this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
282 points (99.3% liked)

news

886 readers
1155 users here now

A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.

Rules:

  1. Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
  2. Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
  3. Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
  4. Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
  5. No link shorteners
  6. No entire article in the post body

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, as the head of the orthodox Christian faith, he gets to define it however he wants. You can disagree, and that's fine, but, according to Orthodox Christianity, in this moment, he is correct. For the Scotsman example, it's like the king of Scotland saying anyone outside out their borders is not a Scotsman, which would be correct. It's not a no true Scotsman fallacy, just as the king of the Scots can define what a Scotsman is, the Pope can define what a Christian is (according to the orthodoxy).

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

No, as the head of the orthodox Christian faith, he gets to define it however he wants.

My friend, the Pope is not even a member of the Orthodox Christian faith

They should rename the fallacy "no true Christian" at this point as 99.9% of times I see that fallacy, it's in this context.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

My friend, the Pope is not even a member of the Orthodox Christian faith

I think you're thinking of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, where I meant little o orthodox. He's also head of the big and little c catholic church, which, again, gives him authority to define it as he wishes. You don't have to agree with it, and that's fine.

They should rename the fallacy "no true Christian" at this point as 99.9% of times I see that fallacy, it's in this context.

It certainly would be more relatable to more people. Again, I disagree that it applies in this case. It isn't some random person saying these people aren't Christian. It's the person in charge of Christianity (at least, his flavor of it, by catholic implies all of them). The reason there are so many forms of Christianity is because people won't always agree. That still doesn't make this fallacious though.