…Trump had transformed the political landscape in the U.S. to the point where some Christian conservatives are openly denouncing a central doctrine of their religion as being too “weak” and “liberal” for their liking.
Trump didn’t transform shit. His views are as old as conservatism. Maybe there was a lull in speaking out about them from about 1975-2001, but they didn’t go away. Trump literally just stumbled ass-first into a convenient landscape with his more plainly outspoken bigotry and hate.
To attribute all of this to the last 6-8 years is beyond stupid and misses the entire problem.
And if these people can’t see that, their blind spot to hatred is so big that they can’t see it until someone screams it in their face. Yeah, it’s great someone in the evangelical community is speaking out, but it’s too little way too late. The fascist ideology has firmly rooted its way into American life over the last 30 years. Now that that tree is bearing fruit and it’s falling on people’s heads, speaking out now is like trying to cut down that tree with pruning shears. You assholes that fostered this for so long needed to cut it off way sooner.
I appreciate your attempt to bring a longer timescale into conservative christofascism in America but 30 years is still about 300 years too short.
Remember our earliest colonies were totalitarian theocracies with extreme racial purity beliefs
Many people don’t realize that the first colonies were founded by Christians that believed the churches in their home county were not being authoritarian enough. The wanted religious freedom, sure, but they wanted the freedom to be theocratic like you said.
The views and beliefs were always there, trump just galvanized and rallied those with those beliefs.
But it’s bc of him that the Republican Party is as openly fucking nuts. Some of the Florida GOP congresspeople are fucking wild.
Trump just enabled people to be proud of their bigotry.
I think “just” downplays the effect this has had on society for the past several years.
Trump didn’t transform shit
Picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they want to follow is nearly as old as the religion itself. The first council of Nicea was the first large attempt for Christianity to define itself and create a canon. That happened in 325 AD. Even if we talk only about protestants, denominations are all about what parts of the bible they follow and how they translate the word to doctrine.
To attribute it to one man is so disingenuous. Christians have been interpreting the Bible in whatever way suits them best for over a millenia.
Yeah thank God mainstream christians realize they actually hadn’t been following the Bible for decades. Centuries.
I’ve read at least three commentaries by [priests/deacons/whatever their particular church calls them but I’m using the generic “priests”] priests who ‘nourished’ and ‘tended’ to their ‘kind’ and ‘caring’ flocks for decades, who no longer agree with their flock’s views and have either left voluntarily or were ousted. Tellingly, all three have relocated to liberal states from the South.
And all I can think is how “Southern charm” partially rose up after the Civil War, when they just really couldn’t tell the Yankees what they actually thought of them, so they went overboard with the faux politeness (‘bless your heart’). And the fact that these ‘liberal’ priests just either never heard or never understood exactly why people were saying their people were bigots indicates a lack of the introspection that they’re supposed to have.
Fully agree. As an ex-Christian, the crusades used to be unimaginable to me. Now I see them as an easy trend line from current events.
One of the most eye opening historical events for me as a christian was the Children’s Crusade
Happened right before the 5th crusade. Basically a bunch of kids and teens got together and believed that God would part the dead sea for them, like Moses did, and allow them to take Jerusalem. Which at the time was considered a reasonable idea.
They believed in the cause so much, they only sent them with enough supplies to make it there, not a return trip.
Some of the kids made it to the dead sea, and the sea did not part.
It is said out of the thousands of kids they sent, only a few returned. With the rest suffering starvation, thirst, drowning, disease, and slavery.
I still believe in God, and I do have some faith in him, if at the very least like the idea of a Good God being in control of everything.
Kind of like Santa.
Not in the sense that I would drink a vat of Kool-aid for him. Warning: Not Safe For Work
But that I will question my religion and see what I got wrong first, before I challenge the scientific proof. Because if the moral of the story is anything, it’s that God works in mysterious ways, but he doesn’t part the dead sea anymore.
We already did two crusades this century.
Our correct and just way to live means that when we invade other countries, kill their civilians and take their stuff, it’s for their own good because we’re bringing
the light of christfreedom and democracy. That’s totally a crusade.I’m quite a fan of freedom and democracy - I wish we had some in the US - but using our noblest ideals to justify bloody wars of plunder is the most christian thing I can imagine.
