I’m not religious and have plenty of issues with organized religion in general but I do support any Christians who aspire to live by the teachings Jesus actually preached. And it’s always good to see someone like this Reverend here, willing to call out conservatives who wear their supposed piety on their sleeves while espousing bigoted, selfish, reprehensible beliefs.
It's so God damned rare these days. Literally the only positive religious group experience I have had my my adult life was the day after the first George Floyd riots, I spent 8 hours on emergency overtime at my dispatch center. The next day I was out in the area and a local mosque decided to go around cleaning up broken glass and boarding up looted stores because "our brothers and sisters are hurting". I wish more people acted that way.
The only pastor from my parents church who had any interest in helping the community ended up getting ousted over a differing interpretation of some Bible verse or other. I had stopped going for almost a decade by then so who knows.
Now they're more interested in remodeling and expanding the church building to make it more gaudy.
You know, like Jesus said when he helped the merchants at the temple maximize their earnings potential, "rule of acquisition #10, bitches!"
the teachings Jesus actually preached
Except that we really don't know what those would have been, and there's a pretty decent likelihood that many of the most popular sayings like "blessed are the poor" and "easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle then a rich man to get into heaven" were additions after Paul and what later becomes the canonical church shift their splinter of the tradition to start collecting money from people.
"Want salvation? Too bad you have all that money - maybe we can help you out with that."
For example, in apocrypha that has a decent chance of also dating to the first century, it depicts a Jesus ridiculing the very idea of prayer, fasting, and charity as necessary for salvation, instead characterizing it as a birthright for all people and those who give money to the church as being like people who take off even their clothes to give to someone else in order to be given what is already theirs.
This is arguably an even more transgressive tradition and version of Jesus than the one Paul offered up, and was more in keeping with the pre-Pauline attitudes about "everything is permissible for me" and the resistance to his rights to profit as an apostle discussed in 1 Corinthians.
There's a significant survivorship bias in modern Christianity - for example, a tradition that changed the prohibition on carrying a purse and collecting money from people when ministering (Luke 22:35-36 - absent in Marcion's version which was likely the earliest copy) was more likely to survive and thrive than ones that had limited fundraising capabilities as originally directed.
So while yes, he may have been all about helping the poor and downtrodden, it's also entirely possible that a lot of it is a load of BS meant to separate fools from their money by an organization claiming to do those things on people's behalf (you'll notice in the Epistles vs gospels that Paul, who is supposedly collecting money for the poor back in Jerusalem, mentions a gift of a nice aromatic in Philippians 4:18, and then in the gospels written later on there's a scene where Jesus is given an expensive aromatic and chastises those who criticize him for accepting it rather than selling it and giving the money to the poor).
Personally, I prefer the nuance in something like saying 95 attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas: "If you have money, don't lend it at interest. Rather, give [it] to someone from whom you won't get it back." There's a bit more nuance in that this addresses not an obligation for everyone including those struggling with money to give to the poor via the church but rather the inherent wisdom of recognizing the diminishing returns on personal wealth for the rich and the value in directly enriching one's environment rather than hoarding a resource you can't take with you (the point of the parable in saying 63 in the same work).
So while I'm inclined to think that a historical Jesus probably was against hoarding wealth stupidly given the overlap between unique extra-cannonical and canonical sentiments, I'm quite wary that the extreme degree of bleeding heart asceticism we see promoted canonically is much more than a sales effort by a parasitic organization that went on to build the Vatican off its back.
Yeah I went through a phase of reading biblical history when I had my faith deconstructed, and you quickly realize how many different Christianities there were. As well as the political context for why these sort of ideas were able to spread in this specific part of the world at that time in history. I think the version of the story told in Jesus Christ Superstar actually does a decent job with the structures of authority and their conflicting interests. To me Jesus was likely a very charismatic "nobody" who gained a following by expressing sentiments that were kind of already floating around, until it caused a problem for the authorities who needed to keep the peace or risk Rome intervening. Whether Jesus actually said what's in the Bible isn't important, we know people thought he said that stuff and that it resonated strongly with many. We can infer things about people at the time based on what they ascribed to Jesus.
Whether Jesus actually said what's in the Bible isn't important, we know people thought he said that stuff and that it resonated strongly with many. We can infer things about people at the time based on what they ascribed to Jesus.
Eh, the above mentioned sect of Christianity claimed he was talking about indivisible properties of matter and naturalism as a greater wonder over intelligent design, with the sower parable (the only one with a 'secret ' explanation in the first canonical gospel) as actually being about the naturalist origins of all life and the universe while inadvertently using the language of Lucretius's "seeds of things" from 80 years earlier to do so (who even described failed biological reproduction as "seed falling by the wayside of a path").
I think we too readily cede the authority over what a historical Jesus might have been trying to say to the revisionist version that snowballed into a beast torturing and executing people for even possessing competing versions of Christianity and directly accepting money in exchange for promises of salvation and propping up tyrants over the masses.
For example, here's another saying from the above tradition:
Jesus said, "Let one who has become wealthy reign, and let one who has power renounce ."
Weird that the council of Nicaea at the prompting of an empire largely governed by those who were born into power and held it until death didn't decide to canonize that tradition, no? But could you imagine the Roman empire maybe motivated to be executing a guy that was saying it?
Also weird that Paul seems vaguely familiar with this connection between gaining wealth and ruling in 1 Corinthians 4:8 as pre-existing his first letter to Corinth where he later accused them of accepting a different gospel from superapostles and where they later depose the presbyters appointed by Rome:
Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have begun to reign—and that without us! How I wish that you really had begun to reign so that we also might reign with you!
Except that we really don’t know what those would have been
when people say "the teachings Jesus actually preached", they usually mean "the canonical teachings from the bible".
Which is a pet peeve.
Also, given the highly contradictory nature of the Bible, that's not saying much.
He also told people to sell their cloaks and go buy swords canonically at the last supper in Luke, explicitly going back on things he had allegedly said earlier.
Also, given the highly contradictory nature of the Bible, that’s not saying much.
also the canon has changed over the centuries.
My favorite interpretation of the Bible is basically it's a collection of stories from medieval times. It was rough back then I mean if you fell in the mud, your life was over. You're trapped and no one is helping you, your kindling won't be warming your family tonight.
And then this dude comes along and a hand comes in view. You flinch at first, I mean why not kick a dog while he's down? But no, the hand grabs your arm and pulls you out of the mud. Nobody saves your life! This man is, this good man is a saint! His story is written.
A few decades later another man collapsed in the sun and another nice guy gave him some water. His story is written.
Another few decades later a different guy is low a few cattle and sheep and his neighbor, maybe someone who was moving to Egypt, just fuckin' gives you his whole flock. His story is yadda yadda yadda.
