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.
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.
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:
That’s conceding that the Bible is a unique moral document, probably miraculous.
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.
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.
That’s a incendiary affliction of the third degree!