You must log in or register to comment.
Jesus was a pussy for caring about people.
- MAGA
Priest going on a rant during mass? Unheard of! Why can’t they just sit down and do their job XD
maga church, the ones that Chris prat and his brother attends, thats what they mean.
Since they said “mass” and “priest”, I’m guessing they’re talking about a catholic church. I have been to a lot of catholic masses, and if my experience is anything like other people’s experience, catholic priests seem to actively avoid political statements in their sermons. I’m sure political priests are out there, but I’ve been to a lot of different catholic churches all over america as a kid, and I never heard a political sermon.
Almost always, sermons are either about the specific bible passages for that day, or they’re a story that the priest heard, or they’re about a moral dilemma that the priest observed somewhere or made up, or they want you to donate money to something, and so the sermon is about how good that thing is or will be.
It wasn’t until recently, when I was forced to watch some catholic masses on the internet, that I ever remember seeing any political sermons. And they were from a priest I think called Chris Alar, who also said that his family all advised him not to become a priest. When he told that story, I think he was implying that his family all thought he was far too stupid to get people to listen to him. But anyways, he talks a lot about politics and even argues with YouTube comments to his previous sermons during his sermon. He truly comes off like a pompous idiot, at least to me.
I finally got my mother to watch the priest I think called Mike Schmidt instead, who seems to give the typical catholic sermons that I grew up with.
Sorry for the detour, but my point is that I suspect the odds are good that this priest didn’t actually say “ICE.” He probably just talked about treating immigrants in the way that the Bible tells you to. I think it’s this thing with bigots that when they hear somebody talking about bigotry in general, they somehow hear it like they were mentioned by name.
jesus, known for his bigotry and hatred, of course.
I’ve heard of churches that have been asked to stop doing the Sermon on the Mount due to concerns that it’s “woke”
they love the bit about the persecution though, cosplaying as persecuted in order to trick God into letting them into heaven is like 80% of their plan
Leviticus 19:33 and many others say the exact same thing.
Leviticus 19:33 commands, "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.
Everyone knows modern Christians only care about the portions of Leviticus that confirm their hatred for gay people.
Consider the work of Old Testament scholar James K. Hoffmeier, which has been embraced by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization devoted to reducing immigration across the board.
…
In Hoffmeier’s view, the duty to not oppress “strangers” (“ger”) found in Leviticus 19:33 does not apply unless a person already has gained legal approval to be within a nation’s borders. That “legal status” had to be obtained “from the appropriate authority in that particular culture” or else he or she remained a “foreigner” (“nekhar” or “zar”).
The problem with Biblical (and Rabbinical) scholarship is that people argue over this shit extensively and ad nauseum. Hell, the Talmud is just an extended historical account of these arguments (often highly pedantic and endlessly nuanced, turning on interpretations of definitions of terms used in historical observations).
You can come at a modern policy argument waving the Bible and find a dozen other people from every side of the debate doing the same.
Guess its all just mega churches and scams left for them.
Plenty of the rural red state churches and strip mall wanna-be fire and brimstone pastors left.
Megas get all the press. But plenty of them just play to the crowd and are just as happy to go hard in the paint for a Hillary or Newsom or Obama as a Bush or Trump.
Hell, some of the most deranged criticisms of Trump (he’s the antichrist, he’s possessed by a devil, he’s a skin walker / lizard person / hologram / secret Communist) came from Cruz/DeSantis allies during the primaries.
Indeed, the MAGA fucknuts will do anything to avoid paying taxes.
Hell, some of the most deranged criticisms of Trump (he’s the antichrist, he’s possessed by a devil, he’s a skin walker / lizard person / hologram / secret Communist) came from Cruz/DeSantis allies during the primaries.
They seem to have gotten in line to some degree since. But then again, expecting churches (with private jets) to be moral is maybe asking a bit much.
Extreme wealth is a mental illness. Religious leaders aren’t immune.
If anything religion seems to lower that threshold.
I do find it interesting how many arguments I’ll see online that rely on an idealized version of Christianity to make a point of Christianity, as though Christianity would be pure if people followed the “actual” morals. But like, this is what it is, they’re talking about a Christian church in the United States of America and the argument is that if MAGAts followed that Christianity, they’d be following “real” Christianity. Christianity was an engine of colonialism and all of the genocidal violence within it; institutions are what they do, not what they say they want to do.