Jesus is just a collection of society's niceties. Why else do you think these people were living for 900 years!? "Sonny boy your great great great great great great great grandfather from 50 years ago only survived because Jesus pulled him from the mud!"
In short - the stories of Jesus' deeds was never just one person. I mean, literally the guy whose skeleton they have sure, but in terms of the Bible these stories existed long before Jesus came along, then more stories got added after him too, many attributed to him retroactively.
That sure sounds like something somebody who's never seen a bible and who doesn't have a basic knowledge of any time before 50 AD might believe.
I studied the Bible pretty extensively in college, but thanks. How dare people try and have fun ideas.
Both of your points are assumptions all of us, I would guess, were taught in graduate school. The earliest editors of "Gnostic" texts thought that they were dualistic, escapist, nihilistic, involving "esoteric ideas about aeons and demiurges," as you yourself write.
As my former teacher at Harvard, Krister Stendhal, said to me recently about these texts, "we just thought these were weird." But can you point to any evidence of such "esoteric ideas" in Thomas? Anything about "aeons and demiurges"?
Those first editors, not finding such evidence, assumed that this just goes to show how sneaky heretics are-they do not say what they mean. So when they found no evidence for such nihilism or dualism-on the contrary, the Gospel of Thomas speaks continually of God as the One good "Father of all"-they just read these into the text. Some scholars, usually those not very familiar with these sources, still do.
So first let's talk about "Gnosticism"-and what I used to (but no longer) call "Gnostic Gospels." I have to take responsibility for part of the misunderstanding. Having been taught that these texts were "Gnostic," I just accepted it, and even coined the term "Gnostic gospels," which became the title of my book.
I agree with you that we have no evidence for what we call "Gnosticism" from the first century, and have learned from our colleagues that what we thought about "Gnosticism" has virtually nothing to do with a text like the Gospel of Thomas-or, for that matter, with the New Testament Gospel of John which our teachers said also showed "Gnostic influences."
WWJD is actually a great moral role of thumb, the problem is that so few self-proclaimed Christians follow his teachings.
Except for the part when he called for his followers to take up swords and abandon their families (Matt. 10:34-36, among other passages).
And the part where he claimed that loving the Father took precedence over treating others with love and respect (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), which opens the door for all manner of inhuman atrocities and hate in the name of "loving God"
Matthew 10 is definitely more about conviction in the face of persecution, even from one's own family, than literally taking up swords. Just a few verses earlier, 10:16, he specifically says to be harmless as doves.
You're gonna have to find me an actual verse on that second part, as I interpret it, "loving the Father" goes hand-in-hand with treating others with love and respect.
Matthew 10 is definitely more about conviction in the face of persecution, even from one's own family, than literally taking up swords.
"I come not to bring peace, but a sword" is pretty unequivocal. Plus, consider "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36).
You're gonna have to find me an actual verse on that second part, as I interpret it, "loving the Father" goes hand-in-hand with treating others with love and respect.
And as others interpret The Greatest Commandment, "love your neighbor" only applies to people that share the same ideals or religion. After all, there are multiple references in the New Testament to "God's elect" (Rom. 8:33, Matt. 24:22) implying that those that are not "chosen" are somehow lesser. And is not exactly a new issue, as theologians have argued about predestination and God's chosen people for centuries Foster, Robert Verrell (1898). Systematic Theology. Columbia University, among many others.
It's not exactly encouraging that the Son of God can't even explain the most important commandments in a simple, unambiguous manner...
The Son of Man. I don't believe that Jesus was uniquely divine, I think he was uniquely conscious of the divinity within everyone.
Religion is a centuries-long game of telephone. Jesus never wrote anything. Prophets are enlightened examples of humanity, but with enough time the message is bent and twisted by less enlightened examples. You don't have to think he was some supernatural creature to agree with his message, and you don't have to reject the message to recognize that greedy people exploit popular movements for personal gain.
Trying to dismiss the message by poking holes in the secondhand accounts of his fan club is misguided. I should know, I spent long enough indulging in the practice myself.
Religion is a centuries-long game of telephone. Jesus never wrote anything.
Then why the hell did you bother asking for chapter and verse? Classic apologetics fan; ask for an example or evidence and then equivocate when you get exactly what you asked for.
Trying to dismiss the message by poking holes in the secondhand accounts of his fan club is misguided
Considering that the only thing left of the "enlightened" prophet are the secondhand accounts of his fan club, I'm not sure exactly what you think "the message" is...
I'm dismissive of "the message" not because it's easy to poke holes in the theology and historicity of the Christian bible (although it obviously is), but because there is no consistent theology or message that can traced anyone with any sort of reliability. If that's all there is to glean from exhaustive apologetics and exegesis of "the teachings of Jesus," I won't bother to go to a religion or guess "WWJD" for that; there are plenty of better moral frameworks and more consistent belief systems out there.
Then why the hell did you bother asking for chapter and verse?
To point out that, even after the game of telephone, it still doesn't say what you claim it does.
I won't bother to go to a religion or guess "WWJD" for that; there are plenty of better moral frameworks and more consistent belief systems out there.
Which of those moral frameworks encourages antagonizing the beliefs of strangers?
How do you know what the nature of the original message was? We have some information that is dubious, unless you dug up an old scroll or something I don't see what you have that we do not.
Neurology has shown that if you ask someone what their God thinks about x and what you think about x the same parts of the brain becomes active. I want you to please consider that. Is it possible that the "true" message is just what you want to be true?
Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry, acted with mercy, and called out religious hypocrites. Whether he was a historic figure, or an allegorical one, those are behaviors to emulate. I don't need some old scroll, or an originalist account. Jesus, as a memetic construct, personifies a collection of admirable behaviors. Historicity is irrelevant to "What would Jesus do?" as a moral hypothetical.
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
FWIW this is absent in Marcion's version of the gospel which was likely representing one of the earliest surviving versions and I'm pretty much positive this is a later redactional addition (the part about taking a purse relates to taking money from people when ministering), but in terms whether there's a canonical quote of Jesus literally telling people to take up arms, ask and ye shall receive.
But then in Luke 22:49-51 when they try to actually use those swords:
When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?”
And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
Which is also missing in Marcion's version of Luke.
It's useful to look at the gospels through the lens of redactional layers.
So for example a later editor may have wanted to include Matthew's rebuke of using swords as is mentioned in Mark and was originally omitted in first draft Luke, and then the editor thought they needed to explain why they had swords in the first place by having Jesus at the last supper command them to immediately go out and buy swords.
I'll also add that in Matthew's account that Jesus says at that moment to put away the sword because (loosely) "those who use the shall die by the sword". And he later says, as if he couldn't summon heaven's army if needed.
