[Jesus sits on a rock, speaking]
A new command I give you:
Love one another
[an angry character talks back to Jesus]
What if they’re something bad like gay, trans, brown, or communist though?
[Jesus is facepalming on his rock]
I don’t want to be a messiah anymore
or if they use AI or they Like a phobic tweet
A fine point if the people hating on those claimed devotion to Jesus and his teachings, or are you ignoring the whole point of the comic?
but what if they voted for Trump?
.
this comment is bait, if you got baited please tell me I’m a piece of shit or something
Just a note, Jesus wasn’t actually purple even though he is depicted here as such.
In the whole Bible there is no indication that he wasn’t purple
Shhhhh, the Republicans that lack object permanence will have their entire worldviews turned upsidedown! Winning!!
actually, many scholars today believe jesus most likely was purple, as a result of the water in his body being transmuted into wine. this is why in modern catholic tradition, wine is used to represent the blood of christ.
Guy was a walking DUI, with a BAC of 100%.
You can try to say this in a crowd of the followers of the religion of peace about their prophet. Hope you can run fast and you have a place to hide.
wouldn’t the BAC be around 15% though? 100% would be for distilled stuff, and while an appalachian jesus sounds rad, i don’t think he ever did water into moonshine.
Can’t do a blood test if there’s no blood to begin with.
this is why the bible contains no mention of jesus driving a car or reciting the alphabet backwards
i mean he was chronically wasted. he thought it went alpha, omega, delta, gamma…
If his blood were wine it would have an abv of between 8-14 percent, although I believe wine was significantly diluted back then.
At that point id argue it is an ABC
deleted by creator
I think with a BAC of 100% I would also be seeing god…
Then explain all the portraits! /s
Ecce Muppo. Unknown, 2026
Of course, canon Jesus reply would be “but we’re brown ourselves though?”
I honestly don’t know what colour of skin people of the levant would have at that time.
The canon version is people complaining about the Samaritans.
Maybe we are due an updated parable: The Good Transwoman
i see you were paying attention at the church i play music at. we have (well, had. my contract just ended) a damn good pastor
I’ve read the Kama Sutra. There’s a chapter in there telling you to karate chop your woman in the head. At the end of the chapter, it mentions that some women have died from said move. I don’t think it’s really the be all and end all of good sex. There’s also a chapter on seducing your neighbor’s child bride.
As an ex-muslim i can confidently say quran does not tell us to love one another, it tells us to love our muslim brothers and rape, kill, torture everyone else.
I am just grateful most muslims are delusional people who have never read a single word of their book (in their native language) and live a life nowhere as close to that is depicted in the book. There is a reason why jihadism etc. is more popular in Arabic speaking countries, because they actually understand the thing they are reading.
I’m sure muslims know how to translate it from arabic back to their native languages
deleted by creator
And the Kama Sutra is incredibly sexually violent, if I’m remembering correctly.
counterpoint trojan war
also that one fence made out of penises that they keep trying to enter in the olympics
It’s amazing that a sect leader that promoted peace and frugality unknowingly created one of the most violent and greedy religions.
Yes it certainly morphs after Constantine makes it the state religion, rather than a cult.
I am reading a book on the Baltic Crusades and it was talking about the diametrically opposed ideas of state violence and a pacifist religion. Essentially, pacifism doesn’t work as a state policy. The Christian church struggled to decide what violence the state should be able to commit.
Augustine, thought war could be justified in certain circumstances, one of which was if the following peace created more good than the evil if the war wasn’t fought.
Nowadays, I don’t think people even know that Christianity was/is a pacifist movement.
Augustine, thought war could be justified in certain circumstances, one of which was if the following peace created more good than the evil if the war wasn’t fought.
And don’t forget Aquinas, who literally sandwiched his one chapter on war between the chapters detailing mercy. If I remember the professors correctly, that was no mistake, and was very, very thematically intentional. Christians are downright fucked in the head as they try to cognitive dissonance their way into reconciling our species’ lust for war with high minded ideals of love and kindness.
I mean, it should be obvious to Christians today that Jesus repeatedly and consistently made a clear distinction between the “kingdom of heaven” and secular nations. Separation of church and state was absolutely one of the premises the early church worked off of as a teaching of Jesus himself. The idea of a “Christian Nation” is indeed antithetical to the very foundations of Christianity. The early history of Christianity is pretty lost on people today and people are quite unaware of just how drastic the changes in Christianity were in the early 300s, and how gigantic of a deal it was for the Roman state to adopt Christianity at the time.
if the following peace created more good than the evil if the war wasn’t fought.
