LOL

Worth the wait

Credit the source: comedian *Emo Phillips.*

A classic.

I love that joke.

Exactly. And they never did own Christ. Not to mention that evangelicalism is relatively new in Christian history.

@@solidstorm6129 And yet, like Catholics and every other exclusionary denomination, they're determined they have the original "real" version that the church definitely always believed.

All Evangelicals do is draw boundaries around their belief. They are even worse to the people in their own church.

@@Rhewin I thought that the Roman Catholic Church had given up policing Christianity and was willing to accept other Christian groups as Christian. At least they no longer burn heretics at the stake, right? You just can’t identify as RC unless you accept their doctrines (nor can you actively participate in their rituals-you want a Catholic wedding with the Mass held at the Cathedral, both bride and groom have to be Catholic). At least that’s my understanding. Kindly correct any misunderstandings of contemporary Catholicism I have expressed.

@@solidstorm6129 What? You mean they falsely claim to practice “that old time religion”? I am utterly shocked! 😮

Yes pls

I'd buy one. Maybe even a couple as gifts.

I’m waiting for one that says “Hey everybody, I’m Dan McClellan, scholar of the Bible and religion…”

Yes indeed, while they impose those boundaries on everyone outside their increasingly exclusive groups, without any care for what the rest of us have to say about it.

You mean the Westboro Baptist Synagogue (as they seem to only follow the Old Testament)

@@stephenlitten1789 synagogues have enough trouble in the 21st-century US (and elsewhere, for that matter) without being unfairly compared to fundamentalist extremists for misguided, and lowkey antisemitic, rhetorical effect. I don't recall any synagogues making the news for their members proclaiming that God hates any identity group at all.

@@stephenlitten1789 I took the name from their signboard, not their doctrine. 😉

@@NielMalan I realise that. I was making a joke at their expense

Regarding this comment, Apologists would probably respond (unconvincingly and goalpost shifty) saying the "inspiration of scripture" would cover ethical teachings, and that the doctrine of monotheism also justifies morality, because anything else cannot justify morality. The apologists would be wrong still, but this is what I think they would try to say.

​@@samuelvavia8920I'd say it's just a given that God says to be nice and it's not really needed to be listed. Still maybe emblematic of importance towards beliefs themselves over actions.

@@Dude_bruh I mean, I'm no Christian, but how about starting the list with what the guy himself claimed were the most important rules? Or are those rules not important parts of being Christians? Well, apart from some people for whom this is just an identity.

The Apostles and Nicene creeds also do not include “love thy neighbor “.

@@falconmath it's pretty unilaterally agreed Jesus said that, all the other stuff about Jesus wasn't quite like that at the time

This is not what Inspiring Philosophy said at all. His definition includes protestants, Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox church. His definition is actually very wide. Mormons absolutely aren't Christians using any reasonable definition of the word.

Yup! They've got boundaries figured all backward. Collective narcissism is unhinged like that.

@@luthlexor123 But it excludes the Oriental Orthodox Church, and progressive protestants

@@stephenlitten1789 I don't know much about the Oriental Orthodox Church, but the opening paragraph on Wikipedia says "The Oriental Orthodox Churches adhere to the Nicene Christian tradition". So no, IP's very wide definition would not exclude them. And as for progressive Christians, IP said "some progressive Christians". I agree with that. Some, certainly not all, just go so far in their denial of basic Christian truths. Some progressives deny the existence of God all together. They are of course allowed to do that, but using any meaningful definition of the word, that's not Christianity. This is like the widest possible reasonable definition and people still complain, smh. I think people like yourself just don't want Christianity to have a definition? Is that your goal?

@@luthlexor123 It's the nature of Christ: human and divine. The dissenting view (Oriental Orthodox) is "out of two natures" as opposed to the adopted view "in two natures." This is an obscure point which makes Nestorianism perfectly comprehensible by comparison (but still regarded as a heresy by the majority). There were a number of early church councils, of which Nicaea is the most famous, that saw the dissenting parties labeled heretics. A popular one is dualism, which assigns an evil animus action in the spiritual and /or temporal realm.

Well, I wouldn't agree with that definition, either. It's just too vague. In which way is he the "way"? And salvation from what?

@@DoloresLehmannThat is the thing, though. Not all Christians agree on what the way to salvation is, but they all would say Jesus has something important to do with it

@@samuelvavia8920 Agreed, but "people who think that Jesus has something important to do with salvation" doesn't sound like a compelling definition for Christian.

​@@DoloresLehmanna snappy "elevator pitch" friendly definition might be appealing to seek, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good/accurate/useful definition

Groups often have initiation ceremonies which mark the boundary between identities. For example, one cannot simply land in the US from the UK and declare oneself "an American" (and be taken seriously). From everything I see, Mormons baptize according to the Trinitarian formula. So while their ordinations may be invalid and their beliefs heretical, their baptisms - while illicit, are nonetheless, valid. Therefore, they are as Christian as any white evangelical. And should the time come when the Spirit moves them, I hope they will be encouraged by the knowledge that there are so many of us already in full communion with the Holy See who are eager to welcome them home ❤

45,000!? I heard there was only 1 true denomination from a christian I got in argument with who was being very gatekeepy about christianity.