An interpretation could be that it's a display that these things must happen and Jesus went willingly, not forced because he was unarmed. When Jesus preached, it wasn't with sword in-hand. And in Matthew he specifies they are trying to get the better of him by doing this in the middle of the night and assume he is unarmed (as always).
Also later in the Luke he literally says that the two swords by them "is enough" so they don't go and sell their things to buy swords.
I'd advise everyone to be careful about picking specific verses since the chapter/verse system is something added later for simplicity, not how it was intended to be read.
You are aspired by the teaching that you should speak in metaphors so people don't understand you and they will burn in hell? Or the teaching that you should abandon your family and means of survival depending on skydaddy? How about the teaching that you should love a person so much that even your own children you feel hateful to them by comparison?
You are aspired by the teaching that
Hahahaha… Look, next time you decide to try to dunk on someone on the internet make sure you know what the word they used, in this case, “aspire” actually means and how to use it in a sentence. That way you won’t embarrass yourself like you did just now.
Deflection won't make the points I advanced go away. It will however slow down your ability to resolve the Cognitive Dissonance.
You haven't read the NT, you haven't studied it, you can't deal with the verses that go against your notions of what it ought to say. No amount of deflection and wordplay will change these facts.
Hell isn’t a real big feature of the Bible. Jews started getting an idea of hell from the Greeks around the time of Jesus - there was Sheol before, but it wasn’t really “hell”. This idea of perpetual torment in a some sort of arrangement run by Satan is something that developed of thousands of years, and isn’t Biblical. The hell we imagine is mostly the creation of a late medieval poet :)
I’m not a Christian, but I think it might be helpful for you to read the Bible as a historical document. If you read it angrily, and just look up verses to disprove Christianity, then you work yourself up and don’t develop a better understanding of the text. You seem to be arguing with a lot of people in this thread as if they are religious when they are not. The fact that God is not real and that the historical Jesus was not the Son of God does not mean the Bible is stupid and garbage.
Right except Paul talks about hell 3x in the authentic letters. There was a concept of it around and yes it probably had Greek roots. Really not seeing what difference this all makes. This is Christian doctrine and just because people can point to the history of it doesn't mean that suddenly people don't believe it. I argue with people on the ideas that they present not the ones I would have liked them to.
The Bible is fucking stupid hot garbage. The books are propaganda that have almost nothing to do with real life events and provide multiple contradictiary ways to live that are somehow all terrible. You know it endorses the very worst behaviors. Who the heck cares if the Christians borrowed hell from someone else? They still have it. Paul grabbed and since the Gospels were all fanfics off his letters they have it as well.
Oh and Jesus never existed so you can drop that historical Jesus stuff.
The majority of scholars who study the Bible agree that there was a historical Jesus. I’m not saying “scholars” from my local Bible college, I’m saying that if you read articles on the Bible on JSTOR that is the going consensus. The degree to which he resembles the Jesus in the Bible is up for debate.
Which letters do you believe are correctly attributed to Paul? Can you cite those three examples? What are their soteriologies and descriptions of hell, and how do they compare with contemporary depictions?
I’m not sure that you are really “argue with people on the ideas they present” because you consistently rail against straw men. I don’t think you’re really interested in the history, I think you are just angry about religion. But as a fellow atheist, rallying against “skydaddy” makes us look like 14 year olds posting on r/atheism :)
“Christian doctrine” is extremely nebulous. Not every Christian in the 2nd century was reading the same texts. It’s difficult to get a consistent set of answers from Christians today what Christian doctrine is.
The majority of scholars who study the Bible agree that there was a historical Jesus
The majority of scholars who study the Bible believe the resurrection was a true historical event and that the gospel attributions are 100% accurate. I.e. a man named Marc wrote the first gospel. What's the matter? The logical fallacy of Argument from Authority only works when you want it to work?
m not saying “scholars” from my local Bible college, I’m saying that if you read articles on the Bible on JSTOR that is the going consensus.
Right you gathered a bunch of True Scotsmen and now the plural of what they say has become data. Is something true because it is or because a lot of people say it is true? Does a lie become truth if really smart amazing people say it is?
The degree to which he resembles the Jesus in the Bible is up for debate.
Yeah something a lot of us have noticed. The total inability to keep the story straight. Ask 5 True Scotsmen scholars the same question about Jesus and you get 5 different answers that can't all be true.
Which letters do you believe are correctly attributed to Paul? Can you cite those three examples?
Corthininas 6:9, these 1:8, Romans 2:5.
Not to be too whiny but you could have done this yourself.
What are their soteriologies and descriptions of hell, and how do they compare with contemporary depictions?
Who cares? I already explained this to you. Just because something is not in the Bible doesn't mean it isn't in Christianity. The Bible is a product of it, not a manual for it. The Trinity isn't in there either. We know that Paul had a concept of it and the gospels writers added to it. I don't even know why you are arguing this with me? Christians have an idea of hell. Do I agree it is for bad reasons? Yes, I am an atheist. You should be arguing with them.
m not sure that you are really “argue with people on the ideas they present” because you consistently rail against straw men. I don’t think you’re really interested in the history, I think you are just angry about religion. But as a fellow atheist, rallying against “skydaddy” makes us look like 14 year olds posting on r/atheism
Thanks for the advice Grandpa.
Christian doctrine” is extremely nebulous. Not every Christian in the 2nd century was reading the same texts. It’s difficult to get a consistent set of answers from Christians today what Christian doctrine is.
Fine. 99%
It’s really clear that you aren’t interested in learning. The scholars on JSTOR do not believe that someone named Mark wrote Mark. I would suggest getting a nice Oxford annotated Bible to get a good view of the scholarship, but I’m afraid that might upset you further. I think you are likely to reflexively dismiss any scholarship that isn’t “Christianity is a hoax.” Unfortunately, that makes it very hard to do any serious critical analysis. When I took my religious historiography class, it was very clear that starting with any sort of agenda is a bad idea.
“Which letters were written by Paul” is a big point of debate, and scholars differ greatly in their opinions. Considering that your views on history tend to not align with mainstream historical consensus, it’s a pretty important thing to establish.
I really like Bart Ehrman’s work myself - it’s pretty easy to find online and he writes in a style that is pretty accessible to a casual audience.
. I would suggest getting a nice Oxford annotated Bible to get a good view of the scholarship, but I’m afraid that might upset you further.
Lay off the personal attacks. I own a copy of the Oxford annotated Bible and studied the semetic languages as well as Greek. I planned to be a biblical scholar before I learned that God was a lie. Says so very much that you can't produce evidence of your claim that Jesus was real instead you are reduced to basic logical fallacies and personal attacks while dismissively hinting that I don't know anything. Give me any page of the OT and I can reliably translate about 80% of the words and tell you where it is from. Since we are apparently using knowledge as a weapon instead of evidence I am going to ask you if you can do the same.