That’s the neat thing. For some reason every war does.
Jesus Christ as depicted in the Bible, with near 100% certainty never existed. He was no more real than Harry Potter.
The absolute lack of evidence of existence for a person claimed to be the most significant person that ever lived, and who performed numerous miracles, means that the only reasonable conclusion is that he never actually existed.It would be like if we had zero evidence for the existence of Cleopatra, outside some scriptures written by a superstitious sect, where the earliest were written 2 generations after her death, by anonymous authors, and based only on hear say, and written in a place that it would take weeks to travel to or even months. With zero contemporary or first hand evidence.
And then imagine Cleopatra performed miracles regularly too.
AND Cleopatra lived 1 generation before Jesus, and 3 generations before the first “books” of the new testament were written.But in difference to Jesus, there are loads of historical evidence that Cleopatra lived. When she lived, where she lived, and who she was. But not only her, also her family, like father and brother are well documented, and several events Cleopatra was part of are also very well documented.
Add to that that the search for evidence for the existence of Jesus is probably the by far biggest historical and archeological search in history. Spanning almost 2000 years, with massive financing from wealthy Churches especially the Catholic and Mormons have spend insane amounts of money searching for evidence, but not only that, also traditional historical institutions have participated, because they too, despite the absolute lack of reason for it, thought that there ought to be evidence for the existence of Jesus.
This search we know for sure started already in year 200!! And it was pretty intense for more than 1500 years!!! And the search often included scholars, because they too were deluded.And their combined efforts have turned up nothing but fakes created after the fact. Zero actual historical evidence.
The few pieces (about 3) some claim are evidence are heavily refuted as obvious fakes too.Very few serious historians doubt the existence of Jesus the person.
The idea that Jesus was a purely mythical figure has a fringe status in scholarly circles and has had no support in critical studies for more than a century, with most such theories going without recognition or serious engagement.[21][2][note 4]
The theory that Jesus the person was himself a myth turns up in the 19th century, whereas skepticism and disbelief about the claims in the Bible about Jesus etc, (which are referenced in it) are older than the book itself, which iirc was begun tens of years after his death.
There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus[22][note 5]
Clearly you can believe whatever you want to believe of course, and I don’t think for a minute wikipedia is going to convince you that Jesus was a historical person, (you don’t strike me as someone who would take a detailed look into it having already decided it’s proposterous), but for the record, I have to tell you that your assertion that there is no evidence is just factually incorrect.
WTF are you quoting??? Quoting without a source is nonsensical.
Very few serious historians doubt the existence of Jesus the person.
Because over centuries of Christianity dominating western teaching, historians have been indoctrinated and even paid to accept or prove if they can that Jesus Christ as a historical person, exclusively based on the stories in the Bible, that are 2 generations after the fact, and by anonymous authors and based on hearsay at best, or rather they are simply made up. The bible is in no way a trustworthy historical document.
If you point to scholarly consensus, you also have to be able to point to evidence that scholarly consensus is based on, and the fact is you can’t. This scholarly consensus is 100% based on a circle jerk, where scholars conclude according to their own beliefs in Christianity without evidence.
Clearly you can believe whatever you want to believe
My beliefs on the issue are based on the evidence, if you want to believe based on superstition and group pressure your beliefs are not equal to mine.
Beliefs without evidence are generally false as in near infinitely unlikely to be true, and false beliefs that are a central point of your world view are demonstrably harmful, exactly in the way Christian beliefs can be shown to be harmful.WTF are you quoting??? Quoting without a source is nonsensical.
I already said: wikipedia.
This scholarly consensus is 100% based on a circle jerk, where scholars conclude according to their own beliefs in Christianity without evidence.
Forgive me for trusting the scholarship of the majority of historians rather than some random on the internet who wasn’t aware what the consensus of historians was that Jesus was a real person until a few hours ago, and just assumed there was no corroborating evidence because you didn’t think there would be!
Historians, as their day job, what they’re best at, and expert in, is evaluating historical documents, taking into account the bias of their authors and drawing appropriate conclusions. I’m going to trust them over you ranting.
Feel free to doubt the religious claims of the Bible, but it’s silly to base your whole argument against the church on the one thing that historians, with a few exceptions, agree on.