Didn’t Bush Jr call his Iraq war a crusade? Yes, he did.
Seriously. This is not in any way new - it’s just that now people feel more comfortable saying the quiet part out loud.
They don’t actually believe in the teachings of their religion. It’s just a convenient armor they can cloak themselves in to deflect criticism.
“now”
Good score!
Conservative Christians praise Jesus and follow the example of God. Liberal Christians praise God and follow the example of Jesus. One judges, the other forgives. One smites, the other saves. One says “praise me”, the other literally says not to worship him but to follow his example.
“Conservative Christians praise Jesus and follow the example of God. Liberal Christians praise God and follow the example of Jesus.” This is a very interesting insight, does it come from your own observation or from e.g. the bible?
And I am assuming USA, is that correct?
It was a quote from someone I heard on the internet a long time ago. Can’t remember from whom, so I guess it is my quote now. USA definition of liberal and conservative.
Or they just make up shit as an excuse to do whatever they please for their own personal benefit while easing their conscious.
“the monster we made is acting monstrous”
Jesus was a socialist. Maybe they should switch religions
Also, he wasn’t white. Which I know really offends their sensibilities.
Jewish too.
And he spent his personal time hanging with twelve of his favorite homies.
See and this is how I know it’s all bullshit, what man in his mid to late thirties still has twelve friends? I’ve never even had twelve friends at the same time before.
Removed by mod
The Nazis came up with this concept of “German Christianity” or “Positive Christianity” that essentially took Christianity and emphasized its differences from Judaism, while downplaying Jesus as the messiah and elevating the Führer as the herald of a new covenant. I know we’re all joking here but this kind of thing has been done before, over, and over, and over.
Next you’ll tell me he didn’t speak American.
He’s also never even watched the Superbowl.
And he didn’t like that kid’s Facebook post and now they’re dead!
Or waved the American flag!! He’s never even carried a gun!
Or misquoted the bible to prove a point, can you believe it!??
Biblical Jesus misquoted the OT multiple times, the kinds of misquotes an Aramaic speaking Jewish rabbi would not have made. And only referenced parts of the OT that were translated into a popular Greek translation of a subset of the what is now the Hebrew Bible.
Almost as if he didn’t exist at all.
I’ll bet he didn’t even speak in red letters.
But American Jeebus is so Kick Ass. He carries a machine gun and shoots immigrants like Rambo without the Vietnamese love interest, but let’s be honest that’s OK too? /s
You mean Supply Side Jesus?
SS Jesus 👌
Since they’re basically following Paul and John, why not change the name of their religion. (Paul is the prude, John the antisemite and general asshat).
John the apostle, a Jew from Bethsaida was an antisemite?
John didn’t write it, it was written much later by a member of a group that had been thrown out of the community. Heretics have little love for establishment. You might as well ask if Malcom X an American didn’t care much for the United States.
It wouldn’t change a thing, they adapt their religion to their views, not the other way around. Religion is just the excuse they use to tell themselves they’re the good guys.
Jesus was not a socialist. Some of what he taught overlaps with socialism, but not everything. Since Jesus came first perhaps it is better to say Socialists are Christians. (since socialism rejects religion this a weird thing to say)
Socialism rejects religion?
Marx was very against religion. If course you can mix them anyway, Marx wouldn’t like it, but…
My understanding of the passage you are alluding to is Marx viewed religion as palliative care. Religion was the opioid of the masses in the sense that people can’t or wont be given real medication. The patient is dying and nothing can stop that, so at least make sure they don’t suffer. The role of religion was to minimize suffering and would fade away when suffering was gone.
Also even if he had not thought that way he is not the be all end all on the subject.
The same people who don’t even know the difference between socialism and communism? No place for reason here.
Yeah, it’s kind of ridiculous when you consider how at odds Jesus is with most of what capitalism entails. He didn’t stutter when he said it’s impossible for a wealthy person to get into heaven. He was unambiguously against accumulated wealth. His belief was that if you had resources to help people, you had an obligation to do so. If you kept wealth, then you were failing that obligation.
Granted, I’m an atheist, but I’m tired of the right wing Christianity in the US. Any person who actually followed Christianity, and didn’t just use it as an excuse to support their hatred and biases, would undoubtedly vote against Republicans, abortion rights notwithstanding.