See how crap this argument is? Am I right because I know Hebrew and Aramaic and a bit of Greek? Am I wrong because I don't live on JSTOR? Stop with the no True Scotsmen and Argument from Authority. Produce your evidence for your god existing if you can't I can dismiss him. On my side I see absurd claims told by liars that are inconsistent and so far the only fucking evidence you have produced is someone else said 20 centuries later on what they thought.
Unfortunately, that makes it very hard to do any serious critical analysis.
I am happy to do critical analysis. Go right ahead and make your point.
When I took my religious historiography class, it was very clear that starting with any sort of agenda is a bad idea.
I won't apologize for caring about the truth.
Which letters were written by Paul” is a big point of debate, and scholars differ greatly in their opinions. Considering that your views on history tend to not align with mainstream historical consensus, it’s a pretty important thing to establish.
Why? I am sorry but why? If I disagree with scholars on one thing does that mean I must on all things? Do I have to sit here with serial killer obsession levels building up thousands of claims of consensus and rate them on how much I agree with them and why? Tell me the reason. I won't to know the exact reason why I am required to do that. Maybe some biblical scholar can answer it for you.
Christianity has hell which letters of Paul are forgeries and which are not is independent.
I really like Bart Ehrman’s work myself - it’s pretty easy to find online and he writes in a style that is pretty accessible to a casual audience.
He is alright. Listen to his podcast and have almost all of his books. Not sure what name dropping is doing for you but whatever.
To be honest, this is something that really bugs me; people using the Bible for their own benefit. They say, "we love Jesus!" and then go and keep doing exactly what they were doing before. Jesus said, "If you love me, keep ny commandments" (John 14:158), and James said, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (James 2:26, but there's more in James 2:14-26). Yes, they might say that there's too many commandments-- but Jesus also said "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.". That is a summary of every single law/commandment in the entire Bible, all of the others are just more specific instructions on how to do that. All that stuff about turning the other cheek and going the extra mile-- it's not saying to just put up with abuse, mistreatment, and injustice. It's talking about what people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi did, using oppressors violence and mistreatment against them. The third commandment, "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." (Exodus 20:7) isn't just talking about saying "ooh mah gawd" when you stub your toe, it's talking about using God's inapropriately or disrespectfully in any way, including for personal gain.
All that stuff about turning the other cheek and going the extra mile-- it’s not saying to just put up with abuse, mistreatment, and injustice. It’s talking about what people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi did, using oppressors violence and mistreatment against them.
Doesn't it? I think when Jesus said "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Matthew 5:39 he meant put up with abuse, mistreatment, and injustice - do not resist an evil person and do not retaliate when attacked.
I think when Jesus said "love your enemies [...] Be perfect" Matthew 5:44, 48 he meant love your enemies and be perfect.
I think when Jesus said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor" Matthew 19:21 he meant sell your possessions and give to the poor.
A lot of supply-side Jesus followers say Jesus supports the troops, and that the eye of the needle the camel needs to go through isn't actually the eye of a needle - but a gate.
I think the above quotes are good things to do, eventho I'm not an ethical enough person to do them. I also think all the supernatural things Jesus is quoted as saying is bullshit, and that it's better to be honest than to repeat a bunch of stupid fairy tales.
The biggest lie the Religious Right repeats is by rejecting that Jesus would be a progressive.
Jesus (at least as depicted by the Bible) advocated nothing about hurting people who were different, and preached tolerance throughout his life.
No. That is you picking and choosing verses. Which I can do as well.
He was quite clear that his way was the only way to heaven and what's more just saying you followed him wasn't enough. You can't be tolerant of other views when you are telling people that the holders of other views are going to burn in hell and even those who agree with you might still not measure up.
He was quite clear that you couldn't follow him and have a good relationship with people who didn't. That outsiders would hate you and you would hate them. That the very family unit was a snare to keep you away from him. Again this is a hurtful non-tolerant view.
Then he told his followers of the time of his wrath was coming where he would torture those who opposed him and his followers would go around murdering many tossing the bodies at his feet.
He was quite clear that his way was the only way to heaven
He said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
and what's more just saying you followed him wasn't enough
This is what the parable of the sheep and the goats(what the original post was based on) is about.
You can't be tolerant of other views when you are telling people that the holders of other views are going to burn in hell
Hell isn't a place where people are eternally tortured by Satan-- it's an event, it hasn't happened yet, and it'll be originally prepared for Satan and the demons. The idea of humans having immortal souls comes from greek philosophy and is not Biblical. Any humans that go to hell (the lake of fire) will die (I'm not quite sure about the Demons, I'll have to do more research). Heaven isn't just about living forever, it's also about being with God forever, and if you want to be with Him forever, why wouldn't you eant to be with Him now? I think the lake of fire (I'm calling it that because the word "hell" has a lot of unhelpful connotations to it) might just be the absence of God. Keep in mind that this is from Revelation which uses a lot of metaphors and prophetic imagery.
He was quite clear that you couldn't follow him and have a good relationship with people who didn't.
That's not what He said: He said that He needs to be at the centre of our lives. That certainly doesn't mean that we can't have good relationships with others, both believers and non-believers. "We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:20).
That outsiders would hate you and you would hate them.
He didn't say that non-believers and believers should hate each other, He said that His teaching would be controversal and decisive-- "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 ). Of course He will bring peace when He returns and His teachings encourage peace (although it isn't presented as being the most important thing), but throughout history His teachings have been very controversal.
That the very family unit was a snare to keep you away from him
I'm not quite sure which verses you're talking about here, but I can think of two: Matthew 10:35-36 and Luke 14:26. The first one is the continuation of when He says that He came to bring a sword and He is still talking about how His teachings would ve controversial and decisive. In the second one He doesn't mean to literally hate, He means it comparitively. He's talking again about how He should be at the centre of our lives and our most important thing.
Then he told his followers of the time of his wrath was coming where he would torture those who opposed him
I talked about this in my response to the bit about tolerance
his followers would go around murdering many tossing the bodies at his feet.
I don't remember reading about this. Could you tell me where it's found?
Most of what you're saying don't contradict progressivism.
The things that do, I would say from the other reply to you are pretty controversial interpretations or contexts, or downright so mis-explained by you that people aren't able to guess what verses you mean.
I'm not a Christian, but I'm not going to bury my head from seeing how progressive their namesake was.
Most of what you’re saying don’t contradict progressivism.
How do you unify the absolute obedience to God with a secular society? How do you unify strict adherence to all the commandments with a secular government? How do you unify god ordained leadership with democracy?