I think a lot of people don’t realize that they’re making conservative, revisionist narratives when they want to privilege hypocrisy in their arguments rather than morality.
The hilarious irony is that Jesus was quite clear: the Law of Moses is eternal… therefore all the progressive christians have it wrong.
The whole “no you don’t have to get your dick chopped” thing comes from Paul… who directly contradicts Jesus on the matter.
Not even Paul said fuck all about slavery being wrong or women being actual people, and he had some very strong opinions on LGBTQ matters. (And Jesus was much worse.)
Not to mention that the early Christians were nothing like what came several hundred years later.
I mean, sure, but what I’m cautioning against is prescribing any normative definition or configuration of Christianity, as it then implies an idealized version is real, and therefore that the problem is that people aren’t following the religion the “right” way, not that there is something systemic that influences how the religion functions in society.
There were baptists in central Europe that allowed women to serve as pastors as early as the early modern period, which is markedly different than what Baptism is like in the US today. During the Second Great Awakening of the early nineteenth century, there were Christian denominations that practiced polyamory and collective property ownership. These were developments that coincided with Christianity as an institution of settler-colonialism and EuroAmerican imperialism, and they were certainly not accepted by larger or more formal denominations at the time; still wouldn’t be today. It should also go without saying that they wouldn’t reflect the churches in the period you’re referring to even if just because they emerged in relation to what came afterward.
It is important to deny ownership of moral values by the institutions that configure and disseminate them for this exact same reason. Even though they serve a purpose within the system they exist in, they meet a need of the people who subscribe to them, and normativity is what stifles their ability to wrestle that utility away from these institutions.
Oh sure, I think my point was more that they’ve cherry-picked what “version” they want to idealize.
Yes, I’m saying “cherry-picking” suggests there are bad and good cherries, when it’s just cherries.
Well, it’s arguable that some of these religious “cherries” are worse than others, but I don’t find any of them to be crisp and delicious.
Yes, exactly, it is arguable, which why I’m saying that you can’t say there’s actually “good” or “bad” cherries.
Check out “postructuralism” and scholars like Derrida or Foucault. The role that language plays in our constructions and effects on things forces us to interrogate the reality of how we understand this thing to be “good” or “bad,” as it is itself subject to the systems of power we are subject to. So, it’s very hard not to reproduce the values we’re trying to challenge when we don’t address how those values are constructed.
Yes, we all know white supremacy is bad, but if it is only bad because it hurts people, then many people think that it only exists at the level of individual actions, like calling someone a slur, and not at a systemic level like how laws and knowledge are oriented around fundamentally devaluing certain groups of people; or why it is those groups of people in the first place besides “hating what’s different.” White supremacy does hurt people, and that is bad, but our understanding of how it does that changes how we understand what is needed to end it.
I think you think that I am failing to think. I also think you are mistaken.
I’ve read Foucault, and you’ve made a compelling argument. But I don’t get what you’re trying to say in this last comment.
So you think you have a better chance of fighting religion as a whole than to get people to follow an idealized version of Christianity, the one that they advertise as when they want to be seen as a force for good.
There is an idealized definition and configuration of Christianity, its Jesus Fucking Christ. Do you act like him and what he taught (or at least try your best to)? Christian. Do you do literally the opposite of what he did and taught? Not Christian. It not hard.
Any religion or philosophy can be twisted for the interests of any state or group. Whether it be Abrahamic religion, Buddhism, Hinduism or State Atheism. I would blame the State more than any Religion itself. It seems very Western-centric to blame Christianity as if it’s anything unique, because if any religion or philosophy had been dominant it would still be exploited by government. What you said that people say about Christianity are also said by people in various religions.
I am still not sure if religions themselves are to blame, or if it is their societies.
The livonian crusade brought
serfdomgod and good morals to my people, I’m sure they were happy!Nah seriously, we still had tribes with pretty loose organization some thousand years ago. Then 800 years ago some lovely people decided the pagans needed God and of course that meant God’s order: feudalism.
Yeah, it’s also not an “airtight” set of beliefs. The bible is a messy collection of books distant from each other in time and goals. You can probably find a passage to justify any point.
Folks looking to use it for their own means are spoiled for choice. Have been for centuries.
But that’s also like, the point. The practice of scripture is about having a shared tool to make sense of things as it is the faith that that tool is indeed the right one to do so. Everyone uses it for their own ends.
Absolutely! It’s a pretty effective gimmick
I think a lot of you have a hard time understanding why religions do harm, and are a bit too prideful about knowing that they do often cause harm.
