You must log in or register to comment.
KKKristians
Jesus was a pussy for caring about people.
- MAGA
I saw a post on Reddit saying that Jesus was not a pacifist.
It’s the bible. There are parts of it where he probably isn’t. That’s the beauty of the bible. You just gotta find that one verse.
'Holy" texts are super vague and I have noticed it is not just Bible.
Jesus was not a pacifist in any way.
Please note that He promised to return at the head of an angel army, and they butcher everybody.
The resulting lake of blood will be miles wide and “as deep as a horse’s bridle”
That’s not pacifist, that’s fucking metal
(source: Bible, skip to the end)
Some dude named John who took a lot of magic mushrooms or something said that Jesus was going to come back and butcher everybody. Jesus did not say that. The book of Revelation is most likely about Nero and the destruction of Rome. There’s some interesting biblical scholarship about it and I think that part is more interesting than the actual book
That’s not to say Jesus didn’t say some metal things
Matthew 10:34-36 NRSVUE [34] “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. [35] For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, [36] and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.
Matthew 12:34 NRSVUE You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
Do you even know what the messiah was supposed to do? (Neither did the authors of the gospels, but we won’t get into that.)
It wasn’t wanking off in the clouds.
Mathew 10:34- “I did not come to bring peace, but the sword”
Mathew 24, Jesus is returning on the clouds (because god’s palace is at the top of the dome shell in the sky,) with an army of angels in which every person is going to be judged and sorted an some forced to glaze him for all eternity and the rest relieved to burn in hellfire for eternity.
Totally a pacifist!
Well he DID flip a table and whip a bunch of people this one time. That’s not very pacifist of him.
What were those people doing
MAGA literally thinks empathy is a negative human trait.
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.
The illegal immigrant appears to face one of two options: work in slave like conditions for below minimum wage, or get deported.
Truth be told, I think the ice roundup is merely a spectacle. US business loves underpaid illegal immigrants with no healthcare. The US government loves it too because it reduces costs for whole industries, making everybody else somewhat better off. I do not believe the US will ever substantially reduce their use of illegal labor.
The goal now is to inflict pain. That’s it. Cause issues with avg people, citizen or not, and expand the hatred for Trump’s base. It’s all a performance distraction while we’re being robbed blind. None of this is necessary at all.
We have a demented president who loves attention and can’t tell the difference between it being good or bad with so many yes men around him.
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.
because Jesus was depicted as conditional with his love
Jesus wasn’t, but a bunch of the other prophets and apostles and saints and popes were.
yea, everyone who practices starts at where they are, and forces christianity to conform to their wants. its how we get supply side jesus.
this “jesus said to love thy neighbor REALLY means only the ones who are permitted to be there by the majorities ethnic cleansing. but i don’t bother checking, and just assume that the only ones that count as my neighbors are the same as me “ is frankly blasphemous. not that i care as i don’t practice. but i feel that if jesus died for our sins, its bad taste to use him as a sacrificial lamb to protect the feelings of bigots, and nazis. if people want to be bigots and nazis they should just say so and stop using jesus as a shield.
I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not.
Legal or not, treat people with decency. I was going to look up jeff sessions, but your link says it all. Use the Bible, twist words if you have to, to hurt your neighbor.
Let’s sow hatred then act all surprised Pikachu when we get fucking wrecked. Of course Trump’s dumb ass is involved.
Legal or not, treat people with decency.
Probably the most controversial suggestion within Christendom, going back to its Jewish roots. Do you treat people with dignity if they aren’t a part of your clan? The various religious texts could not be more at odds with one another on this issue.
Let’s sow hatred then act all surprised Pikachu when we get fucking wrecked.
Internecine conflict has been a primary lever of social control since the earliest civilizations formed.
It goes down the same as the thousand before
No one’s getting smarter, no one’s learning the score
Your never ending spree of death and violence and hate
Is gonna tie your own rope, tie your own rope, tie your own
~ The Offspring, Come Out and Play
Priest going on a rant during mass? Unheard of! Why can’t they just sit down and do their job XD
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.
My experience is also that they try to avoid politics. However Catholic priests certainly talk about human rights violations, oppression, and racism. In today’s world it’s tough to talk about things like that that are clearly in their wheelhouse while trying to avoid politics
Priest probably just said something like “be good to thy neighbours” and the maga extrapolated from there lmao.
Political sermons are probably more common in poorer countries, I imagine. I’m from a poorer country and the Catholic masses I used to attend would have priests talk about social justice. I don’t recall the priests singling out any particular politicians or groups but we all know who they are talking about. Maybe in the past, priests were more direct in criticism. The liberation theology movement in the latter half of the 20th century was instrumental in toppling many dictatorships. I think there were couple of Catholic priests who were assassinated for voicing out against dictators in Latin America.
I am from a poor country. Here, politics is never discussed in sermons. Sermons are either around Bible passages or some charismatic church talking about their miracles. Maybe cuz Christianity is a minority where I live and also there are state regulations. Although today’s Christian youth where I live are inspired from American pastors so they have weird stances too like believing in conspiracy theories, hatred against Muslims, and etc. And also most of Christians are very poor like laborers, working in gutters, or doing very menial jobs and victim of forced conversions and discrimination, so there is barely any chance that sermons can be political. Many churches, after Oct 7, have stopped reading those psalms that mention Israel in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Jesus was famously a-political
I am an atheist and I also like watching Mike Schmidt.
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.
Frequently wrong, never in doubt.
deleted by creator
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.”
Sounds like a win/win
If coming of Christ happened in the USA, ICE would have detained him and sent to El Salvador prison.
Evangelical is the preferred nomenclature
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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:
deleted by creator
I mean, it’s just quoting what’s in the new testament.
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.
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.
Hey everybody, I’ve got super powers!
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.
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, 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 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.)
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.
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.
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.
Doesn’t the book of Genesis come from Judaism?
Well Judaism isn’t evangelical. It didn’t sweep though Europe and have the same kind of power.
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.
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.
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.
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.