You’re behaving like a vaccine skeptic or climate change denier. There is a field of experts. There was controversy. There was a lot of examination of the evidence and now there is a consensus. You are disagreeing with the consensus on the basis of your instincts and your preexisting beliefs.
My beliefs on the issue are based on the evidence
No they aren’t! You had no idea there was any, you haven’t even begun to look into it, you have no intention of looking into it in any serious way, and you just today claimed that there couldn’t be any on the grounds that it wasn’t true! It’s a circular argument only supported by it’s conclusion!
Of all the things to disagree with the Bible on, you pick the physical existence of Jesus as the one you most ardently dispute? There’s so much that’s easy for you to argue is implausible in the Bible, but you pick the very existence of some guy going round preaching to a bunch of religious folk that they should be nice to each other?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Jesus might have been a real person? Do you disbelieve in Mohammed’s physical existence, or the Buddha, just because you disbelieve their religious claims? It’s irrational. You disbelieve me; am I therefore non-existent?
It’s so illogical, and you have your eyes so tightly shut to the possibility that something slightly less simple than “it’s all complete nonsense” is true.
Those who will not listen can never learn new things.
Jesus was real.
who wasn’t aware what the consensus of historians was
I absolutely were.
I already said: wikipedia.
You can’t just quote “wikipedia” you have to give the link to the page, so others can see the context. For all I know those quotes could be from a page about things stupid people believe.
You’re behaving like a vaccine skeptic or climate change denier.
No the exact opposite, because they deny the evidence, while I draw my conclusions based on it, or in this case rather the lack of it.
Without evidence there is no reason to believe in the existence of god, and saying that a number of anonymous cultists writing stories about him is proof, is the same as saying a number of Harry Potter books is proof of the existence of Harry Potter.Of all the things to disagree with the Bible on, you pick the physical existence of Jesus as the one you most ardently dispute?
No that would be the existence of god. A belief that is even more insane, because it’s even more crazy to believe in a god without evidence whatsoever.
All the arguments of the existence of god in the bible are based on ignorance, just like you show here.You are making a string of false assumptions here based on ignorance of the actual facts, exactly like you are on the existence of Jesus.
who wasn’t aware what the consensus of historians was
I absolutely were.
This is a silly denial. I was the one who told you. You are the one who claims I’m making it up and are disbelieving in the existence even of a wikipedia article without lifting a finger to check for yourself. And you expect me to believe you’ve given any serious look into this historical question of existence when you didn’t even google?
You can’t just quote “wikipedia” you have to give the link to the page, so others can see the context. For all I know those quotes could be from a page about things stupid people believe.
This also is a silly thing to be skeptical about or debate, when google exists. I knew (from having looked it up in the past) that the consensus of historians was that Jesus was a real historical figure but that the claims about him in the Bible were religious rather than historical. So I googled “Is there evidence that Jesus was a real historical person” or something like that, scrolled past the religious links and clicked on the wikipedia entry which was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
All the arguments of the existence of god in the bible are based on ignorance
I might be wrong, but I’m not so sure there are any arguments about existence in it. I think it’s just a bunch of stories told with that included as an assumption. All the arguments about existence or not are from the philosophers, mostly much much later on. And I think they’re silly too.
Like I said, feel free to doubt the religious claims in the Bible, or any other religious text you have negative feelings about, but it’s silly to disagree with historians about the simple existence of Jesus the man, once you know you’re on the wrong side of that question compared to the experts whose day job it is to examine and more to the point, evaluate historical evidence!
You present yourself as the scientific mind who decides on the basis of evidence, whilst dismissing, with obvious prejudice, those who have examined the evidence. You clearly believe what you believe because it feels right to you, not because you learned anything about it.
I notice that you didn’t answer whether your (presumed) disbelief in Islam caused you to disbelieve in the existence of Mohammed, or your (presumed) rejection of Buddhism caused you to think that the Buddha himself was invented?
This is a silly denial.
Yes because you can read my mind. 🤣🤣🤣
I have known this since the 90’s, where in philosophy at University we debated whether religiosity is a kind of insanity.
You are a fool that base your opinions based on insufficient information and lack of evidence, so no wonder if you are religious.I might be wrong, but I’m not so sure there are any arguments about existence in it.
Again a claim based on ignorance. The Bible claims the 10 commandments are from god, and that god created the world, essentially making the claim that the existence of the world is evidence for god.