It isn’t a “gimmick,” and it is also deeply settler-colonial to suggest whatever form of knowledge production you subscribe to happens to be the “right,” one. Many cultures that didnt invent the bigotry we hate also practiced scripture, and devaluing that as a “gimmick” is not only racist, but irresponsible. If being “rational” was insulated from the context that “rationality” existed in, the white men would have fixed themselves in their salons when they thought they were too good for it all. Big surprise:
???
Christianity marked a shift in how humanity thought of itself. The earth, nature, and all the animals were made for men, by the one true God, to use and take as they pleased. This line of thinking led to colonialism, slavery, and even capitalism and the patriarchy.
Doesn’t the book of Genesis come from Judaism?
Colonialism and capitalism absolutely.
I’d argue patriarchy and slavery already existed with other justifications though Christianity was used to entrench them further.
Well the transatlantic slave trade specifically and its extent. The argument, by otherering Africans, in their depictions of them, they then fell under the purview of Christianity’s dominion over everything. And the patriarchy, influenced by Christianity, helped solidify it in western culture.
I’m going to have to see a big ol’source for that one. You’re saying that’s a Christian thing exclusively, and not found in any of the cultural or religious influences on Christianity? How could you even begin to draw that line? Even more, you’re saying that, despite roughly fifteen hundred years of change, that was a core value that existed in the exact same way from the beginning of Christianity to European colonialism? Not even translations effected something so fundamental? Why would Christian patriarchy do this, but not Greek or Roman or Iranian? Why was it absent in Judaism but present here?
Even beyond that, you just subscribed to a normative construction of humanity and morality by asserting that capitalism emerged through this religion, and not that specific property relations and systems of power influenced how both are understood within our culture over time. For example, domination and objectification of the living world are certainly elements in this, but it’s difficult to argue Christianity is why that’s so and not that that was so, and Christianity exists as it does as a result of that.
Edit: I’m also just going to add that, though I’m sure this wasn’t intentional, this also ends up carrying deeply colonial and white supremacist notions of superiority by attributing that much gravity to the one religion that EuroAmerican imperialists happened to subscribe to. They got to have the religion that was so foundational, so world-changing that it marked a break in the entirety of human self-perception? I get were saying capitalism is bad, but exceptionalizing it in this way reproduces narratives that white supremacists find favourable.
https://sceneonradio.org/s5-e1-in-the-beginning/
This podcast is where I first heard the argument. Coming out of Duke University, it’s very well researched. You’d have to listen to seasons 5 and 6 to get the whole story. They cover nuances that my blanket statement doesn’t.
I think a lot of people don’t realize that they’re making conservative, revisionist narratives when they want to privilege hypocrisy in their arguments rather than morality.
Too many words past saliency. You attribute more than the source problem is.
“Institutions are what they do, not what they say they want to do.”
Is the correctly angled form of a pattern of thinking that starts within the individual, and it often looks like:
“Judge me by my intentions, not my actions”
It takes a certain requisite amount of empathy and critical thinking to flip ‘intention’ and ‘actions’ into their proper paths using the self awareness route.
The only meaningful shortcut is the existence of a well patterned role-model(s) in that individual’s life.
Both are in short supply nowadays, leading not to self awareness correction, but to expanding the conceit outwards. “If the Christians were like…If the Senators were like…if Capitalism was like…”.
A simple trap, and one of the most effective ones in holding us back as a collective.
I’m not sure if you meant to use “salient” here (as in you’re using the word incorrectly), but I definitely wasn’t trying make my writing that.
I’m also not sure about what else is said here either. Plenty of people behave immorally despite having role models; and I’d hardly say good people are in short supply despite how doomers insist the world is right now. I’d also caution against resorting to individualist explanations for this as well, and I was trying to discourage that by emphasizing the relationality between individuals and systems.
This is also by no means nothing even remotely new, but the specific form of normativity that people engage with this from did indeed emerge from modern European colonialism, and therefore Christianized notions of moral purity. But by, “nowadays” I reckon you’re not positioning this as a centuries-long development.
And then, “holding us back,” itself casts a normative construction of how things ought to be, which is exactly what I’ve cautioned against. I’d hardly imagine your understanding of a collective addresses decolonialism in a way that doesn’t subordinate groups or values that are “holding us back,” from some idealized, “proper” state that thing should be in by now.