Jesus never said it was impossible for a rich person to get into heaven. He said that it was unlikely, but not impossible.
It’s unlikely because again, Jesus believed you should use your resources to help. If you do not, you are not fulfilling your obligations. So it’s certainly difficult as you need to be spending your wealth on helping, not creating more wealth. Jesus did not believe that you should ignore and refuse to help those in need. This is what a wealthy person implicitly does if they don’t actively use their resources when possible.
So yeah, it’s insanely difficult. Easier for a camel to fit through a needle.
“Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle”
Then prosperity gospel dipshits made up some stupid shit about a particularly narrow gate in Jerusalem called “the eye of the needle” which must have been what Jesus was talking about
I mean, I guess you could get that camel through the eye of a needle by liquefying it first. Maybe the same step could be taken to get Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg into heaven.
Eye of the needle was a very narrow gate in ( I think) Jerusalem, through which goods had to pass because of some rule against bringing too much to market and establishing a monopoly.
Source: probably read it on the internet somewhere
Edit: yeah totally wrong I get it
That’s not really substantiated by any evidence. It’s much more likely that the Aramaic word for “heavy rope” was mistranslated as “camel”.
That also doesn’t sound unlikely, given humanity’s track record
Last time I traced that down (15 years ago), there was a midevil town that referred to their gate as the eye of the needed. However midevil is more than 1000 years after the passage in question. It was in Europe, not Jerusalem. Maybe someone cares enough to research and provide a citation.
Medieval is the word you’re looking for. Not trying to argue anything, just thought you might like the correct spelling.
The trouble with disgraphia is I know i’m wrong but I have no idea how to get close enough for autocorrect to get the right word. I’d say thanks, hit realistically I won’t remember next time I need medieval
The people on the Titan sub really gamed the system!
Holy shit lmao
Like a camel going through the eye of a needle, but he never said we couldn’t make a bigger needle!
But like, what if the camel was really, really fat, and we name this small valley “the eye of the needle”?
In Matthew 19:24, Jesus tells His listeners, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
(Copied from the Internet)
While not impossible, we haven’t made any micro camels yet.
Its a true statement because camels and needles exist while heaven doesn’t
Matthew 19:24
You don’t need a micro camel. Cite the next 2 versus.
“Truly, I say to you, tonly with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 uAgain I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter vthe kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus wlooked at them and said, x“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27 Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world,2 when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me awill also sit on twelve thrones, bjudging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 cAnd everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold3 and will dinherit eternal life. 30 But emany who are ffirst will be last, and the last first."
Sorry about all the numbered citations, and random letters. Too hard to edit that out on mobile lol
Still sounds like they need to give everything up and then they’ll be rewarded.
No it doesn’t. It says that if you give everything up you will be rewarded, but it doesn’t follow that you have to give everything up. Actually most would argue that giving everything up only works if you then follow Jesus.
Verse 26 is key here: “with God all things are possible.” Most Christians will agree that there are many different ways to a reward. Some will put more limits on the number than others, but none suggest that the only way is to sell all. We see plenty of people in the bible who clearly didn’t sell all and seem to be saved. Some of them even seem to be rich.
If money is your god, then no-one else can be.
Go ahead, thread that camel into a needle. He didn’t say it was possible, he just said it was harder than something impossible
rope through the eye of a needle
I remember some modern evangelicals saying that the needle is a location or something and that we’re all misinterpreting it. I think these were the ones trying to espouse the prosperity gospel BS, of course.
Yeah and it’s bullshit made up in the modern era completely not backed up by any archaeological or historical evidence
deleted by creator
They would probably love Islam if they could get past the whole “brown people worship this religion” thing, Islam really seems far more their type than Christianity.
Coming soon to the Southern portion of the US, Vanilla ISIS!
I’ve seen genuine support in Appalachia for the Taliban on certain things. Given the economic situation, it may not be long before they have nothing left but their God and their guns.
They’re similar to Positive Christians
“When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
Half this story is about the idiot SBC constituency. The other half is about top SBC officials who have somehow come to believe that the teachings of Jesus were anything but subversive to begin with.