I notice that you didn’t answer whether your (presumed) disbelief in Islam caused you to disbelieve in the existence of Mohammed,
There is very little logic rationale for this, since the two situations are very very different, Mohammed is an actual historic figure with lots of evidence. The god however is the same, and no matter how many new books are written about Harry Potter does not make it a reason to believe he exist without evidence. The same goes for god.
I mean, the idea that a guy made a weird sect, telling people to throw away all of their money (to who?) and performing tricks to pass them as miracles isn’t so absurd. There’s been a lot of scammers throughput history, he could have simply been one that happened to have a long lasting effect.
It’s far from being the most significant person or whatever, more of a butterfly effect of some dude that wanted to have his own cult.
Isn’t that him the romans were describing it, as a cult gathering people fast? That’s probably all it was.
I mean, the idea that a guy made a weird sect,
There is still no evidence of that. It’s just moving the goal post, but in reality it doesn’t make a difference.
There are also communications between Christian groups where the personification of Christ is debated, to make it easier for people to understand Christianity.t’s far from being the most significant person or whatever,
Again you are completely missing the point, because according to Christianity Jesus is clearly the moist significant person to ever live, and if the bible was true, that would be a fact, as his existence is claimed to be the salvation of billions of people through 2 millennia.
So saying he is not, is actually the same as supporting my claim that he never existed.Isn’t that him the romans were describing it, as a cult gathering people fast?
No, Christianity was insignificant until the Romans themselves adopted it for political reasons.
I’m not saying that there is evidence, and I’m not sure what goal post I’m moving. My whole point was that the way Jesus is depicted by Christianity is as a weird sect leader that was promoting peace and frugality, and that it is ironic considering that the religion itself is quite the opposite.
I wasn’t debating the proof of existence of Jesus and to be honest, I don’t really care if he ever existed or not (and I would argue that most people don’t, because most Christians would absolutely ignore anything that would prove that he didn’t exist). My point was just to insist on the fact that Christianity has been for a pretty long time a religion of violence and greed, and that it is ironic.
the way Jesus is depicted by Christianity is as a weird sect leader
That’s false Jesus is depicted by christianity as the son of god, with supernatural powers that allowed him to perform miracles, including rising from the dead, and ascending to heaven after.
that it is ironic considering that the religion itself is quite the opposite.
On that we agree 100%. But the Bible is full of contradictions, and even the new testament has different books about Jesus that try to deliver very different messages about him, when telling the same basic story.
Same way as it could work with Harry Potter if we didn’t have copyright, and everybody could write their own story about him. And a century later a fan club makes a collection of the best 100 year old stories about Harry Potter that are decided by everyone to be canon. And they call it the Holy Bible of Harry Potter, and for 2000 years people actually believe it to be true, and that Harry Potter was a guy that really existed who could do magic.
Eh, I don’t think there’s much merit to whether or not Jesus was a real person. The focus should be on the obviously fantastical claims because Christian apologists tend to get all caught up in the idea of Jesus being a “historical person” rather than the wild claim of Jesus being a literal god. I don’t reject the validity of Christianity because I’m unsure if Jesus really did exist or not, but rather that the supernatural claims fall embarrassingly short of such tall claims.
I don’t think there’s much merit to whether or not Jesus was a real person.
Nono that’s not how it works, the burden of proof is on those that claim he existed. Without such proof, there is no reason to believe he did.
But why quibble over the murkier “did he exist” ground when you could engage on “was he a miracle working guy who came back from the dead” and make them find more evidence for that!
This is my point exactly. Thank you for putting it more concisely than what I’m apparently capable of.
and make them find more evidence for that!
What do you mean? More than zero? There is no evidence, and “more” evidence will never be found, because there is no reason to believe it ever happened. And if you mean evidence that it didn’t happen, then again that’s not how it works. You can’t prove a negative.
technically there is textual evidence
No those are just stories, and none of the “books” are reliable historical evidence.
(Now if that evidence is worth a rats ass is another question altogether)
Exactly, I already mentioned that the bible isn’t a valid source. First because it is written by anonymous authors, second because it isn’t contemporary, thirdly because it’s based on hearsay, and finally because crucial details do not line up among them.
The books of the Bible is exactly what could be expected to happen when you don’t have copyright. Someone picks up a story, and changes it to be more to his liking.
OHMYGOD, THAT’S THE FUCKING POINT.
What? To give them more time to not be able to prove a negative?
Or to give them more time than 2000 years to still not be able to prove anything?