The things that do, I would say from the other reply to you are pretty controversial interpretations or contexts
Very well. Show me what verse I am wrong about and the correct understanding. Then explain how you determined that and how you determines that Christian leaders and thinkers have been so wrong for so long about the meaning of these passages?
I’m not a Christian, but I’m not going to bury my head from seeing how progressive their namesake was.
Which is why he spoke out in support of the LGBT, religious tolerance, and against slavery? Oh wait, he didn't.
How do you unify the absolute obedience to God with a secular society
Render unto Caesar? Jesus' preaching seems clearly to favor things like welfare and social sharing over blasphemy laws. He directly broke the religious mandates of his people in favor of helping those in need.
Very well. Show me what verse I am wrong about and the correct understanding
Part of my objection is that many of us couldn't even figure out what verses you meant. Name a verse that clearly shows Jesus must support the political Right and then we can discuss it.
Which is why he spoke out in support of the LGBT, religious tolerance, and against slavery? Oh wait, he didn’t
It might surprise you, but Jesus didn't live in 20th Century America. With that in mind:
LGBT - This is literally why I argue that Christians inject anti-gay rhetoric. He DIDN'T speak out about how to treat gay people in an empire where homosexuality was largely tolerated. Short of him turning to the camera and starting to comment on video games, one wouldn't expect him to talk about gay rights, or abortion, or any 20th century comedy.
religious tolerance
While he tried to convert pagans, he was accepting of them in a smaller region where they were largely outcasts. Pagan influences are a large part of why Christianity doesn't look like Judaism-plus-plus. The Jewish people were ruled by a pagan empire, and yet again we have no speech against it.
against slavery
In this one you might have a point. But I think you're stretching if looking at it as an outsider. Through all the books of progressive teaching, focusing on the fact he fails to take the time to condemn slavery seems like you're showing your hand if it's your reason for rejecting his general progressivism.
Unlike Christians, I don't think Jesus was perfect. I'm convinced if he were alive running for office, he'd be Far Left.
the troops, and that the eye of the needle the camel needs to go through isn’t actually the eye of a needle - but a gate.
It meant both. It was a clever pun. At least according to some understanding. Doesn't matter the sentence only makes sense if the gate is small.
A lot of supply-side Jesus followers say Jesus supports the troops, and that the eye of the needle the camel needs to go through isn’t actually the eye of a needle - but a gate.
There’s no evidence to support this. It’s an elaborate bit of apologia that rich Christians use to try to dodge the fact they shouldn’t be rich. The copium is so strong that people will dig up pictures of specific gates (from centuries later) to try to back it up.
I always heard it in the context of trivia, like the eye of the needle was a really small gate used to allow pedestrian access to the city while allowing a wall to still keep out armies. A camel still wouldn't fit by design, so I guess I've never heard it in the context of apologetics of rich people, or maybe I assumed the people I was talking to were being good-faith.
I think when Jesus said "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Matthew 5:39 he meant put up with abuse, mistreatment, and injustice - do not resist an evil person and do not retaliate when attacked.
This one takes a bit of cultural context, I have a book at home that has a good section on this but I'm traveling now so I'll type this part when I get home. But the gist of it is that don't just 'put up' with it, but be kind to them. Fight violence and oppresion with kindness. draw attention to them. Force them to treat you (even if just to fight you) as an equal. Like it says in Proverbs 25:21-22, "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you."
I think when Jesus said "love your enemies [...] Be perfect" Matthew 5:44, 48 he meant love your enemies and be perfect.
yep, that's what He meant: "Love your enemies, pray for those who curse you". I think this ties in a bit with the cheek turning.
I think when Jesus said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor" Matthew 19:21 he meant sell your possessions and give to the poor.
This is what He said just before the bit about the camel going through the needle eye. A man came to Jesus and asked what he needed to do to be saved. Jesus told him to keep the commandments, and the man said that He'd done that all his life. Then Jesus said "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.". The man then walked away sadly because he had a lot of stuff and Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God.
A lot of supply-side Jesus followers say Jesus supports the troops, and that the eye of the needle the camel needs to go through isn't actually the eye of a needle - but a gate.
yeah He meant that it would be easier for a camel (like the animal, camelus, this one) to ge through the eye of a needle (like the hole in the end of the sewing tool, the bit in the top right corner of the main picture of this article). Also lol for Supply Side Jesus.
I think the above quotes are good things to do, eventho I'm not an ethical enough person to do them.
Same here, but with God's help I come to Him, He pulls me closer, and I become more like Him. And when I fall (or jump) He comes and gets me and picks me up again.
I also think all the supernatural things Jesus is quoted as saying is bull****, and that it's better to be honest than to repeat a bunch of stupid fairy tales.
I'll have to disagree with you here, I firmly believe that Jesus is God come to earth as a human.
(sorry it took me ages to reply, I've been busy and I wanted to sit down and think about this reply)
Which English translation do you prefer and recommend? I like NET because of it's less-rights reserved copyright, but for ease of understanding I prefer translations that use contemporary language instead of just footnotes.
be kind to them. Fight violence and oppresion with kindness. draw attention to them.
I think this characterization of turning the other cheek is more complete and supported by the nearby text, even for someone like me who prefers Jefferson's eliding.
Re: "do not resist", are there other nearby passages that expand it to more than just refraining from violence, into actually resisting evil persons? I ethically agree with your expanded position of trying to overcome injustice in this world - but doesn't the quotes of Jesus in the canonical books rely instead on waiting for justice in heaven and hell, and not on Earth?
Which English translation do you prefer and recommend?
I normally use the KJV (I'm used to it) but in this thread I've mostly been quoting the NIV.
"do not resist", are there other nearby passages that expand it to more than just refraining from violence, into actually resisting evil persons?
(I'm assuming that you mean "do not resist" as in Matthew 5:39)
So the full text of Matthew 5:39 is
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
In this verse Jesus is talking about vengeance and how we should react to mistreatment. I believe that the first part of "do not resist an evil person" refers to violent resistance. The second part of "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also" is a bit more complicated.
So in the culture of the time/place, the right hand was typically associated with things like honour and authority, and a backhand slap on the left cheek with the right hand was considered to be insulting to the slappee and a sign that the slapper considered the slappee to be inferior. By turning their right cheek to them, the slappee gives the slapper three choices:
Break social taboo
If the slapper were to deliver another backhand slap with their left hand, they would go against social norms and could potentially undermine their authority.
Fight as equals
If the slapper were to deliver a fronthand slap or a punch with their right hand, they would no longer be treating the slappee as inferior but would instead be fighting as equals.