@@tomgames8616 Funny how there are thousands of Christianities, and so many of them gatekeep that they are the only true Christianity, yet when told their group is just a tiny group in the scheme of things, they'll talk about 2 Billion Christians. Logical consistency isn't the strong suit of most Christians.

Kind of embarrassing actually

Coward

If immaturity is what you chef kiss at I pray you meet Christ.

It’s not the win you think it is lol

It's the perfect response when Inspiring Philosophy has been blathering thus far (as he always does) and looks like blathering further 😂

Now that sounds quite lovely. Maybe I’d have to look further into it. Even if it’s for educational sake.

Happy saint Patty's day

@@Dude_bruh Happy St Patty's Day ☘️🧡☘️🧡☘️🧡☘️

What about people who are just really kind but don't believe in Jesus? I'm just curious.

@@theundone777 In Celtic Christianity there is no eternal damnation. Hell is only a place where the soul is cleansed of all the darkness, and negativity accumulated in this life. We all return to the Creator. In the Old Testament God says that we are all His/Her children. That all prayers are heard and answered even those of the unbeliever.

Prescriptivism is a very conservative approach to semantics, probably favored by religious conservatives because of how it helps them structure power, values, and boundaries like Dan keeps talking about.

It just pisses me off how stupid it is. Like his stupidity is an insult to Jesus and God, and it bothers me so much!

Nope, not what he's saying at all. Go look at IP's response to this, and actually learn what a NTSF is.

@@rockweirdo8147 I've watched the response. Doesn't change anything I said. I wasn't even addressing the No True Scotsman Fallacy, I was addressing the circular reasoning he commits right off the bat. And that reasoning implies that he and other members of Christianity who subscribe to the same doctrines and dogmas as he does, have the right to define the term "Christian" as they see fit, without taking into account that other members of Christianity who don't agree on the same specifics also can play that game and exclude him for the very same reasons. What gives him the right to determine what a real Christian is? His criteria would exclude even Paul. It doesn't matter that later theologians and church fathers further developped the earlier concepts. Of course they wouldn't exclude earlier Christians according to later concepts. But they would exclude modern Christians for not adhering to doctrines that earlier Christians didn't even know about, and could still be Christians. That's a double standard right there. Saying: "OK, until now you could be a Christian without believing X and Y, but from now on you can only be a Christian if you believe X and Y" is just ridiculous. His example for a supposed NTSF that actually isn't one, the example with the vegan, is also not very convincing. The answer to "But my uncle eats steak" should no be "Well, no true vegan eats steak", but "Well, no, then he is no vegan at all." A vegan who eats meat doesn't fit ANY possible definition of this word, and that's the difference. However, there are vegans who eat honey and are regarded by other members of the group as "no true vegans", but they argue that veganism is all about animal welfare, and honey consumption increases animal welfare because it keeps bees from going extinct. There are vegans who still use their previously bought leather items, because they argue that it wouldn't help the animal anymore if they now threw them away. Other vegans scold them for it. And so on. Definitions tend to have blurry lines. But no one owns a definition per se.

@@DoloresLehmann - I doubt you did watch the video, I know that because of this: "without taking into account that other members of Christianity who don't agree on the same specifics also can play that game and exclude him for the very same reasons" -Yeah, that's the point, thanks for making it for me. Mormons can exclude others, in fact they do, and that's fine, but Christian Churches exclude them and they are the majority and biblically based. And no, it wouldn't exclude Paul, again, actually watch the video; Just because the term "trinity" didn't exist, doesn't mean the idea behind it didn't exist. "A vegan who eats meat doesn't fit ANY possible definition of this word, and that's the difference." - This goes against your own point and Dan's point. If definitions don't matter, then anyone can change the definition to fit what they wish. Mormons change the definition of Christianity to fit themselves in, that is however not agreed with or supported by any Christians Churches. So, you are correct, it's not a NTSF, but neither is saying that mormons aren't Christians, as they goes against the agreed definition among Christians; Just how the man who claimed to be vegan, went against the agreed definition of veganism.

sassenach

@@tussk. oh it's worst than that. Irish and English mixed in there. There were rumors at holiday gatherings about someone Irish in the direct lineage but Nanna said we don't talk about that.

That's why we have the scripture to do that for us. The Catholics don't deny that Christ is God. However LDS and JWs do deny He is God. You see what I'm getting at. How can you say you are a Christian when you are denying Christ's Godhood when the Man Himself stated clearly he was God. Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” I am in Hebrew is YWHA the name the Lord spoke to Moses on top of Mount Sinai.

@@IDK_._MANLDS doesn’t deny Christ’s Divinity and title as God. It is taught on the website that they believe that Jesus Christ is YWHW The God of the Old Testament.

@cohenclare8474 Mormons hold the unique belief that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct beings. Coped this strait from the website. They believe He is part of God not fully God. Basically worshiping two Gods.

Amen brother

​@@IDK_._MANnot all protestants agree with the aspects of the Trinity. Some say they are one being, others say they are separate. But no one questions their Christian status. Why is it different for the LDS in your eyes? We believe there are three members of the Godhead who are separate beings but are all of the same godhead. They work together in perfect unity for our salvation

Who is this Skoble?