You are not making any sense now?!Or were you being sarcastic about the more time thing? Because if you were, it’s very stupid to not use the /s regarding sarcasm, when we are debating stupid beliefs billions of people actually hold.
In any case, you are not making sense now.
Ehhh I’d doubt it. Your average Christian isn’t violent and/or greedy. It’s just the ones that are make the news as it generates clicks. As someone who is actually a Christian, I see non-christians bring up strawmen of things they have seen in the media which I have never seen in real life.
It’s also worth realising Christianity is the most populous religion in the world- so things that happened were more likely to be perpetuated by self-proclaimed “Christian” leaders manipulating scripture purely for their own benefit. Things would arguably be worse if another religion had this amount of followers and influence.
“Your average Christian” depends on where you live. I have “christians” in my family, in my neighborhood, at work, what one would likely describe as average around here, that have expressed at minimum a denial of the humanity of those who are different from them, seemingly instituted or encouraged by their “Christian” culture. I know this isn’t all christians, but it seems like where I live, the churches that preach inclusivity are few in number and slim in attendance, and although still not a majority, there are more that preach AGAINST inclusivity, and the predominant culture among most christians regardless seems to lean in that direction. In the lead up to the 2024 election, a number of “christians” close to me expressed extremely violent potentialities should Trump not win, pointing directly toward acceptance and secularism as their motivations and justifications.
You have expressed that things would be worse in the world if it would be some other religion. You think a world where any other religion holding a majority would be worse, is that what you’re saying? That is quite an assertion, and I’d like to see you prove that. Imagine if secular humanism were more central in people’s lives… What a world we could have.
Edit: I do live in a pretty shitty place, to be fair, haha
I am starting to get that impression.
What is the threshold for inclusivity, though? For example, my Church does have gay, trans and cohabiting people in the congregation, but we don’t necessarily preach that these things are okay. However, it is worth acknowledging that everyone is sinful, so we cannot cast the first stone (referencing John 8:1-11 here) and that we aren’t saved by being perfect either. Afaik they aren’t even excluded from membership. They are people made in God’s image whom Christ died for also.
I doubt the world would be better off with secular humanism. It is all generally based on opinion.
There are movements like The Manosphere which I feel would have been a lot more influential if it weren’t for Christianity
we don’t necessarily preach that these things are okay.
This by itself is a problem, because people need to be taught aspects of morality, and this is absolutely one of them.
LGBT is an oppressed minority, and not teaching that LGBT is OK, is failing to help LGBT people against bigotry whether it’s from Christians or not. The fact you even mention cohabiting people is astonishing, as if there was any reason whatsoever to be against it!? It is not the bronze age anymore.it is worth acknowledging that everyone is sinful, so we cannot cast the first stone
This is one of the absolute worst teachings of Christianity, that you are born with sin inherited from previous generations, and you need Jesus Christ to help you with that.
we aren’t saved by being perfect either.
No you are promised to be “saved” by being a faithful mindless sheep.
I doubt the world would be better off with secular humanism. It is all generally based on opinion.
This is just the ignorance that can be expected from a religious person.
Humanism is based on ethics that evolve with increased knowledge from scientific evidence. For instance the bible teaches us that animals have no soul, and for that reason Christians can conclude it is OK to mistreat animals, because they don’t actually feel anything. ( For instance Descartes)Scientific evidence on the other hand, show this to be very clearly false. The emotions of many animals are almost exactly similar to our own emotions. And anyone who isn’t a deranged psychopath can see that with their own eyes.
The claim that Humanism isn’t better than the bible is outright deranged.
It is my experience again that adherents to the Manosphere and this hyper-masculine rejection of empathy are christians, but as above, I live in a shitty place. You seem like a good person and you’re devoted to the kinder aspects of your religion. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I’d rather not spend my time in the spaces I’ve described with those people where it can be avoided. I’d rather not base my beliefs on ideas about inherent guilt and blood sacrifice, superstition and unprovable supernatural claims, where differences in interpretation can lead to these seemingly abhorrent separations from one church to another. Instead, and I suppose that you’re correct that this is just an opinion, I think a better world would be found when we remove ourselves from these ancient notions of the world around us. I do hope the best for us all, as I’m sure you do also.
