[aliqot]

Are all Christians absolute nutcases? All I see is someone who's devout, or possibly belonging to a fundamentalist sect of Christianity.

Despite how progressive we nerd types signal to be, HN can sure be a boy's club of in-groups sometimes.

I'll take my downvotes, I mean it. You guys in this comment thread are not bringing value to this discussion.

[feanaro]

I would argue that anyone who professes beliefs such as the person in question is, in fact, an "absolute nutcase". The extreme beliefs themselves are what makes someone a nutcase.

A primary example of such a nutcase belief complex is: 1. That X is the only true religion. 2. That believing in false things is not a natural right and is heresy. 3. That heresy can and should be punished.

This belief complex has been demonstrated publicly by the mentioned person.

[aliqot]

Didn't think this level of Xenophobia would fly on HN, but I'm not exactly surprised either.

[dkarras]

wait, standing against someone who wants to give the state the rights to kill me (a heretic by their definition) is xenophobia now?

[pmarreck]

You are conflating anti-Christian with anti-reason. This person's beliefs as professed by those quotes, whether or not they are Christian (and many of them are certainly not, for example, in line with Catholic beliefs, which is my area of expertise) are not reasonable.

If someone expresses an unreasonable belief, such as that it is moral to execute "heretics", then that person deserves scorn regardless of whatever "belief club" they claim to belong to. Not only that, he himself is a "heretic" to Catholics for believing that Pope Francis is some kind of impostor installed by the liberal MSM media.

Sorry, but sometimes a nutcase is just a nutcase. The easiest way to identify a nutcase is identifying professed beliefs that are either internally inconsistent or that no reasonable person would remotely agree with.

[dragonwriter]

> Not only that, he himself is a "heretic" to Catholics for believing that Pope Francis is some kind of impostor installed by the liberal MSM media.

Technically, believing a valid papal election did not occur and that others believe in it only because of a fraud conspiracy when such an election did occur is not heretical, even from the perspective of the doctrine of the part of the Church that recognizes the election.

I'm not saying that this guy isn’t a heretic from the point of view of (what the MSM describes as, from his PoV) the Catholic heirarchy, or even that his sedevacantism isn’t rooted in heresy, just that the particular view pointed to isn’t heretical on the surface (since it doesn't touch on, much less conflict with, any essential doctrine.)

[pmarreck]

Fair, thanks for the clarification