A professional philosopher who actually examined this issue and who Dan has no actually responses. Just like fluff he presented in response to IP doesn't actually hold up when placed under any scrutiny kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m7mUnLxlmL_VpJs.html

Then you R just ignorant!!

@Bible-Christian you know, I’ve noticed a ton of your initial replies end with an “in conclusion” paragraph. All of your other replies have much shorter sentences, completely different wording, and are usually more aggressive. Seems like someone is leaning a bit on ChatGPT for rapid responses.

@Bible-Christian Jesus fucking Christ, man. Give it a rest.

In my estimation, nobody actually knows what the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth were in the first place. So outside of the early first century, nobody can really claim to be following any teachings that aren't being filtered through later writers.

@@rainbowkrampus fair enough. But you know what I meant.

[insert meme of Homer and Bart sitting in the dark watching TV, patting the couch, saying "Join us..."]

I agree. Why should we progressive Christians want a spot at a table that Jesus would have flipped? We have no need to validate, applaud nor bolster the cruelty of evangelicals.

Amen!

As a Satanist come have a beer at my table!

My guess is Jesus would too.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the term theologically there, in my personal opinion "someone who considers themselves to be a follower of Jesus' teachings" would be more euseful, since it would include people who do not believe jesus to be divine but who consider him to be a important teacher and themselves followers of his teachings. I hope that was somewhat understandable.

I think it's tough cuz depending upon central that could easily include Muslims, and idk if either side would see it that way

No. It means someone who is part of the European religious tradition. Just like Hindu means someone who is part of the non-Muslim Indian religious tradition. American evangelicals aren't Christians, neither are Mormons, but some American Protestants are Christians, and nearly all American Catholics are.

Yep, since it basically means Christ follower, that’s really the only feature that’s necessary to being Christian.

I agree. Its literally in the word. I'm am a little confused with Dan's argument here. Can I call myself a Buddhist even if I don't believe or practice it? I guess I could ... but why would I?

True Christians don't belief in the Trinity haha

Anyone who tries to even remotely argue such concept his just dumb. I just recently watch a scholar debunking IP claims on the church Father. My friend and I are currently going through Tertullian and we are pulling his text apart to demonstrate what he actually taught. We just did part 1 (2 hours of recording for the first 5 chapters). Let's put it this way if Tertullian was ever a Trinatarian good lord he was extremely bad one. But we can see how Modelism as inspired since we see the exact same phrasing. I can give you a link if you are interested to listen

The Nicene Creed made dogmatized what was already an accepted Church doctrine. Just because the word Trinity wasn't used doesn't mean the belief wasn't there.

@@TheEagleChristian the issue the belief wasn't there. The pre-nicene Orthodoxy was Subortionism

@@ericmacrae6871 which fits the Trinitarian belief because the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son 👍

@@TheEagleChristian it doesn't because Trinitarian belief says that the Son CANNOT be a lesser divine being which is what Subortionism teaches. Keep in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity says that there can only be 1 God in 3 distinct persons. Yet, Subortionism like I already stated it teaches that Jesus is another divine being that is subordinate to the Father. You will never going to find a single quote where it says that Jesus is only subordinate in his human nature, They will have no problem saying that Jesus is another God that is subordinate to the Father

If this is an example of him getting "kicked around" I think MJ is doing more than fine against these so called "scholars" kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m7mUnLxlmL_VpJs.html

@@gregogrady8027 lol

The stupidity of this comment leaves me speechless...

The Bible is not the final word of religion. That is the central Protestant heresy. It is designed to take power away from the Church institutions, saying "you don't need to study anything, just read this book! Everything is there!" This is a deliberate lie.

@@jamesarnette1394there is a great amount of wisdom in the stupidity of this comment

Yeh, true that. Unfortunately, the Bible didn't exist when JC was around. Besides the fact that most original followers of Jesus were Jews.

@@toniacollinske2518 The Bible did exists at the contemporary time of Jesus, but the New Testament didn’t obviously

*MOST people aren’t willing to kill each other for LaCroix

YOU HERETIC! Lacroix IS soda! You shall boil in the vats! Wait, what's your position again?

@@andrewsuryali8540 🤣

That's not quite what's happening. It's more like football players come in to your chess club and start kicking over the tables, saying "What? We're just playing chess", and you say "No you're not", to which someone else looks at you and says "Can't you all just let each other do your thing? You're both just playing chess"

@poisontango As a member of a christian group that this guy says is not, I feel the same. Who is he to tell me I'm not ? And yes, why all the fighting ? Seeing people like this, I actually would rather not be called a christian.

Mormons pose as a Christian Church, they are starkly different and cultish in behavior, therefore actual Christians separate themselves from them. It's not that hard to understand.