I’m not sure if you meant to use “salient” here, but I definitely wasn’t trying make my writing that.
No, I meant ‘saliency’. The sentence called for the noun form, not the adjective base.
I just clearly failed to explain what it was that I found salient and it’s not as self-evident in the light of your message as I hoped. Alas.
I’m also not sure…state that thing should be in by now.
I appreciate the reiteration, but you’re still
perpendicularparallel (Edit: Geometry is hard) to the point I was trying to make.Which does not contradict yours, but seeks to expose the individualist core from which the sentiments you are focusing on one abstraction layer above stem from.
I was not focusing on individualist anything.
And then, “holding us back,” itself casts a normative…
Oh. This is my dear friend, ‘semantics’ and its effects on perception, isn’t it? That’s what’s going on here.
I have neither time, nor will for this particularly loathsome recurring motif, as of the time of this writing.
It does not matter if my point did not carry across, ultimately. Your message is still fine and if more people followed it, they’d arrive closer to what I was trying and failed to communicate anyways, so by all means, carry on.
Wow, the ego on this guy. I was trying to be gracious with the first comment and really tried to read it with good intent, but I’m not going take this one seriously.
For this who come across this and are confused as to why this person is incorrect (both in their point and how they’re arguing it) feel free to ask, as there are common distortions found here.
Yes, ego. Absolutely no other possible interpretation. My deepest apologies for wasting your graciousness, I am so undeserving of it, and you illustrate your point oh so well here…
[For those who come across this and are confused about this exchange: Do take the other commenter’s original message to heart, and see the rest of his interactions for a demonstration of ‘intent’ vs ‘action’ for a glimpse of mine.]
The Bible and Jesus have some good lessons in it (some archaic lessons too)
But fuck whatever America’s version of Christianity is is mean spirited and cruel and intolerant. Jesus would be disappointed to put it mildly.
America’s version of Christianity is is mean spirited and cruel and intolerant
The Settler Movement is all of these things. But religion is as often a source of opposition as support. The earliest abolitionists were devote Quakers. The earliest anti-war activists were Catholics. The earliest socialists and Communists were Jews.
Nothing about American religion pre-supposes public policy. More often than not, it is the policy that shapes the religion.
Actual Christians are also negative influence on the world and minds so, idk, lesser evil is still better I guess.
If you can believe something that big with no evidence you can be fed anything.
“Actual christianity.”
Bruh, there was no actual christ. Can we please grow up?
The bible is literally unbelievable. It contradicts itself. Which gospel are we supposed to believe? Which version of Jesus? Or do we believe Paul, who claimed Jesus was lord yet altered his teachings?
Define “god” and demonstrate that any god exists. No one has been able to do this, which is why I remain an agnostic atheist. Meanwhile, we have more evidence every day that belief in god causes harm to people, which is why I remain antitheistic.
The god of the christian bible is one of the worst ever conceived. A petty, hateful abuser who demands complete subjugation. People call it “love” when god uses violent slaughter to get his way, such as flooding the entire world. “Don’t worry, the good people went to heaven. That’s better than being alive.” It’s a death cult.
It’s a death cult, in which some of its foundational tenets include torture, human sacrifice, cannibalism, vampirism, and zombies, AND their logo is literally their founder in agony on an ancient torture device.
“It’s totally not a death cult! Now let’s drink his blood and eat his flesh.”
I always just call christianity a fandom and the bible “a sci-fi” novel. I’m somewhat convinced that “religions” are just fandoms from thousands of years ago. In 2000 years I would not be surprised to see “Jedi” as a top “religion” (it’s already nearly 1% of all brits in the uk).
Christianity is a collection of religious philosophies. Not every priests agree on all the details and interpret things differently from one another.
The previous pope and his predecessor could not be further apart in how they interpret the bible.
You are (traditionally) supposed to either ask your local religious authority on how to interpret the bible in context of your community or otherwise study the ancient texts to find your own meaning as an aspiring priest.
I understand their is much zealotism and as always power corrupts (and priests have power)
But to ignore that their are valuable philosophical messages in the ideas of the character that is called christs (fictious or a merge of different philosophers) and that some people are capable of practicing their religion in a beneficial and progressive way is immature.
I absolutely agree that the jaweh character is a petty narcissistic asshole, but thats exactly why i became interested in learning about religion at all. One of the things i quickly caught on is that the Christian god is actually the Jewish god, Christianity is a branch of it specifically around Jesus.