Give up
If the slapper were to give up and leave the slappee alone, then the slapper would no longer be in authority and the slappee would win.
but doesn't the quotes of Jesus in the canonical books rely instead on waiting for justice in heaven and hell, and not on Earth?
I'm pretty sure He says things like that but I can't think of any specific verses.
(sorry it took a while for me to answer, your reply didn't show up on my app for some reason)
third commandment, “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”
I thought it was because people swear to God in court and witness testimony was all that civilization has in terms of evidence.
We found a workaround for that. Just swear on the Bible instead of in God's name.
Ticket closed.
Or wave it around and have your official security services clear away any opposition to your path. (Trump)
I thought it was because people swear to God in court and witness testimony was all that civilization has in terms of evidence.
I believe it's more of a respect thing
Thank you, I love every word you wrote here! I'm an atheist when it comes to picking labels, but I think there's potentially good things in these value systems (and bad, like with everything else that is man made). Focusing on labels is missing the point.
Because even an entirely made up "hokum" story can inspire people to behave themselves better. It's not much different with more modern fantasy.
I wish this ever worked on Christians with political values on the right side of the spectrum. The fact is they refuse to see the contradictions and don't care.
We've tried to use this logic on family and friends in a loving capacity and it essentially never works. They are the Bootstraps for Thee but Not for Me party. Subsidies are only for the rich who deserve it.
"Jesus helps those who help themselves. Pretty sure that includes elementary school kids in poverty." - conservatives
It's not a biblical passage. It's not a poorly translated passage. It's not anywhere in the Bible. It's a made up platitude by the idiots that brought you the prosperity gospel.
Ok, still doesn't change the fact that it is a saying. I didn't disagree. I said it was a saying.
You are right it is not in the Bible. Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helps_those_who_help_themselves
For some of them, I think it's because they feel a thing first, and then reach for justifications second. If you say something that contradicts their feelings, it won't feel true to them and they won't believe you. It doesn't matter how true it is. They're driven by emotion. It is extremely ironic that the right wing is the one that says stuff like "facts don't care about your feelings".
If you want to change minds, you probably need to make them make emotional connections to the thing you're trying to get them to believe.
Belief is also social, so if you want their beliefs to stick you need to get them away from the group that's believing nonsense/hate/whatever, or they'll go right back.
It is extremely ironic that the right wing is the one that says stuff like "facts don't care about your feelings".
With them it's always projection.
It works on my parents. They're Catholic though, but Latino so they've voted Republican many, many times. But they don't vote for Trump, and they don't vote for DeSantis. They really the walk, and they think the modern Republican party is completely betshit.
A brown person that advocated for caring for those around you, and fought against greed? Looks like the sinister Jewish cabal are sending the illegal immigrants to take over our country with communism - git em!
They hate him already. There are maggats who seriously believe that Jesus was too "woke" and so disregard the new testament completely.
The real Christians got persecuted and crucified two thousand years ago, for saying "be kind to one another". The Christians we know today, their antescendents converted when some dude in power said they were now Christian. They didn't become different people.
No, they got persecuted two thousand years ago for challenging the power dynamics of a conservative theocracy dependent on revisionist religious orthodoxy.
Which is very ironic given the embracing of the tradition today by a group hell bent on establishing a conservative theocracy dependent on a revisionist version of that tradition which brought it more in line with said religious orthodoxy.
Evangelists use The Bible as a shield and scripture as a weapon. I like to think actual Christians aren't these people.
Of course because they're not strong enough to fight for their beliefs or some other bullshit. I've had someone unironically say Jesus was too soft. They've lost the plot.
I say that, but, also, not a Christian.
Jesus should have smited the Romans so hard the Etruscans got resurrected, cmv.
Kinda defeats the entire point of Christianity being about mercy to the sinful if none is shown.
Oh nooo my religion that preaches pacifism in the face of literal crucifixion has become militant and I've lost the fucking plot oh nooooo
Well Evangelists are the people kicking in doors to convert you. Christians are just people who believe in Christian stuff.
A genuine difference.
Would you like to see PEW surveys on how they vote and what opinions they hold about minorities?
Evangelists? Pretty sure I know how they feel about minorities. Surely not far off from Democrats.
It's always been funny to me how religious people, who follow their religious doctrine to the gritty details, are called "extremists" when they're the only ones actually following the doctrine.
You're either an extremist or a fuckin hypocrite who chooses to cherry pick which parts of the doctrine you choose to follow.
Either way their beliefs mean nothing to me and I'm absolutely fucking sick of hearing about whatever bullshit sky daddy they pray to.
Fundamentalists don’t necessarily follow the tenets of the religion more accurately or thoroughly. They often have their own interpretations others disagree with, and pick and choose what to follow as much as the rest.
So you're either a hypocrite or a hypocrite.
Either way idgaf about which religion it's coming from. Religion has done nothing but cause problems in the modern world.
It's an ancient belief that just like geocentrism should be crushed with realism and scientific facts.
If your beliefs can't handle being destroyed by facts then they were never true to begin with and you're just lying to yourself.
(I'm using the royal you. I'm not attacking you personally)
To be fair, if you tried to follow all the rules and teachings of old religions today, you'd definitely be breaking a lot of them just by going about your daily life. If you literally followed all the stuff from the bible, you could end up being punished for even just casually saying the name of another god according to Exodus 23:13 KJV.
I can see why people don't fully follow every teaching or rule if stuff like that is cannon, but at the same time can somewhat agree religion kinda seems ancient and outdated.
If you literally followed all the stuff from the bible, you could end up being punished for even just casually saying the name of another god according to Exodus 23:13 KJV.
Following a text literally is not the same as following the actual teachings of a religion.
Any "Bible" most of us can read is a revision of a translation of a translation with the additional problem of being coloured by the opinion of whoever had control over subsequent versions. You cannot take it literally. Like, at all.
If you as a translator, publisher, king or whoever had influence over a major revision of "the bible" started out with a phrase to the effect of "you shouldn't follow other religions' teachings" and had a particular pet peeve for people speaking of other gods, you could easily arrive at a wording forbidding the "mention of the name of other gods". I'm not knowledgeable about this in the slightest and cannot make any solid assertions here (though if you look at i.e. the older Wycliff version it sounds a lot less specific) but rather want this to serve as an example for just how much room there is for error in such historical documents.
There is no authoritative and exact source on the beliefs of Christianism as many assume the bible to be.
Systems like Christianity are way too complex, ancient and far removed from modern society - the Ten Commandments were pretty concise, but then there’s so many other ‘do this, don’t do that’ rules and suggestions, in Leviticus for instance, plus then the New Testament which has some things that override the old one. Then it’s tied to this supernatural gibberish and tall tales and legends that barely make sense (Noah’s Ark, for example, or Jesus magically creating food and healing people), plus centuries of rationalizations of the contradictions (Trinity) and additions used to control people (eternal hellfire!). For a book supposedly dictated by a supreme being, the Bible sure could use a damned editor. Probably the whole thing should be scrapped, but newer religions aren’t much better, if at all.
