Jesus: The rich are sinful, good deeds matter more than identity, people must choose to join us, be good to others.
Supposed followers of Christ's teachings: Yeah, we're gonna listen to like, none of that.
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
807 points (100.0% liked)
196
16500 readers
2619 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I enjoy the super human flexibility necessary to make the eye of the needle parable pro-wealth.
And it's not even pro-wealth, at most it's "maybe He meant it's just very very hard instead of impossible". And then pretend it can be ignored.
I find it real funny that a food not bombs I used to volunteer at a few years back had no christians in it. Just atheists, pagans, muslims, and jews.
Like, the people who worship Jesus, a person who would love the idea of people making food for the needy, did not participate.
I mean, I might have seen some radical catholics show up if I was living in an area with more catholics, but that wasn’t the case. For whatever reason the only radical (left wing/anti-war) christians I’ve ever met have been deeply catholic.
Here in the UK, food banks are very often run by churches. My wife routinely buys stuff she knows they need. We are both Christians.
Thats great! I was raised christian, and in my younger years I remember doing stuff like that all the time, but by the time I left christianity and went to college, that volunteer group fell apart, and I don’t believe my old church does that stuff anymore.
The city near me has some churches that let people use their land for community fridges and stuff, but that’s about as far as most christians go near me. That same city does have a radical pacifist christian group that I might reach out to if I start a FNB there, since they organize a ton of pro-Palestine protests.
It’s just I’ve been in christian areas where the people genuinely don’t give a fuck about their neighbors (looking at you, midwestern us), and it’s weird to me that they claim to love jesus but do not engage with his teachings in their life, and only use the hierarchy established by religion for political reasons. Instead, I turned to non-christians for mutual aid
the swedish church, which is the largest religious organization here afaik, is explicitly pro-LGBT and will go out of their way to tell intolerant people to pound sand
Paul overwrote all of that. Christ is a mascot, not an actual authority.
[27] "You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.'
[28] But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
[29] If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
[30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
Damn I didn't know Jesus was chill like that
Counter point: literally the next two verses
31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’
32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Not to mention that "adultery in his heart" is essentially thought-crime, which I personally find rather unchill and not based.
No, what he's saying is that since all actions start with a thought (for example, one does not just commit adultery; there's a period of "I wouldn't mind a bit of that"), it can be helpful to consider the thought as bad as the action for the purpose of weeding that behaviour out of our lives. Not that the thought is as bad as the action, because clearly it isn't. Continuing with the example: when we find ourselves thinking like that, it is at that point we should catch ourselves and think about something else instead. Attempting to stop yourself just before you rip her knickers off is unlikely to be quite as successful.
Similarly 29 and 30 are not suggestions of actual self-mutilation. Your eye cannot cause you to sin; it is exaggeration for the sake of making the point. You see something, you think about it, then you act on that thought. But if the act is sinful then we should attempt to stop the act at the earliest possible point.
it can be helpful to consider the thought as bad as the action for the purpose of weeding that behaviour out of our lives. Not that the thought is as bad as the action, because clearly it isn't.
Considering how many (ex)Christian folks struggle with guilt for having "impure thoughts", that appears to be a flawed approach. You can't control what kinds of thoughts spontaneously appear in your mind. Imo you should simply be aware that these thoughts are separate from your intentions and actions towards that person, and don't guide those actions.
Keep in mind that the Bible treats adultery as property crime against the father or husband of that particular woman. If you try to apply Jesus' teachings to infidelity specifically, you must wrestle with a bunch of historical and cultural baggage. Nothing wrong with treating a story as inspirational, but again, be aware that you're making Jesus more cool and progressive than he probably deserves.
Yeah, Jesus is prone to hyperbole, agree on that.
Discussions on christianity that comprehend that there is nuance to a 2k year old religion and respect it as a set of outdated moral guidelines? Damn, I didn't know 196 was chill like that
Isn't it fascinating how you can talk honestly about religious texts when you're not bound by dogma? Fundamentalists hate this one simple trick.
Thoughtcrime requires crime, which is when punishment is in the control of cops. Jesus says that righteousness should only be self-enforced or God-enforced
Evangelicals: "Jesus? Who? You mean Paul, right?"
Fucking this. The amount of Evangelicals who cite Paul as if he's CHRIST HIMSELF really fucking boils my piss. I have to stop and tell them "that's not JESUS you're citing, but Paul, try again."
Part of the mental gymnastics they use to justify putting Paul on the level of Jesus is that the holy spirit (Jesus' gaseous state) was speaking through the apostles.
My gaseous state also speaks
Lmao, now I'm imagining Jesus as a Les Enfants Terribles program. Maybe we can get David Hayter to voice Solid Jesus
Paul? You mean Saul the Thief?
It's astonishing how pretty much everything distasteful in the new testament comes from Paul. If you took him out you'd lose 70% of the story but it would be so much more palatable as a religious text
The problem with Paul is that people see "Law Paul" and ignore "Grace Paul".
When Paul talks about law and rules he means for people to look into themselves and see their own failings, not unlike John the Baptist, and see their own need of Jesus' grace, not to condemn other people.
He even declares himself as the worst of sinners.
And he also shares Jesus' view that the law should be interpreted as to protect people.
Paul who never met Jesus? Yep that Paul
No, a different Paul; see Acts 9, 4-5.
Literally Jesus: "Love each other as I have love you".
Conservative Christians: Did this morherfucker command me to hate any single human being for any dumbr reason? I think he did.
I had a family member once tell me that I have to hate the people that God hates. I don't think so.
"sure, so no one? since, you know, god is all-loving"
Plenty of Conservatives wouldn't be so terminally angry about women dressing immodestly if they didn't also think that masturbation is wrong. You ought to learn to surf the flow of the horny.
Yeah but you see, to the conservative, it's the woman's fault he's horny so he's going to control the woman.
Sort of. I think if you follow the evolution of it, it starts with, "We have to control women, therefore everything they do has to be wrong somehow, therefore when men are horny for women that's bad and the women's fault." That's also why it's never the man's fault in their eyes. This trick doesn't work if you also blame the men.
Abdullah Ocalan has written about how the domination of women is a founding kind of domination which enabled all subsequent kinds of domination in society, so if we were to stop allowing it, it would have flow on effects that contribute to the dismantling of those other hierarchies.
That's why reactionaries are so desperate to put women back in their box and keep them there. They don't want to lose their dominant positions. They will even talk about the "slippery slope" where allowing minorities to have power will destroy society. It won't of course, but it will weaken their stranglehold over society, which to them is the same thing.
do it, no (eye)balls
meow