I am not religious nor Christian, i don’t believe anything in the bible describes a real event but Jesus remains a great role model, and quite the social anarchist.
A message of unconditional love, accepting others without judgment and helping those in need, it simply cant be more in contrast with US Nat-C(ristian) hate. That is the contrast what is generally meant with “actual christianity”
But to ignore that their are valuable philosophical messages in the ideas of the character that is called christs (fictious or a merge of different philosophers) and that some people are capable of practicing their religion in a beneficial and progressive way is immature.
You are dangerously wrong. It’s a death cult.
Did you know that all of those good things are even better without the foundation of an abusive god? Do you realize that “christ” has a specific meaning, a human sacrifice to save us from a punishment we do not deserve in the first place?
Please use your brain. People are dying.
Jesus remains a great role model, and quite the social anarchist.
He did not invent his teachings. The golden rule predates him. He preached one way and lived another, he was a hypocrite. He was a delusional narcissist who got a lot of people killed for his bullshit.
Did he do some good? Sure. But there’s more poison in there than you realize. You can do so much better, please find a role model who doesn’t use baseless claims to manipulate people.
A message of unconditional love
Are you kidding? It’s as conditional as it gets, you must submit completely to him or he’ll punish you. That is not love.
accepting others without judgment
He was constantly judging people. At this point, I’m wondering whether you have read the bible.
and helping those in need
When he felt like it.
it simply cant be more in contrast with US Nat-C(ristian) hate.
It’s exactly the same. “Submit or die.”
That is the contrast what is generally meant with “actual christianity”
There is a difference between following Jesus and following christ. Both are harmful, but at least Jesus was (probably) real. There is no actual christ, there are no actual christians.
Please never make the mistake of defending a death cult again.
Put it this way.
There are religious zealots who cause a lot of harm and express a lot of hate.
With your attitude, those will fight and argue with you, affirming your bias.
There are good natured religious folk who don’t pressure others and just savour a personal spirituality.
With your attitude, they simply won’t tell you anything about it, you just assume they’re atheist.
The most religious Christian person in my direct family is my mother in law. She does not go to church cause she believes them to be corrupt. She does not wear any symbols. I only know because my partner who is strictly atheist told me so and that she prays every night for the wellbeing of her family.
There are religious zealots who cause a lot of harm and express a lot of hate.
As commanded by the bible. And we can’t hold them accountable because people like you already gave them permission to lie.
With your attitude, those will fight and argue with you, affirming your bias.
My attitude is irrelevant. An honest person has their mind changed with sufficient evidence. Follow the logic.
Besides, it’s not just people I talk to. There are many atheist shows where believers call in to discuss their beliefs. I’ve heard them justify slavery, genocide, rape, and more using the bible, using commonly repeated christian bullshit.
There are good natured religious folk who don’t pressure others and just savour a personal spirituality.
Beliefs drive our actions. Superstition is deadly.
With your attitude, they simply won’t tell you anything about it, you just assume they’re atheist.
Wrong. I have my own channel, OpenAtheist, where I have spoken with hindu and sikh people about what we each believe and why. Admittedly, I try to take a less confrontational tone there than here. But you’re stupidly defending a literal death cult in an atheism community. You should knock that shit off if you value anyone’s life.
The most religious Christian person in my direct family is my mother in law. She does not go to church cause she believes them to be corrupt. She does not wear any symbols. I only know because my partner who is strictly atheist told me so and that she prays every night for the wellbeing of her family.
But she worships and prays to a violent abuser for mercy from his own cruelty? It’s psycho shit. She needs help.
Please stop pretending these baseless beliefs aren’t deadly. Real human beings are suffering and dying every day because some selfish idiots won’t stop lying, and you’re enabling them.
an atheism community.
Omg i wasted so much time, its not the first time i mis interpret this as a philosophical open minded com.
With your attitude, they simply won’t tell you anything about it, you just assume they’re atheist. Wrong. I have my own channel, OpenAtheist, where I have spoken with
I rest my case the majority quite private religious person isn’t going to argue on your podcast. Leave it to me to do it in their favour because i think its not fair to tar them all with the same brush.
Note to self: please put the phone away.
Omg i wasted so much time
I consider it worthwhile if anyone’s mind is changed. You never know who’s going to read our messages.
its not the first time i mis interpret this as a philosophical open minded com.
I am open minded. Your claims don’t hold up. You’re deliberately rejecting evidence so you can go on pretending death cults aren’t killing us.
