith to anybody honestly looking.
The fact you think or are willing to lie to pretend you believe that rebutting your no true scotsman argument is somehow a defence of this man is telling.
It's either that you see being Christian as being a compliment, which by itself shows a feeling of superiority to those who are not Christian, or you feel that him being Christian somehow means something greater at large that you would rather not discuss.
That can be your point of view, but your point of view would be (by your own admission) cherry picked and based on whatever set of rules you decided fit within a book filled with rules and contradictions to those rules.
There are almost certainly people with different views than you who run the same line, in fact, I am sure of it, because I've seen it multiple times.
What you let loose at the end, is the idea that you think that Mike Johnson holds his beliefs vehemently, and that you belief he thinks he is doing as is right by god.
How then, can you call him any more or less Christian than yourself or anyone else if from his point of view, picking and choosing what he sees fit, he is a Christian?
If there are no hard qualifiers, as you admit there are not, as the religion and the various sects are largely based on interpretations of a book translated and added to multiple times over thousands of years, how can you disqualify so easily when convenient to you?
Personally, I don't think most of the people leading any given religion actually believes in the core beliefs of said religion, as doing so would make it harder to change as needed, but you seem to think opposite, which oddly conflicts with the whole angle you are going for of them not being real Christians.
I don't assume bad faith from you, the evidence demonstrates it. Here you are again, outright lying about my point of view because you can't really argue on the other points; the points of contention.
To assert that I, someone who you can see clearly is progressive, supports progressive policies and finds what is happening abhorrent align with Mike Johnson in any way, just because I did not let your fallacious dismissal of that which you think "hurts" your religion slide can't be be seen as anything else.
Dude, it isn't a stretch to say that somebody who doesn't follow Jesus and does the exact opposite isn't a Christian. It takes basic critical thinking to arrive at that conclusion. Do you truly believe he hasn't been exposed to the many verses where Jesus teaches the exact opposite of the types of polices he advocates for and the rhetoric he uses? I really find it hard to believe that, but I could see how regular people could be manipulated.
I consciously chose to not counter your arguments or "points of contention" because they were not worth my time to address and I specifically warned you that I wouldn't engage further. You only got further engagement because you claimed bad faith on my part - which I specifically addressed and you did not sufficiently counter.
There are no shades of gray - either you are a Christian or you are not and I'm sure in his heart of hearts he is using religion as a tool for his own personal gain. I'll trust that almost every word out of his mouth is a lie, and you are free to take him at his word that he considers himself a Christian in good faith. Have at it.
With this latest reply you've opted to go the route of simply saying "I'm right, you're wrong" while not responding to any criticisms or flaws with your reasoning because it's "not worth your time" meanwhile you have the time to be increasingly aggressive in restating the same things.
It would seem to me that you've proven that it's not about time at all but a lack of merit to the primary point that you are asserting so strongly.
I have to wonder why you are so invested in believing that bad people can't truly be Christians when you've already acknowledged that other bad people can indeed be Christian and you've acknowledged further, that being a Christian has no hard definitions given the highly intepretive nature of this religion (as can be seen via the many sects, readings, translations, breakoffs and more).
Its almost as if you badly want to associate being Christian with being supirior to non Christians and allowing awful people to correctly declare their religious statuses hurts your wanting to denigrate others by asserting that your faith makes you a better person.
That's just one plausible explanation. Of course I wouldn't need to hypothesize if you engaged honestly and actually covered any of the many holes in your reasoning but you ~"don't have the time" (as your multiple comments avoiding answering oh so clearly show).
Mike Johnson isn't a "bad" person, but we can form a pattern from his actions and words. He's likely a person who is using religion for his personal gain, just like many religious leaders likely are.
I'd say that a Christian is a person who follows Christ. It's not complicated. Religion has been used by those who hold power to oppress and control the masses for centuries - this is nothing new.
It is utterly insane to me you can verbatim say
Not only because you just, a few comments ago, accused me of defending him, but just on its face.