​@luthlexor123 You sound an awful lot like a Fundamentalist/Christian Conservative with that logic. Framing it with that analogy, if I didn't know any better, I'd say the very existence of Non-trinitarians and Progressive Christians is tantamount to them coming to your communion and flipping your trays mid-communion and dumping your new members midway through their baptisms. Eerily similar to the logic of how "the gays" existing apparently trample on religious freedom to American Evangelicals

Please don’t lump Protestants in with Evangelicals. I was raised in an Affirmed Protestant faith. That means Everyone is truly welcome and no one is going to try to change you. I also studied World Religions in school, and don’t have a PhD, but did take a particular interest in the LDS. Every single person has a right to believe or not believe and that sacred right needs to be respected. As for my own faith, the LDS lost me with “one true church”. I don’t believe God works in exclusivity, but if you feel that in your testimony, I’m not going to tell you you belief system is wrong, or send young adults to your home to convert you. I will respect you. My faith is that God has a greater plan than we can imagine that includes the world, it isn’t for us to worry while we live, but to live our one life.

Any actual study of LDS can almost immediately identify the problems with scripture and false teachings it brings to the table. It is at its core a heretical and blasphemous doctrine.

I read their material from their website; it isn't hard. Joseph Smith is upfront with his beliefs, and is straightforward when saying that all the other churches have lost their way. Check out the King Follet discourse. That is more than enough to show Mormonism is not traditional Christianity of any kind.

​@@bradbowers4414 No one here is arguing whether or not Mormonism is "traditional" Christianity though.

What other relevant definition is there? We can all use our own definitions, but that impedes communication. Historical ones are the most useful in this context.

He talked about this in a recent video. Yes, words have no meaning until we ascribe a meaning to them.

Maybe spend some more time learning kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m7mUnLxlmL_VpJs.html

See, that’s where we would agree. Of course, people like that guy would disagree. Or people who insist on needing the Holy Spirit and works from the spirit, for that matter. It’s a shame they can’t come to an agreement on that. Unlike pagans, from what I recall. (Just thought that last bit would be a good contrast.)

"If someone claims to be Christian, then they are." Then this is the actual definition of christian, no christ following necessary. Which, yeah, I'd agree with that.

Supposed teachings

I go a step further and define Christianity as belief that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ can reconcile God and Man. But I won't give someone a hard time if they merely believe Jesus as a teacher and not as a Savior.

There's a decent amount of treatment in the NT about false teachers which is worth adding more as an addendum for personal judgment, but generally yeah anyone who can affirm "Jesus is Lord" or some other christ centered quip (it's in the name after all!) but it's more about a shorthand to rally together and is no substitute for deeper investigations into each other, not for exclusion, but for understanding, learning, and genuine friendship.

Sounded smug and dismissive. It's probably off-putting for anyone who isn't already a fan.

White evangelicals didn't formulate the historic Christian creeds. Those would be ancient brown Christians, and its their creeds that Dan is ignoring.

@@luthlexor123and who said we had to follow those ancient creeds? Dead people? They’re optional.

@@solidstorm6129 You don't have to follow them. But it's generally considered pretty rude to just change the agreed upon definitions set in place for thousands of years because you think words don't have meaning.

@@luthlexor123 considered rude by who? Are you aware that this religion and its practices have changed significantly since its start almost 2,000 years ago?

Arrogant or not he is correct. Dan is far more arrogant and has the misfortune of also being wrong.

@@gregogrady8027 How is he correct?

@@munbruk kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m7mUnLxlmL_VpJs.html

U would know nonsense!!!

​@@davidjanbaz7728 Thanks to InspiringPhilosophy's big mouth, yes we do.

@@davidjanbaz7728 Yes. It comes from fundamentalists.

And yet he’s some of the best that Christian apologetics has to offer.

@@magepunk2376 and the bar is already so low

Dan has no actual arguments that can hold up to actual philosophers and instead uses sophistry to argue with Jones. Jones called him out on this in his response video. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m7mUnLxlmL_VpJs.html

@@gregogrady8027Straight question: What philosophical credentials does Inspiring Philosophy have?

Yes. My reaction at that point of the video was "This is just argument by moving the goalpost".

That's why I prefer Insipid Pedantry.

Nah I may come off bias because I am Christian. But I don’t think Dan is right. The generalization still wouldn’t work in the favor of Dan. Because the identity of a Christian would still be tied to the essentials. Dan is special pleading here and appeal to the idea that a word can be defined in multiple ways, which ultimately discredits the word itself. Either we come to understand a word or it loses its value. If I can say I’m an atheist but I just mean that I lack the belief in God, until a certain God is considered, then we have lost the value of the definition of atheist. Because then I don’t truly lack a belief in a God.

Insipid Theosophy is also a good one 😂

@@2percentmusic204 The problem with your viewpoint is that "the essentials" are the very thing being debated. Therefore, it is to assume the conclusion to say "x group doesn't believe in the essentials."

@@2percentmusic204 Dan obviously isn't right on this one. Inspiring Philosophy's definition is very wide. He includes all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Protestants who hold to the essentials of the faith. These "essentials" have been defined for well over 1500 years. This isn't some "White Evangelical" power grab, as Dan disgustingly implies. Most of the people who came up with the creeds would have been brown, for goodness sake! Dan is just purposefully trying to muddy the water.

They don't. People on the internet, however, do throw the word "Logical fallacy" around very flippantly.

InspiringPhilosophy's definition absolutely includes non-evangelical protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox church. He isn't using a narrow definition at all.