I rest my case the majority quite private religious person isn’t going to argue on your podcast.
Why do you keep rejecting evidence? Admit when you are wrong. Other people are dying for your idiocy.
Leave it to me to do it in their favour because i think its not fair to tar them all with the same brush.
You mean like how you tarred this entire community after interacting with me?
But unlike theists, we don’t have magic bullshit to excuse our choices. We have a bit more accountability. I am angry because you are choosing to reject evidence at the cost of human lives, and you’re only concerned about wasting your own time.
You’re a fool. You have blood on your hands.
Note to self: please put the phone away.
Good idea. Maybe don’t connect it to the internet ever again.
Fuck you for lying. Fuck you for choosing death.
Oh come on,
I am not enabling anyone, i am not supporting any of the things you say i am supporting,
I condemn the literal same things you condemn once you describe them.
I have done so in my comments time and time again.
I condemn zealots the same way i condemn Facism.
I have been nothing but respectful towards your position. Yet you harass me with immature cursing.
My sole point is to say that not every religious person is a zealot, zealots an extreme minority.
A zeolot does not always have to be about religion. It describes a person with a strong uncompromising view and tries to force that view on others.
You try to convince me to vilify 2.4 bilion people with a single stroke. You are an extremist. Closer to those you hate then you think.
I still think the church is corrupt as fuck.
I still condemn and recognise all the evil the opium of the masses remains to cause today.
I am not enabling any of that with any of my words nor actions.
But shoot me cause i refuse to believe that 2.4 bilion people are all the devil incarnated.
He did not invent his teachings Did he do some good? Sure He was constantly judging people.
You suddenly forget that none of it is (probably) real? It’s a legend character. Like robin hood.
It very much depends on which book you read by which author. Just like any other philosophical book
You could write a book about how robin hood was a nasty thief, but thats not really what the idea is about.
I’m wondering whether you have read the bible.
At least 5 that i remember that were distinct interpretations. Only one that was actually good though but really like, one of the best books on moral philosophy i have ever read. And all those things you are so sure are a part of if weren’t in it.
There was also one where Jesus detested Jaweh and ridiculed his followers for worshipping a monster. But it’s a very unusual interpretation that the church doesn’t like talking about.
you must submit completely to him or he’ll punish
Thats god, not Jesus. We very much agree the character of god is ridiculously bad.
Please never make the mistake of defending a death cult again.
I am not i am just countering your unreasonable bias.
I understand that in all likelihood your experience with religious folk is zealots, cause your examples of why Christianity is bad is very much what zealots want.
Its not your fault you havent had the chance of talking with good and kind religious people who do exists all over but may not even express they are religious to anyone at all.
I am not such person but i do know such people.
If you have an open mind and find yourself in a respectful conversation with a half decent priest they have no problem admitting that the bible is not to be taken literally.
It’s a legend character. Like robin hood.
You’re the one defending him. Whether he’s real or not does not affect my criticisms of his character. It’s also worth noting that people do think he is real, and kill and die in his name.
It very much depends on which book you read by which author. Just like any other philosophical book
You’re not addressing my points.
You could write a book about how robin hood was a nasty thief, but thats not really what the idea is about.
But there is no one story about Jesus. The gospels disagree with each other. The common thread is that he’s a delusional, narcissistic hypocrite who got people killed with his bad ideas.
one of the best books on moral philosophy i have ever read
Holy fucking shit. There are fictional stories with better morals than the bible.
And all those things you are so sure are a part of if weren’t in it.
In one out of five, and you think that makes the character good? What version are you describing?
Stop ignoring the glaring flaws, the foundation of superstition and abuse.
it’s a very unusual interpretation that the church doesn’t like talking about.
Then why bring it up? We’re talking specificity about christ, the human sacrifice, as described in conflicting ways in the bible.
Thats god, not Jesus.
In the bible, Jesus is god.
John 10:
I and the Father are one.
John 14:
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.
Isaih 9:
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Phillipians 2:
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
I can acknowledge that some versions might lean more or less toward Jesus being god, and that the concept of the trinity was basically a retcon to avoid the heresy of worshipping multiple gods, but we can also acknowledge that many people believe Jesus is god. The south baptist churches I was forced to go to certainly preached that Jesus is god.
In your version, is Jesus still the son of god? Does he still have good things to say about him? Because that is still highly problematic, even if he’s not claiming to be god himself.