I haven’t found anyone in the Manosphere who is Christian. Maybe some can be found who claim the label. You even had some insanity like Andrew Tate trying to say “Christ is King” when he’s a Muslim - Even the Babylon Bee was making fun of people who embrace Andrew Tate and his teachings
As a matter of fact, I attended a men’s bible-study last night, and of course, the manosphere was mentioned and immediately labelled as unchristian and heresy. I have been to Christian men’s conferences and the same happened there. In fact, it basically comes up during any Christian men’s events, and even has been brought up during Church sermons and studies where the crowd was mixed.
Worth mentioning some of these events were ecumenical as well. I watched the Louis Thereoux documentary on it, and their way of life and attitude of women seemed so Godless. So I believe for young men who do crave tradition and purpose, having them become a Christlike man and looking to Christ is the far better outcome than them using Tate as their rolemodel.
I think a better world would be found when we remove ourselves from these ancient notions of the world around us.
I would disagree. For many, these ancient notions are what fuel a lot of good. They keep people going. I can look at the Manosphere and simply reject it as their teachings are incredibly unbiblical and not in line with Christianity. Same with Nazism, white supremacism, MAGA, etc. Which, for a lot of young men in rural areas, may be their only alternatives. I am of course not speaking of all leftists, as that would be a strawman. But there has been aspects of these movements which have tried to push men away and demean and despise men. Thankfully, I believe leftist movements are becoming more accepting of healthy masculinity and men, but it was still an issue that was perceived by many. There has always been stigma about “straight white male” or “cis men”. I did have former friends demean me for being a “cis man” years ago. For some of these people, if they seek community where they are accepted for being a man, a moderate Church is generally a pretty good option.
I’m legitimately glad that your personal experience of Christianity has been a net positive for you.
I was raised in a very standard First Assembly of God church until I was 12 and then my parents pivoted back to Catholicism. The experiences I had growing up in an evangelical paradigm were horrifying, especially in hindsight. I’m still unpacking the religious trauma in therapy today, nearly three decades after walking away.
So, based on my personal experience, the day to day Christians are precisely the greedy and violent ones that fucked me up, abused me relentlessly, and destroyed my sense of self-worth, not the blowhards on the news. Many of us are walking wounded from the divisive, hate-based, soul-crushing doctrines we were raised in under the guise of Christian love.
You probably are an American. You guys are just built different.
It could even be a cultural thing- a lot of the hurt I hear comes from the USA. A lot of UK ex Christians (if they even identify as that) were just culturally Christian and were just bored by Church
Also, I am sorry that you went through that.
Christianity has been the cause for wars.
Even “moderate” Christians are deluded, and can get the idea from their priest that they need “therapy” for their LGBT child.
And can argue that morality comes from god, which is insane since god doesn’t exist.
Being deluded makes Christians irrational, and prone to aggression when they feel their convictions are not accepted.
The problem with that is that obviously all the superstitious parts and the bigotry of Christianity does not deserve acceptance and much less respect.So when Christianity meets evidence based reason, Christians are absolutely prone to be aggressive.
We have seen this through hundreds of years, where scientists were punished by Christians for proving actual facts, or even just suggesting them. Again obviously a scientific theory does not deserve punishment whether right or wrong.The same is true today, where the basis for the major opposition to abortion in western democracies is Christianity.
Even sometimes demanding the banning of abortion in situations where continuing the pregnancy will mean the death of both the mother and the fetus! Only religious beliefs can make people so irrational and evil for no benefit to themselves.
AND these people even believe they are doing the right thing, because they are deluded. Being deluded is inherently dangerous, not only to the person who is deluded, but also to people around them, and society as a whole.manipulating scripture
Which is easy both because the people believing it are delusional and easily fooled, and because scripture is so full of self contradictions, that you can pick a side.
But lets just remember that scripture not only allow slavery, it actually condones it.
And the recommended action if a women is suspected to have been unfaithful to her husband, is to poison her to prove her guilt or innocence, if she dies it is considered proof that she was unfaithful.The bible is not medieval, because that would be way more modern, it is not barbarian, because it would be way more civilized.
The bible is a bronze age superstitious attempt to explain reality, and with zero understanding the only explanation they could come up with was of course superstitious, and in this case based on an “almighty” god. And in the exact same manner they tried to make rules and define morality, but with very little understanding of anything, except of course the understanding common in the bronze age.This is the guide Christians choose to follow, and don’t try to gas light me into thinking that doesn’t have negative consequences.
Contrariwise, you are also commanded to love racists, homophobes, transphobes, and authoritarians. You can certainly try to convince them away from those stances, but you are still supposed to be kind, even generous, to the persons.