Jesus were anything but subversive to begin with.
Can you cite an example of an idea that Biblical Jesus said that was subversive to established Jewish thought?
You probably are just trying to be quippy but actually Jesus was quite subversive to established Jewish doctrine. You can see it in the parables.
One can see it in the Parable of the Woman called out for adultry. To deeply paraphrase with a shit condensed version : A bunch of Jewish scholarship - the folk who basically serve as biblical laywers - try and cast a woman in front of Jesus for judgement for her supposed flagrant overstepping of the rules with the prescribed punishment under Jewish law. This law is one of the actual commandment breakers and these community leaders demand Jesus judge her by their rule book. Jesus refuses. This is where we get the whole “he who is without sin cast the first stone” thing. Jewish law contained the punishment for adultry was not written by god, it was written by priests. Jesus does tell the woman not to do it again so God’s will is communicated so one could read this as a message to be wary of the laws of priests because they do not reflect the will of God. “Do not kill” and “do not covet” which means something closer to “be jealous of/desire” superceed those laws. It’s not on humans to take it upon themselves to render judgement. That is up to God.
This made the teachings of Jesus ridiculously unpopular amongst Jewish priests because they got a law for everything. One could look at the inclusion of Leviticus - a description of Jewish laws in the Christian Bible as a reminder that priests made those laws. They were unauthorized human expansions on the simple directives that came straight from the source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
Other parables to look into were “The unjust judge”. But yeah. Jesus was about as anti authoritarian as you could get.
One can see it in the Parable of the Woman called out for adultry.
3rd century forgery. Not found in early manuscripts of John or any other Christian works. Also not aligned with other things he said. Such as in Matthew where he talked about how he wasn’t subtracting from the law. Also doesn’t align with the incident with the “lepord” found in Mark, Luke, and Matthew. Where Jesus shows absolute respect for the legal authorities.
Jewish law contained the punishment for adultry was not written by god, it was written by priests.
I agree. God wrote nothing.
s not on humans to take it upon themselves to render judgement. That is up to God.
I thought we were talking about Jesus. Why are you bringing up Rabbi Hillel. You know the guy who said things like this, lived in that area, and died decades prior?
This made the teachings of Jesus ridiculously unpopular amongst Jewish priests because they got a law for everything. One could look at the inclusion of Leviticus -
So did Jesus. You don’t remember your Sermon on the Mount.
Other parables to look into were “The unjust judge”. But yeah. Jesus was about as anti authoritarian as you could get.
Proverbs and Leviticus.
Again, everything Biblical Jesus said was establishment.
3rd century forgery
When the specific bit of fiction was added to the book of fiction seems entirely irrelevant when it is the compiled book, including the later bit of fiction, upon which modern people claim to be basing their moral philosophy. I don’t believe the vast majority are reaching that verse and going “oh well this was added late so let’s skip over this part.” “Legitimate” (feels a funny concept for this topic, tbh) or not, it is included in most modern Christian’s interpretation of Christ
I think it is important to note what the truth is of the situation.
If the Bible can have one fictional story in it, it can have two, if it can have two it can have three.
The whole thing is allegorical fiction; debating which is most historically fictional is pointless when the vast majority only consider the thing as a whole, not individually. It isn’t that you’re not correct, it’s that your correctness is wholly irrelevant to how the Bible is consumed
The Bible is not allegorical to the vast majority of believers.
I love how I cannot tell from this message whether you are a koolaid-drinking Christian Fascist or a Dawkins-huffing New Atheist. Both have a strong interest in this particular version of Jesus that you are pushing.
Most of us take it for granted that Jesus forgave the adulterer, and further, that only by his forgiveness can we enter the kingdom of heaven, according to contemporary vernacular Protestant American Christian Mythology. The Biblical Scholars like yourself - amateur or professional, earnest or polemical - will always debate like Talmudic rabbis about it, but we’re out here in the real world where people are alive and living their various gospel truths.
I love how I cannot tell from this message whether you are a koolaid-drinking Christian Fascist or a Dawkins-huffing New Atheist. Both have a strong interest in this particular version of Jesus that you are pushing.
Attack the argument and not the person.