We very much agree the character of god is ridiculously bad.
I’m glad for that, at least. It genuinely scares me when you say you think the bible is a worthwhile guide to morality.
I am not i am just countering your unreasonable bias.
It’s not unreasonable. People all over the world are voting against all of our best interests because bible says so. It’s a death cult. Does Jesus die on the cross in your version? Is that a good thing? Does your version include heaven? Belief in a happy afterlife devalues our real lives.
your examples of why Christianity is bad is very much what zealots want.
This is why I asked if you’ve read the bible. You don’t seem to understand what it contains or how many people believe it.
Its not your fault you havent had the chance of talking with good and kind religious people who do exists all over but may not even express they are religious to anyone at all.
Good and kind people don’t make shit up. Intellectually honest people don’t accept claims without sufficient evidence.
If you have an open mind and find yourself in a respectful conversation with a half decent priest they have no problem admitting that the bible is not to be taken literally.
That doesn’t help. And I think you would be surprised. A) decent people do not spend their lives telling deadly lies. B) MANY priests insist the bible is true and contains no contradictions, because it says so. C) what do we learn metaphorically from passages where god is handing down commands and laws about owning slaves and catering to rapists?
I am curious about your version of the bible. It sounds like a complete anomaly and not at all what people think of when they think of bibles, Jesus, or christ.
Christianity is a death cult and your tolerance of it could get people killed. This is why I care so much.
Edit: i am rather tired of this conversation but i so want to finnish this comment. I wrote most of it already, i just got to this part and want to start with it:
The south baptist churches
This provides a lot of context and i absolutely understand how you got your point of view. Protestant evangelical has always seemed very extreme and backwards to me. I am really sorry you were forced into this.
Most of my christian influence is catholic, (i am still not religious in case this wasnt clear) technically that means the pope is considered the highest authority to set disputes though in practice thats not always the case. The big important is that they say the teaching of jesus got passed with the apostles and the later church who is able to ammend and recontextualize scripture in order to clarify what the words actually mean, hence its not to be taken literally.
Protestants literally take scripture literally, i would lie if i am not somewhat biased that i expect such to end in zealot death cults.
Does not reflect all of Christianity though which trough out is my sole point
There are fictional stories with better morals than the bible.
I don’t know how many times i need to repeat this but the bible IS a fictional story.
I am not defending the people you describe, I am defending people who ARE religious and yet nothing like you describe. Because what you describe is a stereotype.
The bible i read that was good had a really generic name. “The life and tale of Jesus Christ” i no longer own it. I don’t know who wrote/published it sorry, its over a decade ago.
The interesting odd one is the gospel of Judas. I bring it up specifically because i want to point out that christianity is a philosophy much larger than the church with tons of diverse branches. People who ascribe to Christianity do not need to be aligned with the church, like my mother in law who detests the church but does actually believe heaven is real and prays in private.
Quoting scripture does nothing for me, you can interpret those words in so many ways they basically mean nothing.
A religious teacher i once knew would say you need to read it in context of the classical era, most of it is outdated and no longer applies, but a core of philosophy remains, even if the historical author was devout they may have verbatim copied a tale without understanding the message themselves.
Times are different know and so is religion, most people can read, pretending something is absolutely truth makes a lot more sense in context of one academic explaining moral philosophy to a illiterate masses.
I don’t agree with that, that thinking corrupts so fast with clerical authority in for example, the death cults you speak off, but they are not the whole, and where i live a (loud) minority.
I do not tolerate zealots, its facism with extra steps, i could reflect your own words back that your intolerance of religious expression will get people killed. Because they don’t differentiate decent people from bad people who misuse the same idea and name.
Anyway enough internet arguing for now, have a good day.
Edit: i am rather tired of this conversation but i so want to finnish this comment. I wrote most of it already, i just got to this part and want to start with it:
Human lives are at stake.
This provides a lot of context and i absolutely understand how you got your point of view. Protestant evangelical has always seemed very extreme and backwards to me. I am really sorry you were forced into this.
Then PLEASE stop enabling it. It’s worse than you think.
Most of my christian influence is catholic, (i am still not religious in case this wasnt clear) technically that means the pope is considered the highest authority to set disputes though in practice thats not always the case. The big important is that they say the teaching of jesus got passed with the apostles and the later church who is able to ammend and recontextualize scripture in order to clarify what the words actually mean, hence its not to be taken literally.