Well socialist dictatorship supports at least. Paul was clear that the leadership was ordained by God.
They were not persecuted to any real extent and the few that were was because they weren't giving sacrifices to the gods. Not because of any moral reason.
You can even see it in the first time a political leader mentions them. He says that he lets them go if they just agree to make an offering. The Romans had zero problems with charity the Romans had zero problems with people being nice. They had a problem with not respecting the gods because they "knew" that if you didn't bad stuff would happen.
There was no golden age to Christianity that they fell from.
Even with removing the Christian aspect from this, it’s pretty heavy and a strong point.
I wonder what their plan is to retell the story in 8-12 years from now when people who were effectively left behind on purpose are of voting age.
Was really hoping to read something else. Something arguably less plausible… but something else nonetheless.
I hope you have a good week though!
Eh, not all of them. I have 7 brothers and sisters, all of us raised Southern Baptist and thus obviously Republican, and I think only 2 are really likely to vote regressively. A 3rd could go either way. The rest of us have seen through the BS. I know it's only one anecdotal data point, and I suspect we're the exception rather than the norm, but I think it illustrates that Republican policy and hypocrisy are massively unappealing to people who have a capacity for empathy and critical thinking, and thus that we're not necessarily doomed.
I hope there's enough empathetic people about to see through their nonsense so we can get everyone they help they need.
8-12 years from now when people who were effectively left behind on purpose are of voting age.
The plan is for them to not be able to vote in 8-12 years. They're already wanting to raise the voting age.
God I hope they continue the push to raise the voting age.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The more time and effort they waste on an issue requiring a Constitutional amendment, the happier I am. Let 'em spin their wheels.
Sure has been a trip finding out that I'm the naive one for believing all the things my parents taught me as a kid growing up Christian..
All that "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" stuff went right out the window the second wearing a mask became even the slightest inconvenience. Hard to recognize the people who taught me in Sunday school, now that locking kids up in cages and putting undesirables in camps is part of their media drip.
Sucks a lot.
I feel ya. It was a long process for me to realize that my Catholic family actually does not give a shit about the poor (just get a job), the sick (why do I care if they don't have health insurance?), the oppressed (slavery was actually good for black people because they learned useful skills!), the hungry (defund WIC!), the dying (assisted suicide will cause them to go to hell), wellbeing of children (defund public schools, 10k dead in Gaza, no more school lunches, take your pick), the nuclear family (200k families displaced in Gaza), the stranger (dirty immigrants), etc, etc, etc.
The list honestly goes on and on and on and it is such a shame.
Their attitude, however, is not a result of Catholicism or general Christianity. Their attitude towards the weak and poor in society is just American.
Yeah, this is true. They say God comes first, but when they started making fun of the Pope with stupid Trumpian name-calling, I knew they had put their political party affiliation above religion
Every time this shit comes up we have to have the same discussion.
These people aren't shitty because they aren't following Jesus, they are shitty because they have been made credulous by religion, believing whatever is convenient for the scam artist on the pulpit.
This isn't going to get fixed by trying to argue some romantic interpretation of Jesus that you think would be nice. They are stories, made up stories, contradicting stories and lies. You will never find truth in the Bible or any religious text because it's made up bullshit.
We need to help free these people from religious shackles. There have been studies that have shown that as you become less religious you become more compassionate and less judgmental.
OP's argument has to be made. You want to shave off as many of the fools following that twisted ideology as you can, via any argument that rings true. Which means your argument also needs to be made, but I don't think it's going to convince a lot of conservatives or undecided voters. Hell I think pointing out the hypocrisy as OP is doing is more likely to convince them to become atheist, than your argument is.
Removing religion altogether is a long term goal that sounds nice. Not having the world's superpower go fascist is a short-term one that is essential. Turning a fundamentalist christian into a compassionate christian makes the danger go down significantly. And you can get decent traditions of charity and even activism from the compassionate side of christianity.
And on a final note, I've been in atheist circles long enough to see some of them go bad. Like racism, mysogyny, etc. Atheism does not cure all. Religion makes things worse but is not the source of our problems.
What I'm trying to get at, is society's problem run deeper than religion vs atheism, it's just one dimension, and not the most important.
Wherever it's going, step 1 is, if possible, engaging on their own terms with material they have accepted. No one is going to be receptive to just rejecting the belief system they grew up with just because someone said so.
If the scam artist is tapping into the material they were fed growing up and framing what they want in those terms, and your counter point is "well everything you were fed growing up with was stupid", guess who wins?
Well, no one, because the problem isn't the scammer, the problem is the fact they're still religious.
Whether you agree with them being religious or not, the fact remains their opinions hold sway and to be utterly dismissive because of their faith is to leave them vulnerable to manipulation.
Organized religion can be dangerous as it ascribes the authority of a god to the words of man. By refusing to engage at all on their own terms, you would give even more power to the words of unscrupulous people.
Who said anything about being dismissive? The solution isn't to allow them to dominate everyone by capitulating to them thinking we need their help or approval for anything. The answer is to simply move on without them and to build a new empire they're not allowed to control or participate in out of the old, and to let them rot in the ruins of the old.
The problem isn't scammers. The problem is evil religious types.
In the US, about 2/3rds of people are Christian. It's hard to argue for moving on without the majority of the population. The vast majority of which can be reasoned with, but they are going to be less likely to be receptive if the people talking are just saying how dumb their beliefs are and that they were raised wrong.
I may wish we spent less time fixated on the words of people long gone, and trying to claim authority by making up how we think they would have responded to some modern issue they never were faced with. This is not just religion, but also with historical figures (e.g. all the "founding fathers" speculation) or dead celebrities. However we can't ignore how values were instilled in folks when we have the chance to appeal to the better teachings of their upbringing.
Hitler and Stalin didn't rely on religion. Assuming that's the only cause it's a big mistake.
I agree with your sentiment, but I have to push back on Hitler not relying on religion. At the very least he used religion to get his population with him. As far as I remember his religiosity has been questioned as being sincere or not, but he himself never claimed not to be christian if I'm not mistaken.
I think even that is giving them too much credit. They like to hurt and abuse people and fundamentalist, far-right churches give them groups to abuse and absolution from their imaginary friend.
No it is a very valid argument
We all already know it is stories, your based atheist take however, in perfect irony, does not detract from the logic of the statement and is not fitting here
Maybe instead of shooting up schools, insane people should go shoot up churches and get people to be afraid to go to them.