Most of us take it for granted that Jesus forgave the adulterer
3rd century forgery.
and further, that only by his forgiveness can we enter the kingdom of heaven, according to contemporary vernacular Protestant American Christian Mythology.
And? There is an entire branch of Christian thought dedicated to figure out how to be saved. That source has just as much justification as Calvinism. Of course none of it is true, the only place we go when we die is the ground.
The Biblical Scholars like yourself - amateur or professional, earnest or polemical - will always debate like Talmudic rabbis about it,
I have discussed facts only.
but we’re out here in the real world where people are alive and living their various gospel truths.
So you are naked, barefoot, and demanding the rich to give up all their money?
I used to think logic was enough too.
Of course logic isn’t enough. Logic can tell you how to do something, but it can’t tell you why. In other words, logic can’t tell you why one outcome is better or worse than another. You need emotions for that.
In that case I am happy that you are now considering evidence instead of symbol shifting games.
Why are you acting like this.
Ah, but the proof that you mention that it was a 3rd century forgery was actually a 6th century forgery! You can always disprove something, but proving something is much harder if you don’t share the same base truths. But as Pilate said “What is truth?”… or was that a forgery as well?
It isn’t found in any of the earlier manuscripts and is not aligned with other actions and sayings that he said. All the gotchas wont change that.
Saying he was the Messiah in and of itself was subversive to established thought.
The Jews at the time thought the Messiah would come in clad in armor, sword in hand, on a white horse, come to slay their enemies.
Instead he rolled up humbly on a donkey talking nonsense like “love each other, treat others kindly”
Saying he was the Messiah in and of itself was subversive to established thought.
They had a long long history of people making claims to kingship based on having a supposed message from God. Like Jeremiah which is clearly the story it was plagiarized from. Additionally, the narratives are contradictory on what exactly he said while interrogated. Which makes sense if you are just making it all up.
The Jews at the time thought the Messiah would come in clad in armor, sword in hand, on a white horse, come to slay their enemies.
Citation needed. Please use the Talmudic prophecies and the references of Josphius to back up your claim. There was a wide variety of different messiah prophecies in circulation at the time. Some of them yes we’re closer to warlike image you made, copying from the Maccabees and Samson. Others were much closer to Isaiah and Jeremiah. Just a guy going around preaching.
Instead he rolled up humbly on a donkey
Not according to Gospel of Matthew. In the Gospel of Matthew he was riding a horse and a donkey at the same time. The author of first Gospel liked to double stuff, made his lies easier to swallow I imagine. Or he just didn’t know Hebrew and Aramaic and misunderstood the last sentence repetitive structure of the poetry.
talking nonsense like “love each other, treat others kindly”
Like here?
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
-Matthew 10:34
Also all the nice stuff he said was from Hillel or Proverbs.
Wanna try again? Or just admit that he is a fictional character that con artists poured Jewish history and thought into.
deleted by creator
Explain please. I don’t quite understand your question.
deleted by creator
Christianity is syncretic - is that not inherently subversive of the source?
Oh I think I see what you mean. To one extent every religion is. No one starts from page 1. I am not quite seeing however what Biblical Jesus borrowed from Rome that the Jews of the area hadn’t already. Can you list some examples?
And in this way it created common ground regional cultures, but the direction of the syncretization was also that of Romanization - the new mythos served to legitimize the earthly authority of Rome (and their territorial claims) in a way the teachings of the Jewish tribes had not.
Really only discussing what Biblical Jesus is supposed to have said. He was clear that he was only there for the lost sheep of the Jews, not for the rest.
deleted by creator
You seem to know what you are talking about, can you recommend a good starting book for the history for Christianity (or Islam)?
You make it sound very interesting.
The whole “camel through the eye of the needle” bit is likely as radical as it looks at first glance. It was tried to be explained away through the centuries as more rich Christians started to appear, such as by claiming it was a small doorway in the city wall that would be difficult to get a camel through.
These claims don’t appear to hold up. Meanwhile, there were sewing needles uncovered with a recognizable design to modern ones, and you ain’t getting a camel through it. The way we would plainly read it today seems correct: rich people aren’t getting into the Kingdom of God.
Pharisees lived on donations not via state funds. For him to tell a rich guy to give away all his money was basically him telling a rich guy to give himself all the money.