@@luthlexor123 he’s using the definition that excludes who he wants to exclude but erroneously uses the term “Christian”. That’s the whole point of the video

@@couragecoachsam - "All vegans don't eat meat. But I'm a vegan and I eat meat. No true vegans eat meat." That's apparently a NTSF according to Dan, however, according to people who passed a basic informal logic class and their professors, that's in no way a fallacy. IP's definition of Christian is what all non-laymen Christians use. Mormons, trying to pose as Christians, want to be included, however go against the basic tenets of Christianity, and don't follow the teachings of Jesus, therefore, Christians exclude them from their group. They can identify as Christians, however no other Christian church will accept them.

The early Catholic Church, mostly. Not that he'd admit it.

@@digitaljanus probably because he’s evangelical, right? Don’t evangelicals hate Catholics?

I don't think he talks about which denomination he would belong to, but I doubt he's evangelical.

@@stever7613 oh? If I may ask, what would make you think that? I’m genuinely curious to hear what you have to say.

Far more important is the love of God. We recognize each other by our love for one another but the foundation of Christianity is the relationship and love for God.

@@gregogrady8027 💯 Jesus talked about the two greatest commandments and love God was first but the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself. I agree with you. I do however think we tend to under focus on the loving each other part if I had to critique.

@@gregogrady8027 also, my original comment was John 13:35.

Mormons believe they are gods... I think it's a safe bet to say they aren't Christians.

Muslims "believe in Jesus" too. Are they Christian?

@@luthlexor123 Muslims don't have the practice of communion, so no.

@@luthlexor123Muslims don't identify as christian. So no.

Mormons also believe themselves to be God, directly in opposition to Jesus and His teachings, not to mention all the other contradictions of mormonism and the bible. Belief in Jesus and communion, doesn't make a Christian, and I've never heard anyone say it does.

​ @rockweirdo8147 I am not sure where you get that, since most people do consider Mormons to be Christians, and they also self identify as Christians. In fact, that was in the video, gave the stats from a poll on which groups consider them Christians, and clearly a lot of people do. Including themselves, who self identify as Christians. You can't say they are not Christians just because what they believe contradicts the bible, since all Christians believe some things that contradicts the bible.

Yeah, real funny when you can't actually address philosophical arguments on the issue.

@@gregogrady8027 odd that you make no points. you complain about not addressing the philosophical issues but you make none your own or refute any I made. what is your point in posting other than to whine?

Yeah, what was Christ thinking when he rebuked the religious leaders of his day. Jesus obviously had no idea what the standards of following him would actually require.

@@gregogrady8027 He rebuked him according to his own standards, not exactly unique or impressive a move.

What is the NTSF? Plus, it seems like IP's fans are coming to this comment section as well.

@@samuelvavia8920 no true Scotsman fallacy

@@DragonZlayerx12 Thanks! Can't believe I couldn't put two and two together, lol! 🙃😀

@@samuelvavia8920 Given your tastes in liking this channel, I'm not surprised you couldn't

He literally presents the definitions, examples, scholars and philosophers who agree with him. Dan presents nothing more than his own sophistry and arrogance.

@@gregogrady8027 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 No.

I've heard he's mormon

He is a practicing Mormon. Dan tells his whole story on Mormon Stories youtube.

No he didn't. Dan just doesn't know what a No true scotsman fallacy is.

"All vegans don't eat meat. But I'm a vegan and I eat meat. No true vegans eat meat." That's apparently a NTSF according to Dan, however, according to people who passed a basic informal logic class and their professors, that's in no way a fallacy.

​@@rockweirdo8147It is a fallacy. A vegan may eat meat at given circumstances. They generally don't eat meat, but sometimes social pressure weights too heavy in their minds. That doesn't make them not vegan.

@@howlrichard1028 - No, it's not. What was said, was not, "vegans are incapable of eating meat" it was, "vegans don't eat meat" This is not a fallacy, as the definition of what is a vegan is not arbitrary, a vegan is literally a person who doesn't eat meat. Since it's not arbitrary, it's not a NTSF. Occasionally eating meat when pressured, can disqualify someone from being a vegan, but regardless, that just means they are trying to be vegan and failing. The issue arises when trying to make these odd exceptions effect the rule, when they don't. Otherwise any group classification would be a NTSF, which is nonsense.

I think he quoted Flew because Flew coined the term "No True Scotsman" in the 60s.

Dan would agree with them if it served his purposes. That seems to be the guiding principle in his content.

*denominations d'oh

Who set that boundary? The murderers of Unitarians did. The definition of Christian evolves with every new creed or council. Even the Catholic Church's definition of Christian changed with Vatican 2. Hell, many evangelicals still don't think Catholics are true Christians. The choice of Nicene is as arbitrary as any other. Anyone who claims to follow Jesus is a Christian. The real issue is who is a "saved" Christian -- who has salvation. But even some Nicene Christians will say their own members don't have "saving" faith ....