What the fuck is wrong with you. Either that's a terrible joke in poor taste or a terrible opinion.
Razor wire in the water?
What kind of monster would do this?
I am not joking; I am genuinely asking.
Is the wire hidden under the water, like a trap, or 8s it very obvious an plain to see.
Neither are good, obviously, but one is infinitely more horrifying than the other
We don't know because we can't get access to it because the Governor is threatening secession, literally, not figuratively.
What we do know is that it had led to at least the death of a mother and child, very likely many more.
That whole thing is awful, but there are plenty of pictures. It's not like it's a media blackout, they're just not letting federal agents come in and remove it.
They had these floating bouy things wrapped in razor wire that I believe went all the way to the bottom of the water. You could definitely see them. You would certainly get gravely injured if you tried to traverse them.
The feds ordered those removed. I'm not sure if they did remove them or not.
The SCOTUS ordered it removed, because it was floating into the Mexican side of the river (effectively making this an illegal trespass onto foreign soil). The Texas state response was to deploy more buoys and dare someone to stop them.
When you're so far Alt-right that the Heritage Foundation wet-dream SCOTUS isn't even on your side...
Looks like it's along the edge of the water. You can't get out or get help if something goes wrong with your crossing.
It's in the ground, in the Texas side. But it is referencing a couple people who drowned on the Mexican side a couple weeks ago. Mexican authorities found the bodies, a couple hours later they notified the US about it. The CBP then blamed it on The Texas razor wire, as if they could have saved them if it weren't for the wire. After the facts came out, they were long dead, so it fizzled out of the news.
Never let a good crisis go to waste. Politics.
Some issues have gotten confused. There were buoys that texas floated in the water. A few drownings went on around them and they were ordered removed. There's some international law there. I'm not sure how much razor wire was in their construction, but it was definitely a safety hazard
The razor wire is another issue, and the ruling for it is really the bare minimum and appears to be misrepresented by the right. Texas had been putting it everywhere for years. This was not an issue for the federal government in most situations. However the federal border patrol has to do their job (regardless of the fact the right pretends they don't to smear political rivals). If they see something on the other side of the razor wire that requires their attention, they need to get to it. To do that they cut the wire to get to the otherside. Texas, not wanting to have to replace the wire everytime, sued to make them stop. The federal government basically argued blocking them was obstructing justice and other official business(including things like rendering medical aid). Courts have found on the federal side. Texas is trying to ignore it. If someone is on Texas' side you can always accuse them of obstructing justice. They kind of are in cases where there is actually justice to be done. In other cases they are just sadistic.
Don't stick us all in the same basket, many do not believe in using religion to attack but as a guide to our live not to force our beliefs on others. If not interpreted in a way to show fear or anger at others, it really is a beautiful thing.
"God's hired hands and the devil bands, packed in the same grandstands" - Joni Mitchell, "Tax Free"
So many christians today are eager to live like old testament Israelites and wish only to put the sword men, women, and children in glorious sacrifice to their bloodthirsty vision of god.
Except all that pesky other stuff like "the worker deserves their wages", and "treat the alien(/immigrant) and poor among you as one of your own".
No, I think they equally abuse both Testaments. Woman, submit to thy husband. Husband, submit to thy wife.
"treat the alien(/immigrant) and poor among you as one of your own"
Yay, someone actually knows their Leviticus 19!
A sentiment that's one of the few things in the Old Testament that's not anachronistic given the emerging picture of archeology.
Joshua killing the Canaanites? Poppycock nonsense.
Early Israelites were cohabitating with Philistines and Canaanites for much of the early Iron Age, and the animosity towards those neighbors in the text is a pile of revisionist BS.
For a newly emerging pastoral community to survive, getting along with their neighbors and not being a dick to others was adaptive as shit.
I never understood where that objection to Bible history came from. I mean, there are plenty of "good" objections to the Bible as inerrant history that could be discussed - e.g. there's several stories told twice but they differ, except the Bible says that it's not supposed to differ - but that one (that Israelites derived originally from Canaanites rather than being immigrants to it) seems SO obvious to counter?
The Bible story goes like: Abraham went there (to Canaan), then many years later his descendents went to Egypt (the story of Joseph, like that of Moses, is QUITE well-known), then their descents went back to Canaan, after getting bored with all that pyramid-building.
The objection: bruh, why you say you never been there before?
Response: wtf - I never said that I hadn't?!
A temporary leave-of-absence (for a few hundred years) and then return is NOT the same thing as "never been there before".
I've seen that Satan video - it looks really quite well-made in many ways, but the content... bruh, the content... it's not so much good. I liken it to a ChatGPT response these days (except it long predated that), where it has the form of an authoritative response (like his snappy witticisms - THOSE I very much enjoyed:-P), without bothering to put in the work to make the content thus as well.
Anyway, I hope you don't feel that I am attacking you personally, it's just that I am a fan of argumentation, on whatever side, and I really don't understand why that one was even supposed to work.
Marx actually wrote on the concept of Capital as a "real god," ie something actively worshipped, not just a quick metaphor. It's super interesting and very funky.
Do you know where I might find more about that? Like, what should I search for? Never mind, I found it.
Many people in various cultures worship ( or at least value above many other things) money or the status goods it brings.
This becomes obnoxious quickly.
All you gotta do is say, “Good night, Jesus. I love you.” BAM, free ticket to heaven.
It would be funny if heaven existed and they’re going on about the border crisis with the mortal realm. “I played the harp for going on 8,000 years. THEY TERKERJERB!!! I don’t see why we don’t make ‘em all wait in hell and apply for asylum! Heaven is for the heavenly. They don’t even speak angel!”
:p
The odd thing to me, is that you can make them aware of it. And they remain completely oblivious to the hypocrisy. An example would be homelessness. When you tell them Jesus wouldn’t allow that, they respond with “they chose that life,” or “that’s just the way things are.” Without ever considering the ramifications.
It is sad but this is why religion is separated from the government in any successful country, religion is based not on facts but on how you interpret the words in the bible and one phrase can be interpreted in many ways, in real life things do not work that way. I believe religion can be very beneficial to everyone if used as a guide and not as a means to control others.
How about "there might have been someone in human history for a few minutes it could have helped but it isnt very likely"?
"Was talk of virtue just pretention? Was I to naive, to expect you to heed the morals you're purveying?"
CHRISTIANITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN USED TO FOOL ABUSE AND TERRORIZE THE PEOPLE. NOW IS NO EXCEPTION.
Probably especially so since Jesus was a Jew preaching the Jewish faith and the guy who made most of the rules of the Bible was a rich dude who never met Jesus once.
And still, we will see conservatives disguising as centrists blame all of that to the democrats because they let them do it.