Oh? Let’s see what the pope has to say about Jesus:
One cannot do so alone and “therefore the Christian Community must always seek the power of the Holy Spirit to confess Jesus, to say that He is God, that He is the Son of God”.
Protestants literally take scripture literally, i would lie if i am not somewhat biased that i expect such to end in zealot death cults.
Christianity is a death cult, catholicism included.
Does not reflect all of Christianity though which trough out is my sole point
Yes, it literally does. Christ was a human sacrifice. Yahweh is a death god.
I don’t know how many times i need to repeat this but the bible IS a fictional story.
But one with horrible morals, and one people believe is true.
I am not defending the people you describe
Yes you are. You’re pretending they’re the exception when they’re following the bible like most christians.
I am defending people who ARE religious and yet nothing like you describe. Because what you describe is a stereotype.
You keep missing the point: superstition is deadly. Quit being a selfish coward. Quit enabling violence.
The bible i read that was good had a really generic name. “The life and tale of Jesus Christ” i no longer own it. I don’t know who wrote/published it sorry, its over a decade ago.
The interesting odd one is the gospel of Judas. I bring it up specifically because i want to point out that christianity is a philosophy much larger than the church with tons of diverse branches.
None of that magically erases the gospels most people are familiar with.
People who ascribe to Christianity do not need to be aligned with the church, like my mother in law who detests the church but does actually believe heaven is real and prays in private.
As I said before, belief in a happy afterlife devalues our real lives. She, like every christian, is a death cultist.
Quoting scripture does nothing for me, you can interpret those words in so many ways they basically mean nothing.
It’s why people believe Jesus is god. The bible says so. Stop ignoring this crucial flaw.
A religious teacher i once knew would say you need to read it in context of the classical era, most of it is outdated and no longer applies, but a core of philosophy remains, even if the historical author was devout they may have verbatim copied a tale without understanding the message themselves.
There is no historical context where slave rape and genocide are moral, especially if god is all-powerful.
Times are different know and so is religion, most people can read, pretending something is absolutely truth makes a lot more sense in context of one academic explaining moral philosophy to a illiterate masses.
No, it’s selfish intellectual dishonesty. Truth does not change based on what we want. Pretending something is true is called lying, and it is killing people.
I don’t agree with that, that thinking corrupts so fast with clerical authority in for example, the death cults you speak off, but they are not the whole, and where i live a (loud) minority.
Christianity is a death cult. We’re all better off without it. No one needs religion.
I do not tolerate zealots
You evidently do.
its facism with extra steps
Exactly. God is fascist. Christ is god. Christianity wants us all dead.
i could reflect your own words back that your intolerance of religious expression will get people killed.
But you’d be wrong. Examine the evidence.
Because they don’t differentiate decent people from bad people who misuse the same idea and name.
Decent people don’t tell deadly lies.
Anyway enough internet arguing for now, have a good day.
Fuck you for enabling abuse. I hope you grow a spine and a brain some day, for the victims’ sakes.
They’re starting to setup digital fences around churches to target ads to gullible imbiciles.
This is obviously the strategy of the MAGA crowd and all their allies: Take existing things, make them your own, strip away everything meaningful, humane, productive or entertaining about them, and replace it with inhuman cruelty.
There’s nothing remarkable or new about this; it’s simply proof that, despite all the possibilities available to humanity today, we’re still unable to shed our most primitive instincts. Nothing fundamental has changed just because people carry the knowledge of generations in their pockets: it’s just as archaic as it was hundreds of years ago.
It’s almost remarkable just how incorrigibly obtuse the masses are.
Microsoft invented that.
Obvious point here. If you are saying “mass” and 'Church" and “priest”. Then you are in a religion with a central governing body that probably insists you don’t beat people down and shoot them.
Not sure he’s going to be happy just switching buildings.
As always, anyone can interpret the bible any way, and there is no way to verify which is correct.
So we get catholics like this:
“Despite what some Church leaders in America have indicated, a faithful Catholic can support strong and humane immigration law enforcement — by means such as physical barriers, detention and deportation — without violating the teaching of the Church,” the report states.
And this:
“Political leaders should stop stirring up resentment against officers who are endeavoring to enforce the laws of the country,” he continued. “And protestors should cease interfering with the work of ICE.”
Exactly. Everyone has their own personal interpretation that reflects what they want it to and then they project that onto people they want to call “real” Christians.
People use it to argue opposite points constantly.
If that wasn’t possible it wouldn’t still be around.