How is a man doing his best to deprive millions of healthcare, starve children and support a Christo whitenationalist fascist regime headed by a pedophile not a bad person???
I am utterly befuddled at your moral compass.
Sure it's not complicated if not for the many complications I've already listed but you've just decided to keep ignoring.
At this point you keep responding but refuse to address anything I've said so what point is there?
Wasn't one of your reasons for not responding that you said it wasn't worth your time?
And yet none of this is an explanation for how Mike Johnson or any number of other powerful figures who do things you disagree with aren't Christian.
That’s a pretty broad brushing of a diverse religious group. It sounds like you’re clumping in Catholics with everyone else. Catholics are all about casting people out of the church for not being catholic enough and not so much for sexual predators. But there’s so many small churches based on Christianity, so many different practices…. You just lumped them all together with your grievances with the Catholic Church. It gives intolerance, kind of hypocritical.
That's a ridiculous assertion. I'm sure the follow up sentence ought completely clear up what you must mean here
What in the world???
Are you really taking my very obvious example of a person no one would argue is not Christian, to imply that every Christian must somehow be Catholic?
I cant even begin to see how you misinterpreted my comment in that way.
I did no such thing, and I refuse to believe that you think I did, given that this example couldn't be any clearer.
Its especially ridiculous given my example is used as a means to establish that the definition of Christian is indeed far wider not narrower than the poster I responded to.
This is precisely the opposite of your claim of me narrowing the definition of Christianity with that example. It's uttterly backwards.
My mans you’re like 30 paragraphs into arguing that Mike Johnson is a Christian and that he should not be narrowed out of that category. You then listed a bunch of grievances that categorized a lot of good critiques on Catholic Church. As a Catholic we’ve always been extremely strict on who gets called that title: there’s a bunch of boxes to check. As far as Christian’s go, that’s anyone with faith in the Bible. People who believe, study, and embody the words of Jesus. That can’t be Mike Johnson.
It’s very fair for someone who was raised in many Christian churches to decide the virtue of another Christian. There are plenty of good Christian churches out there that produce good Christian’s. Mike Johnson has never been near one of them.
Thanks for coming to my ted talk. I will not be reviewing your arguments as I found them impotent angry and biased.
BS No true scottsman business. This is exactly what the pope example was. You think a person who helps an organization propagate heinous crimes falls under that definition?
Your definition is arbitrary, based on interpretation.
So then Its fair for me too right? Suddenly crickets.
Seems like that Christian spirit I've heard so much about.
You sound like an Austrian painter afraid of a banker.
Responding to me 3 times on one comment is legitimately psycho behaviour, and acting like calling out a no true scotssman fallacy is in anyway related to adolf hitler is childish and nonsensical.
There are plenty of Christian churches whose hierarchies do not extend past the community they exist in. There are plenty of benevolent churches existing under the title Christian. Throw away the baby with the bath water to make your foul point but you sound like a Fox News anchor raving over Islam
If by plenty you mean a tiny minority then sure!
Fucking lol to this idea. I've never seen something more ridiculous stated in such a matter of fact manner.
Thats funny, because thats exactly how you reveal yourself to think when you refuse to acknowledge that bad people can be christian.
Idk: something about criticizing the individual and not the entire group of people you loosely associate together. Swap out any religion with what you’re saying and it’s problematic. Almost like demonizing wide swaths of people is wrong or something. You can bring logical fallacies into this but like bro I’m an old man. I don’t wanna have a college debate on religion with a brand new atheist with a point to prove lmao. Save that shit for someone who has a chance of being impressed. If you can’t understand that there is nuance in the topic then you’re not really the person to be wielding all those logical fallacies anyway my guy.
This comment doesnt make sense in context. You act like you're answering a question, but no question was asked for which this is an answer.
You also clearly are trying to pretend that somehow acknowledging that mike johnson is christian is the same thing as accusing every christian of being exactly like him, which is obviously and openly in bad faith.