“This is how we should order our lives together,” he said. “And frankly, yes, we are going to impose it upon you. If you don’t like it, I’m sorry, but this is good and right and just if it lines up with God’s standards, and I am going to enforce my morality on you in as much as our morality is God’s morality.”
“You should always check yourselves,” he continued. “Do I believe what God believes? Am I defending what God says is good?”
“And if it is, then you should have the courage to say, ‘This is how we’re going to run our town, this is how we’re going to run our county, this is how we’re going to run our state, and this is how we should run the United States of America by legislating the morality that we can find in the Bible.'”
You mean their made up fake Christian values. If an actual Christian saw what these creeps consider Christian values, they’d be very upset. Pretty sure infidelity, bribery, cheating, fraud, name calling, mockery, gambling, false worship, casting out of strangers and all the rest is exactly contradictory to the book they claim to hold in reverence.
All Christian values are made up, bruh. But I get your point.
No, there are.
The “teachings of Jesus” seem just fine: stuff like love thy neighbour no matter what (aka don’t hate minorities), let the one without sins throw rocks first (aka don’t judge), throwing a tantrum at money changers (aka communist).
If only Christians looked up to the one and only character they literally believe is God in human form and try following his actions.
But alas, those Christians are “Christians”, and most know more abot the teachings of Thomas Aquinas than Jesus Christ.
Alas, there are no true scotsmen
That’s really only true for undefined terms. If I’m scientifically determined to be diabetic, but I say I’m not because I define “diabetes” differently than the medical community at-large, my pancreas still can’t produce insulin. Christians, by every accepted definition, follow the teachings of “Jesus Christ,” hence the name. If any can demonstrably be shown to go directly against those teachings, I’d say the argument that they’re not Christian is pretty solid. It’s only when the claims are defined in non-universally accepted terms that the fallacy exists. Like, “No true Scotsman brushes their bottom teeth before brushing their top teeth,” is obviously not a true statement, but “All true Scotsman have a non-zero amount of ‘Scottish blood,’” is acceptably true as long as “amount of Scottish blood” is actually a determinable value.
I would have gone with RINO, but I get ya. When is a thing not a thing it claims to be though? What’s that thingy called, because it’s this.
As opposed to the traditional catholic values of murdering brown people, burning apostates, progroming Jews, policing every aspect of sexuality, and most importantly enforcing a rigid belief in social hierarchy and the divine rights of nobility?
These xtianists don’t really seem to give a fuck about the Sermon on the Mount very much.