You must log in or register to comment.
“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.
If anyone followed “The Bible” to the letter, they’d be imprisoned to protect the community anywhere on Earth. Most who speak of “real Christianity” have no clue what they’re talking about.
“Actual Christianity” says render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, it’s not “anti-ICE” in any way, shape, or form.
… and depending on how you want to interpret it, it’s very easy to defend what ICE is doing (tower of Babel, curse of Ham, and so on) and segregation in general.
(yes, it does say love they neighbor, but remember, you can love someone even as you stone them to death for astrology)
Jesus was a pussy for caring about people.
- MAGA
MAGA literally thinks empathy is a negative human trait.
I saw a post on Reddit saying that Jesus was not a pacifist.
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)
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 to pander your views
Well he DID flip a table and whip a bunch of people this one time. That’s not very pacifist of him.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.)
If you have to qualify it then you are the qualifier and not the other thing.
Maga christian… Youre just maga. Conservative christian… You are just conservative. Liberal christian… Just liberal.
If you are christian then be christian ahead of all other qualifiers. Pretty sure that’s even in the ten condiments right before mustard but after ketchup and mayo.
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.
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.