That's mostly just affirming the boundary set by the dominant group. Even with the catholics and proto-catholics murdering anyone who disagreed with them, there were always people who didn't agree. You just don't hear about them because why would you? Speaking up meant persecution, real persecution, and possibly death. In the modern era, such people are shunned. Derided as crackpots and heretics. They might not necessarily face the same degree of violence but they are certainly ostracized by society. Think about all of the tiny cults that pop up here and there using christian mythology as their template. Some, like the Mormons, held onto some of the dominant group's doctrines. Many others do not. For some people, Jesus was an alien in disguise. Nothing about the Nicene Creed really works under that model. Yet they call themselves christians or followers of Jesus all the same. There is no boundary for any of this stuff, no agreement. This applies to the dominant group as well. What does Bible god entail in the creed? Is everyone talking about the same entity? It would seem not since they can't agree on what Bible god did, does or wants to do. They can't even decide on its basic qualities.

That was set by people who wanted to exclude, and they inadvertently excluded early Christians including the apostles themselves. It's a silly definition.

The best part with people like IP is telling them that they’re not a true Christian. That really throws them for a loop.

@@Rhewin I do find it fascinating that he apparently doesn't realize his rhetoric can be turned right back around on him. "Well you may think you are a true Christian, but true Christians are allowed to define the boundaries of our belief system and what we mean by the term Christian, and unfortunately you didn't make the cut."

Like the fact that his third example wasn't even a fallacy but instead an argumentative criticism? The fact people take Dan seriously as either a theologian or a philosophers is jaw dropping.

@@gregogrady8027Uh, he's neither of those things. You ok dude?

His name is Michael Jones, and yeah he does that a ton.

Yep - and he probably has a list of things that his "all powerful god" can and can't do that doesn't even include defeating iron chariots.

No that is not what he is saying. he is just refuting that puting definitions of being a christian is commiting a no true scotsman fallacy. He actually says that other christian groups can define whta being a christian means as well. He's just saying tthat it isn't fallacious. Get your facts right.

He literally included all 4 branches of the church with clear definitions and logical presentation of those definitions.

Again, those definitions are NOT agreed upon by those who don't agree, such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. And then what? He then declares that those people are not "Christians." If that's not monopoly of the power to define "Christians," what is? Also, isn't this what Protestants, especially Evangelical Protestants, accuse the Catholic Church of and vice versa? When Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't want to play that game, they are also unilaterally called "non-Christians." Can you see the silly game that TikToker is playing?

What perspective was it written from?

@@Misa_Susaki The publisher was Intervarsity Press, a Christian evangelical non-profit that supports student led evangelization and discipleship on college campuses. That said, if one wanted to read a book favorable of the Mormon viewpoint, one might read a book published by Mormons, but one might not learn much. Although Ropp goes into considerable detail, I'd encourage you to read the Wikipedia article entitled "Book of Abraham" as a primer.

See, I'm VERY hesitant to read a book about scriptures from an Evangelical perspective. It just makes me think "my dogma is true and yours is false bc my book says so". That seems like a bias that would be hard to cut through.

@@Misa_Susaki I understand your hesitancy, although I think this is categorically different. Most of the Mormon scriptures were on golden plates that were transcribed using the Urim and Thummin, before being reburied (IIRC). In contrast, the Mormon Church actually has pieces of the Book of Abraham with Joseph Smith's hand written translation in the margin. Joseph acquired this papyri before the Rosetta Stone was widely known so translation of hieroglyphs was not widespread. Today, we can translate the papyri, plus, we have other copies of the same text, so we can compare what they actually say to the translation by Joseph Smith.

I'm very familiar with the Book of Abraham and all of the criticisms and apologetics related to it. When it comes to learning about the history of my church, I prefer to go to secular academics. I really can't trust people who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Bias. You have to avoid as much bias as possible when it comes to history.

Oh my goodness. Thanks for sharing.

Not really funny to display your ignorance when you have actual philosophers who are authorities on the subject telling you that you are wrong.

@@gregogrady8027 This is literally an entire video on how a logical fallacy works but you’re using appeal to authority fallacy to explain why Dan is wrong. Wow 💀

@@megatronsroyalemissary382 - The man who coined the fallacy, disagrees with Dan's assertions as to what a NTSF is, Dan doesn't ever really list any sources, all he ever does is make an appeal to authority, "It's the consensus" every video. A NTSF is defined as Changing the definitions of a term to exclude a counter example, having a definition is not, by any means, a NTSF. If a group, as Christians do, has a basis of belief, those who go against, add or change that basis, are not considered a part of said group. That is not a fallacy, it is not changing the definition to exclude mormons, mormons were never in there to begin with. "All vegans don't eat meat. But I'm a vegan and I eat meat. No true vegans eat meat." That's apparently a NTSF according to Dan, however, according to people who passed a basic informal logic class and their professors, that's in no way a fallacy.