Unconditional love can be heartbeatingly hard.
I can assure more than half of them are redeemable.
I’m going with the paradox of tolerance on that.
Yeah. I still think we owe the intolerant subsistence, but because of the Paradox of Tolerance, I think intolerance could be grounds for denial of political power–any of the 4 boxes (soap, ballot, jury, ammo)–at least for the duration of the intolerance. (But also, there should be some method to “rehabilitate” a person’s access to political power after they are no longer intolerant.)
I also think it might be difficult to adjudicate “intolerance” in some cases, but in the most necessary of cases it is quite clear.
don't click if you don't want a little theology. i am just going to shotgun fire off some bullshit.
okay, so: former christian clergy and current head of a pagan cult (i worship the god of convergent evolution, blasphemy, gluttony, and atheism) current membership 4, 5 when my mormon mother is humoring me and comes to the crab shack for lunch. my current job is church musician because the instrument [not gonna say which. ask and i’ll say yes] i play is very very expensive, i can’t afford one (i literally only have ever met one individual who owns one) and churches tend to own them. i can trade my services for an hour a week of practice time and two songs performance time a month unless i can figure out a way to move at least 2500 miles to ply my musical trade for real. or someone wants to give me 76 grand for an instrument.
christianity’s commandment to love people does not conflict with the paradox of tolerance. you’re not just commanded to love your neighbors, you’re commanded to love your enemies.
there’s a lot of cultural bullshit in the turn the other cheek and etc shit in the parables jesus teaches. like, slapping someone on the right cheek was a small insult, but slapping them on the left cheek was a big one. so turning the other cheek doesn’t just mean give them another chance to hurt you, it’s teaching the christians of that time that if someone is insulting you by slapping you in the face, a very culturally specific insult, give them the other cheek and invite them to make it a bigger insult. be like “hey i know i’m a christian and all. show everyone around here how big and tough you are picking on me”. i try to think about it. i’ve tried it. Deescalation through escalation.like Giles Corey.
Compassionate love does not require kindness and generosity in the way you mean those words. It does not require making yourself vulnerable to danger, it does not require giving material or emotional support. You should still be able to recognize and respond to the humanity in a flawed person.
I believe if you are following the words of Jesus, then yes, it does require kindness and generosity, with their standard meanings. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” – Jesus
I agree that it doesn’t require sacrificing your safety.
While Jesus is an authority and primary source on a number of things, He is neither of those things for compassionate love. I think in this decontextualized instance, “thy neighour” actually has a specific meaning that is being stripped, possibly referring to the other tribes of Israel, such as in his parable about the good Samaritan that people commonly misunderstand. I wouldn’t be willing to draw much from it without a much deeper reading.
I’m not making a dogmatic argument, I’m making a much more grounded claim about psychology and spirituality. Compassionate love is a real thing that we know stuff about.
“I tell you, love your enemies” – Jesus https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A43-48&version=NIV
I’m engaging in the thread, the leader of which is a meme featuring Jesus, so it is more relevant what Jesus said than “claims about psychology and spirituality”.
I was raised Baptist, but I no longer adhere to it dogmatically.
deleted by creator
Good thing I’m not beholden to that religion, then!
Only money lenders (we totally didn’t secretly mean Jews)
“DID I FUCKING STUTTER?”
“That’s it. Get my whip. And a table.”
Another fun question: What if I’M gay, trans, brown or communist, what does the church have for me?
OH a special treat for you a lifetime of feeling guilty about who you are.brown and communist arent sins gay and trans are yet all of us are sinners thus gay and trans people shouldnt be hated their sin should
“I don’t hate you, I just hate what you are”
Christians truly don’t hear themselves when they talk
RIght? I’ll admit I mucked it up a bit, people aren’t born really communist lol. But I think most people get my point.
do not identify with your sin
There’s nothing wrong with being gay or trans. Absolutely nothing. Christians are bad people if they believe that, you should stop identifying with that.
Don’t worry, I don’t hate you, I just hate your christianity. Love the person, hate the religion.
I don’t see the problem. Love them and stone them, like the law demands. No need to complicate it any further.
Nothing about all of that in the big book. Now wearing both wool and linen, however…
Or left handed!
Nail it.
Ah, yes. Discrimination against communists… a huge problem in our society, worthy of being mentioned next to homophobia.
Or you could keep your political views away from things that aren’t a choice, like sexual orientation, gender and race.