Soliciting donations isn’t exactly subversive.
So, you have never heard the Bible fable of why Jesus was crucified? Come on 😀
Can you repeat back what I wrote? Thanks.
No
Best response. This guy has all the worst aspects of a biblical literalist and just seems like a bit of a dick
Saying directly next time, makes you look weak otherwise. Just free advice
You’re just as bad as a biblical literalist and you seem like kind of a dick
|Can you repeat back what I wrote? Thanks.
deleted by creator
The passage where the man expels the people from the temple, accusing them of betraying the teachings seems very much subversive.
Here is a single man going against status quo and establishment. If that is not a good exemple of subversion, there is none.
The passage where the man expels the people from the temple, accusing them of betraying the teachings seems very much subversive.
Please see: Jeremiah 7:9-15, Jeremiah 23:11-15, Isaiah 1:10-17, Isaiah 66:1-2, Isaiah 59:1-2, Isaiah 56:7-8, Amos 5:21-24, and of course Micah.
The Jewish theocratic state had divisions of power. At that time it was mostly Pharisees and Temple. If Jesus had existed, he would definitely been on Pharisees side. Biblical Jesus was at least. It’s a bit like claiming any political commentary is subversive. There is a difference between being willing to take pot shots at the other political team and being against established order. The references I gave are only the ones that have survived. Most likely there were quite a few authors being very critical of how the Temple was run.
Here is a single man going against status quo and establishment. If that is not a good exemple of subversion, there is none.
I thought you Bible literalists believe he had 12 apostles plus over 500 camp followers. Which is it?
Pharisees and Sadducees are, in very broad terms, like Democrats and Republicans today. Sadducees tended to be wealthy and conservative, while the Pharisees were more about the common folk. At least on paper. In practice, maybe not so much. Like the way a lot of modern leftists hate the Democratic party, historical Jesus could very easily have hated the Pharisees while aligning somewhat with their stated positions. That certainly comes through in the literary version of Jesus.
Yeah I am going to reject this analogy right off the bat.
Also not sure why you are bringing the Sadducees into this. They were a rival sect not a political faction.
Political and religious faction was not that separated at the time. Or even now, for that matter.
You are allowed to back down from an argument btw.
No the analogy between Pharisees and Sadducees and DNC and GOP does not work.
Wasn’t it because they were commercialising the temple as well? US mega churches could learn something from that.
There is a lot of argument about that incident in the “Jesus was not supernatural but he existed crowd”. A few main solutions:
-
It was understood that the next Messiah would build the 3rd temple, but you can’t exactly rebuild the temple if there is a temple. So he was trying to bring about the events.
-
Roman coinage was dicey for strict monotheistic people to use hence the need to change it before you entered. It was a sore point for the holier-than-now crowd. Oh you use forbidden currency normally but change it at the temple? Morality when it suits you.
-
The temple had a dual-aristorcracy structure. The outside was run by one and the inside by another. The outside was more politically acceptable to attack. It definitely wouldn’t have been the first time one of the other Jewish factions had gone after how the Temple was run. By attacking the outside one he could set himself up as the quite a few “restorers of the Temple”.
-
Don’t really know. I’m aware such a depiction exists but precise details are moot, for what I care.
I think it revolves around the temple grounds being used as a market and/or being a place where moneylenders were present, thus, again, going against the teachings advising against greed and materialism.
oh how i fuckin WISH they’d ‘learn something’ alright. I wish they’d learn it HARD and BITTERLY.
liberals are not a religious group that claims to follow the teachings of jesus. Your point is?
The teachings of Jesus, if read for what they say, are the antithesis of the Republican platform.
Also note: the all-knowing God/man said nothing about abortion and it was a thing then, too.
It’s idolatry with a political party trumping (heh) the actual religious teachings.
Christians are a religious group who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught many liberal ideals. Some of these include:
- Helping others
- Not hoarding wealth
- Not judging others based on their life choices
At present, many Christians also consider themselves to, politically, be Republicans. The Republican party believes in none of what Jesus taught. They use Christianity to do exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught.
- Welfare? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!
- Capitalism and profit at all costs
- Condemnation of non-heterosexual lifestyles
It sure seems to me that Republican Christians long ago decided that the teachings of Jesus are too liberal.