@@rockweirdo8147 Okay, you made SEVERAL incorrect statements in your comment… both about Dan and about logical fallacies. 1. Firstly, the way that you are defining appeal to authority fallacy is wrong… and Dan isn’t using it either. An appeal to authority fallacy is when one assumes the veracity of a statement because an authority figure said it. If I said, “This man is a doctor, so he is right about how there will never be a cure for cancer,” that is an appeal to authority fallacy. This argument is fallacious because doctors can be either unintentionally misinformed or blatantly misleading. However, representing a consensus that has proven to be demonstrably true is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Citing overwhelming, academic consensus, when proven through DEMONSTRABLE research that can be conducted at home, is not appealing to authority. Evangelicals misuse this fallacy all the time to attempt to make the case that people who believe in evolution due to the scientific data that supports it, are committing an appeal to authority fallacy, which is flat out wrong. Dan never states that a conclusion is true because research said so, in fact, he would rarely hear him say what he thinks is true at all. He just states what the overwhelming scholarly consensus says, and he debunks misinformation that is not supported by any data. Which brings me to my next point: 2. I’m sorry, but Dan DOESN’T list any sources??? Have you watched any of his videos? When discussing data, he always sites articles, books, and loads of research that you can look into to support his conclusions, just because it’s inconvenient for you to take the initiative to look into the evidence Dan presents doesn’t mean he doesn’t present any evidence. 3. “Imagine some aggressively nationalistic Scotsman settled down one Sunday morning with his customary copy of that shock-horror tabloid The News of the World. He reads the story under the headline, ‘Sidcup Sex Maniac Strikes Again.’ Our reader is, as he confidently expected, agreeably shocked: ‘No Scot would do such a thing!’ Yet the very next Sunday he finds in that same favorite source a report of the even more scandalous ongoings of Mr. Angus MacSporran in Aberdeen. … ‘No true Scotsman would do such a thing!’" - Antony Flew, coiner Dan’s definition for a no true Scotsman fallacy checks out. A no true Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to defend a generalization of a certain group by EXCLUDING any counter-examples for not being "pure" enough, which is exactly what Dan stated in this video. 4. Your vegan example is a false equivalence to the argument about Christianity and Mormonism. Because the literal definition of a vegan is someone who doesn’t eat meat, whereas there are NO universally accepted bases of belief in the Christian community (which is HUGE by the way). We know this due to the fact that there are several translations of the Bible that contradict each other, there are several verses, stories, and conceptions of God in the Bible that contradict each other, there are several denominations of Christianity that teach completely different things from each other (which Dan LITERALLY states in this video), and the presupposed inerrancy of the Bible is a fairly recent theological discussion (which the data don’t support, I guess anyone who does a little bit of research with critical thinking isn’t a Christian by your logic?). So to make the case that one particular Christian denomination (Mormons in this case) is going against a fundamental basis of belief in Christianity is, from the get-go, prioritizing one theological belief over another, and is also presupposing biblical literalism, which again, is not a universally held belief among Christians. So who is the one who gets to decide what basis of beliefs is fundamental to Christianity? I implore you to PLEASE represent your arguments with a little bit more critical thinking, and a little less preconceived notions about the person that you’re criticizing. Because pretty much ALL of the talking points that you presented in your argument contained glaring problems.

@@rockweirdo8147 Okay, you made SEVERAL incorrect statements in your comment… both about Dan and about logical fallacies. 1. Firstly, the way that you are defining appeal to authority fallacy is wrong… and Dan isn’t using it either. An appeal to authority fallacy is when one assumes the veracity of a statement because an authority figure said it. If I said, “This man is a doctor, so he is right about how there will never be a cure for cancer,” that is an appeal to authority fallacy. This argument is fallacious because doctors can be either unintentionally misinformed or blatantly misleading. However, representing a consensus that has proven to be demonstrably true is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Citing overwhelming, academic consensus, when proven through DEMONSTRABLE research that can be conducted at home, is not appealing to authority. Evangelicals misuse this fallacy all the time to attempt to make the case that people who believe in evolution due to the scientific data that supports it, are committing an appeal to authority fallacy, which is flat out wrong. Dan never states that a conclusion is true because research said so, in fact, he would rarely hear him say what he thinks is true at all. He just states what the overwhelming scholarly consensus says, and he debunks misinformation that is not supported by any data. Which brings me to my next point: 2. I’m sorry, but Dan DOESN’T list any sources??? Have you watched any of his videos? When discussing data, he always sites articles, books, and loads of research that you can look into to support his conclusions, just because it’s inconvenient for you to take the initiative to look into the evidence Dan presents doesn’t mean he doesn’t present any evidence. “Imagine some aggressively nationalistic Scotsman settled down one Sunday morning with his customary copy of that shock-horror tabloid The News of the World. He reads the story under the headline, "Sidcup Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Our reader is, as he confidently expected, agreeably shocked: "No Scot would do such a thing!" Yet the very next Sunday he finds in that same favorite source a report of the even more scandalous ongoings of Mr. Angus MacSporran in Aberdeen. … "No true Scotsman would do such a thing!" - Antony Flew, coiner Dan’s definition for a no true Scotsman fallacy checks out. A no true Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to defend a generalization of a certain group by EXCLUDING any counter-examples for not being "pure" enough, which is exactly what Dan stated in this video. 3. Your vegan example is a false equivalence to the argument about Christianity and Mormonism. Because the literal definition of a vegan is someone who doesn’t eat meat, whereas there are NO universally accepted bases of belief in the Christian community (which is HUGE by the way). We know this due to the fact that there are several translations of the Bible that contradict each other, there are several verses, stories, and conceptions of God in the Bible that contradict each other, there are several denominations of Christianity that teach completely different things from each other (which Dan LITERALLY states in this video), and the presupposed inerrancy of the Bible is a fairly recent theological discussion (which the data don’t support, I guess anyone who does a little bit of research with critical thinking isn’t a Christian by your logic?). So to make the case that one particular Christian denomination (Mormons in this case) is going against a fundamental basis of belief in Christianity is, from the get-go, prioritizing one theological belief over another, and is also presupposing biblical literalism, which again, is not a universally held belief among Christians. So who is the one who gets to decide what basis of beliefs is fundamental to Christianity? I implore you to PLEASE represent your arguments with a little bit more critical thinking, and a little less preconceived notions about the person that you’re criticizing. Because pretty much ALL of the talking points that you presented in your argument contained glaring problems.