I appreciate you writing all this out, but…
I was replying to walnutwalrus’s comment:
liberals are rejecting “conservative” teachings of Jesus
And it appears something went wrong and my comment isn’t listed as a reply to that one. This changes the context significantly. Where did you find my comment?
“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.”
And when Jesus was asked what the greatest of the commandments was:
"The most important one is this: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these”
yep, Jesus really was a liberal hippy cuck
And beating swords into plowshares. Real liberal cuck bullshit
God, Guns, and Freedom amirite?
I dunno if I can love my neighbour as myself, is it alright if I just grab her by the pussy?
that sounds kosher
I’ve said it before, but, (assuming he existed at all) Jesus was a brown-skinned non-English-speaking Palestinian Jew who healed the sick and fed the poor (and didn’t charge money for either thing) and encouraged his followers to do the same, supported paying taxes, and showed open contempt for wealth and the wealthy.
If only he had also been openly gay he would be every single thing modern Christians hate.
He didn’t show open contempt for the wealthy as long as they lived up to his standards for faith, charity, and humility. It’s just that there were, and are, so dang few of those.
One slight correction: he showed open contempt for the money-changers scamming people at the temple.
Pretty sure most historians agree Jesus existed. Was he the son of God and as described in the Bible? That’s the question.
Polls aren’t proof except what people are willing to say to pollsters. Show me the evidence.
I’m not the one saying it, the historians who are much more qualified than me or you are, so go argue with them not me.
Argument from authority < arguments from evidence
Removed by mod
Pretty sure I have. Why don’t you cite literally any of this supposed evidence?
Removed by mod
and didn’t charge money for either thing
In Mark it was healing to get a free meal and in Matthew only after a women called herself a racial slur and begged at his feet.
Just wanted to point out it’s widely accepted, even by secular historians, Jesus was a real person. Him being a jew from Nazareth and being crucified for starting a quarrel in the temple are generally accepted as proven through non-biblical records.
Just wanted to point out that if we admit that he was not a real person, just a con James and Peter were running, the mystery is over and no one can sell any more books. If the History channel, or Discovery channel, or any UFO organization or any saint miracle has shown: once it is explained you have nothing left to draw in crowds.
The only records we have of the events are hearsay multiple times removed decades later.
You mean the guy who kissed the person he put in charge of the group’s money right before Peter denies him three times (roughly the same number as the number of trials, which Peter allegedly was seen going into the area where proceedings were taking place for at least one)?
The guy who had an unnamed beloved disciple reclining on him when he fed the disciple he kissed dipped bread at his final meal?
Who at his execution told this unnamed beloved disciple to take Jesus’s own mother into his household as if the beloved disciple’s mother?
Jesus might have wanted to be careful about all of that, as technically being gay in Judea was a death sentence under Jewish law. Though they couldn’t carry out the death sentence at that time and would have needed to appeal to the local Roman authority to carry out capital punishment, which would have put the local authority in a pickle deciding on granting local barbaric legality to quell rising dissent even though the crime charged would have been a common Roman practice alleged even about the emperor at the time.
So you know, if the story was something like the Sanhedrin wanting Jesus dead and Pilate reluctant, and his most conservative follower who he was seen arguing with potentially denying him at trial right around the time he was kissing and feeding his closest companion at the dinner table - well there might just be more to the story after all.
(Though a number of the other things you said probably aren’t the case - for example, the “give to Caesar” taxation thing is anachronistic for Judea in 30s CE which had no personal tax and no coinage with Caeser on it.)
Care to elaborate on his conservative teachings? Unless you’re stretching Jesus’ teachings to the letters of Paul.
Without Paul there really is no Christianity. Jesus would have just been one of the many minor prophets at best.
As for his conservative teachings, based on what he supposedly said and did he respected the laws of Moses. He argued over specific rulings but not the laws themselves.
Tim Keller wrote about this in 2018 and it still rings true. Christians dont get to choose a side.
Does anyone have a paywall-removed version of this? I tried putting it through 12ft Ladder, but apparently that tool is disabled for NYT.
Try archive.today .