No he presented actual definitions and then explained those definitions using actual scholars and philosophers who agree with Jones.

@@gregogrady8027 The wording of your reply is unclear. It seems like you think I'm wrong, and so are defending IP. If that's the case - nope. He doubled down on the no true scotsman fallacy by claiming again that there's an objective definition - despite Dan pointing out that he's simply wrong. IP wrongly focused on the word 'arbitrary', because he thinks that anything other than his definition is arbitrary, and that his own defintion is not arbitrary. Dan pointed out that all definitions are arbitrary, so in that sense, the no true scotsman is an attempt to undermine someone else's definition and gatekeep it for his own purposes with his own assertions of what is entailed by that definition. To put it simply. IP - they're not Christians. Dan says who? IP - I do, because I made a list of what it means to be Christian. Dan - you don't get to decide what's on the list, and here's why your list is incoherent. IP - but I made a list of what it means to be Christian.

LOL...

@@bengreen171 "Dan pointed out that all definitions are arbitrary" - All definitions are not arbitrary, they are descriptive, they can change, but they aren't arbitrary. Nor was any good reason given for that claim, it was just stated as fact, and the gullible were convinced. If they are arbitrary, then every group includes everybody on earth, and if you say otherwise, you're committing a NTSF... Just in case I have to spell it out for you: that would make the NTSF and having words for people groups, all useless. Also no, a NTSF is not gatekeeping a definition, that would be more aligned with an 'appeal to definitions' fallacy. However, IP did not say his was the only definition for a Christian, so that also falls flat. So, yeah, Dan doesn't know what a NTSF is, even the man who coined the term, his definition disagreed with Dan.

@@rockweirdo8147 from wikipedia - "The principle of semiotic arbitrariness refers to the idea that social convention is what imbues meaning to a given semiosis (any activity, conduct, or process that involves signs, including the production of meaning) or sign." The point here is that any definition exists for a reason, and that reason is a non necessary one - a choice made by people and agreed to by a consensus of some degree, in order to fulfil some requirement in the communication of ideas and concepts. Yes, it is very useful for at least some definitions to be very concise and universally accepted, but this doesn't mean they aren't arbitrary. There is no logical law or natural law that says a definition must adhere to one objective principle. The point here is that there are different senses of the word 'arbitrary', and IP doesn't seem to realise this. "If they are arbitrary, then every group includes everybody on earth," That does not logically follow. Arbitrary does not mean 'non existent'. "Also no, a NTSF is not gatekeeping a definition, that would be more aligned with an 'appeal to definitions'" The NTSF is a form of appeal to definition. "even the man who coined the term, his definition disagreed with Dan." I'm betting you haven't actually read 'the man's' work. You should always be wary when IP shows you a snippet of some philosopher or Biblical expert. 9 times out of 10, further reading will expose a flaw in his argument. In this case, it's the use of the word arbitrary alluded to earlier. It turns out that IP doesn't understand the definition of the word as it is deployed in the example he gave. "However, IP did not say his was the only definition for a Christian, so that also falls flat." err - he pretty much did. That's literally his defence against the NTSF. He's claiming it's not an NTSF because he's using an 'objective definition.'

@MissMentats I'm lds, half scottish, and I put salt on my porridge. (Or porage ! ) Does that make me a "true scotsman" ? =oD

@@tezzerii I put Mormons in my porridge, I think this makes me Christian. Unsure

@@MissMentatsThou shalt not put mormons in thy porridge.

@@tezzerii I can put porridge in my Mormons?

@@MissMentatsAbsolutely ! with salt or sugar. =oD

I declare you to not be a Christian. I have spoken! See how easy that is? 😂

Pretty much anyone looking at this objectively.

​@@gregogrady8027 There's no such person.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m7mUnLxlmL_VpJs.html Better buckle up buttercup

What happened to not judging? This isn’t very Christlike of you.

@@Call_Me_Rio "judge with righteous judgment" This video was objectively bad, it doesn't look like he even checked what he said "words don't have to have meaning" yes, yes they have to, or they are sounds and not words This video wasn't something you would expect from a scholar, he should remain in his bubble instead of trying to address things he doesn't understand

I commented the same on Dan's video. He said that debates are "performative identity politics" and that he doesn't have to engage with Mike's identity politics, despite the fact that he already is lol I don't think anyone will ever see Dan in a one-on-one debate. If it isn't his r/iamverysmart atheist buddy on their joke of a podcast, then Dan will just clip farm for more views.

They reject the trinity and hold to polytheism, specifically that God had a God. That's not exactly compatible with any historic Christian creed.