What should the role of Christians in politics be? More people than ever are asking that question. Christians cannot pretend they can transcend politics and simply “preach the Gospel.” Those who avoid all political discussions and engagement are essentially casting a vote for the social status quo. American churches in the early 19th century that did not speak out against slavery because that was what we would now call “getting political” were actually supporting slavery by doing so. To not be political is to be political.
The Bible shows believers as holding important posts in pagan governments — think of Joseph and Daniel in the Old Testament. Christians should be involved politically as a way of loving our neighbors, whether they believe as we do or not. To work for better public schools or for a justice system not weighted against the poor or to end racial segregation requires political engagement. Christians have done these things in the past and should continue to do so.
Nevertheless, while believers can register under a party affiliation and be active in politics, they should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party as the only Christian one. There are a number of reasons to insist on this.
One is that it gives those considering the Christian faith the strong impression that to be converted, they need not only to believe in Jesus but also to become members of the (fill in the blank) Party. It confirms what many skeptics want to believe about religion — that it is merely one more voting bloc aiming for power.
Another reason not to align the Christian faith with one party is that most political positions are not matters of biblical command but of practical wisdom. This does not mean that the church can never speak on social, economic and political realities, because the Bible often does. Racism is a sin, violating the second of the two great commandments of Jesus, to “love your neighbor.” The biblical commands to lift up the poor and to defend the rights of the oppressed are moral imperatives for believers. For individual Christians to speak out against egregious violations of these moral requirements is not optional.
However, there are many possible ways to help the poor. Should we shrink government and let private capital markets allocate resources, or should we expand the government and give the state more of the power to redistribute wealth? Or is the right path one of the many possibilities in between? The Bible does not give exact answers to these questions for every time, place and culture.
I know of a man from Mississippi who was a conservative Republican and a traditional Presbyterian. He visited the Scottish Highlands and found the churches there as strict and as orthodox as he had hoped. No one so much as turned on a television on a Sunday. Everyone memorized catechisms and Scripture. But one day he discovered that the Scottish Christian friends he admired were (in his view) socialists. Their understanding of government economic policy and the state’s responsibilities was by his lights very left-wing, yet also grounded in their Christian convictions. He returned to the United States not more politically liberal but, in his words, “humbled and chastened.” He realized that thoughtful Christians, all trying to obey God’s call, could reasonably appear at different places on the political spectrum, with loyalties to different political strategies.
Another reason Christians these days cannot allow the church to be fully identified with any particular party is the problem of what the British ethicist James Mumford calls “package-deal ethics.” Increasingly, political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions.
This emphasis on package deals puts pressure on Christians in politics. For example, following both the Bible and the early church, Christians should be committed to racial justice and the poor, but also to the understanding that sex is only for marriage and for nurturing family. One of those views seems liberal and the other looks oppressively conservative. The historical Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments.
So Christians are pushed toward two main options. One is to withdraw and try to be apolitical. The second is to assimilate and fully adopt one party’s whole package in order to have your place at the table. Neither of these options is valid. In the Good Samaritan parable told in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus points us to a man risking his life to give material help to someone of a different race and religion. Jesus forbids us to withhold help from our neighbors, and this will inevitably require that we participate in political processes. If we experience exclusion and even persecution for doing so, we are assured that God is with us (Matthew 5:10-11) and that some will still see our “good deeds and glorify God” (1 Peter 2:11-12). If we are only offensive or only attractive to the world and not both, we can be sure we are failing to live as we ought.
The Gospel gives us the resources to love people who reject both our beliefs and us personally. Christians should think of how God rescued them. He did it not by taking power but by coming to earth, losing glory and power, serving and dying on a cross. How did Jesus save? Not with a sword but with nails in his hands.
This is the apotheosis of Reagan’s cynical exploitation of Evangelical voters. They were always going to end up rejecting the very deity they claimed to follow as the culmination of their path astray.
Like, as soon as “Christians” started voting to cut social welfare programs and programs to help children, they were on the road to apostasy (in their religious framework).
It started long before that. When Pope Sylvester threw in with Constantine is when I place it, but probably before that.
I can’t remember who said this but there’s a line about “if republicans can’t win democratically, they’ll abandon democracy before they abandon their ideals.” I guess the same goes for (some) Christians.
🌎👨🚀🔫👩🚀
