Thousands of Southern Baptists overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to advance a formal ban on women pastors in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, sending a clear message that men alone should preach to these conservative evangelical congregations.
While driving one day in Toronto, I accidentally tuned the radio to a US based “Christian” radio station. It was absolutely horrifying. There was nothing about Jesus AT ALL and a lot of “armour of god” and “defend yourself against enemies of the faith” and “build the empire of God’s faithful here on earth”.
Batshit crazy terrorist shit.
Batshit crazy suicidal death-cult shit.
Oh yeah they’ve been increasingly like that for decades. And Christian radio is a hotbed of some of the worst they have to offer sanity wise
and yet he never once said “hey, you know what? free your fucking slaves”. or “Hey, you know what? your daughters? they’re people, too. Don’t sell them as sex slaves.” or “hey, you know what? ten year olds are too young to marry. don’t be a fucking creep.”
seems he has a vastly different understanding of who a “neighbor” is than I do today.
In their cultural context, that wouldn’t be that far outside the norm. The notion that there’s this magical line at 16-18 (in the US, depending on the state - possibly lower if the older partner is close in age or if they are married) is a 20th century invention. So, a guy from a text about 2000 years ago not expressing views on age and sexuality that were invented less than a hundred years ago is not exactly shocking.
Before the industrial revolution, children were often treated like smaller adults. Childhood was much shorter than nowadays and adolescence basically wasn’t a thing culturally for the vast majority of history.
According to researchers of Christianity, Mary would have been around 12 to 14. And obviously there would have been a massive power imbalance between her and a deity. So by modern standards, Mary could not consent and was sexually abused. And then of course he left her to raise Jesus, his bastard child. All Christians essentially worship a child rapist. I’m not religious, but I like to think that god hasn’t returned because the other gods have him serving time.
you wanna get into even more cursed territory?
Trinitarian Christians- which is the vast majority of Christians- believe Jesus is and always has been god. So Jesus raped Mary.
I don’t think they thought the whole trinity thing through.
First off, it’s teally weird that you assume I’m okay with older creeps banging teens.
In a practical sense, there has to be a legal age, and every country in the world has defined it somewhere.
That said, it’s not Just 2,000 years ago. And where do you going the creepy old perverts marrying 10 year olds in the us get the idea that’s okay?
It ain’t from the numerous rigorous psych studies looking at the harm it does.
To be clear, when I say something is “immoral” that is an objective statement derived from my subjective morals- which are based on the idea that things that one’s acts should do the least harm or most good they can; and that unnecessary harm is always wrong.
Objectively, slavery and child marriage (I would call it child rape) is always on the extreme end of “harm”.
So while it may be engaging in presentism, I would say that according to my morals, the vast majority of cultures 2,000 years ago were immoral.
By Iron Age standards, Jesus may have been a good dude. But those standards suck, and I find them horrific.
I also find that statement dubious. In mark 7 and Matt 15, we find Jesus literally arguing that the Pharisees have stepped away from the law by not stoning disobedient children, where the Pharisees and other rabbis at the time have decided to severely limit that to the extent it almost didn’t happen.
And telling people to free their slaves is heavily implied by the “give up everything you have and follow me” thing.
To whom or what were the possessions given up?
The rest of the community. Things that couldn’t be brought with (or weren’t needed,) were sold.
Things that couldn’t be sold were abandoned.
Jesus never called for slaves to be freed; because he saw it as normal and acceptable (and probably even “good”). Which is why the best you’ve got is “it’s implied in this thing in which it was never actually implied.”
This 1000%. So fucking tired of Christian apologists pretending that “no, all that bad stuff was the Old Testament, Jesus was actually pretty much a leftist”.
Fuck off. He said himself that not one iota of that law will change, so the “new covenant” shit is just bullshit cope.
All he had to do was be like, “hey guys, how about we don’t own people as property,” but apparently that’s just too much.
Instead, he’ll just talk about how the rules in the OT still apply. Rules that literally include guidelines for how to properly rape and beat the shit out of your slaves.
That a hyper focused point that seems based on a misunderstanding. I’m pretty much anti-theist myself at this point but I got that way by actually reading the religious texts and doctrines. Read a few different translations of the new test. Jesus says a lot of one off shit, more than a little is contradictory (because “Jesus” is most likely an amalgamation of a few different messianic cult leaders, they were all over at the time) but the main thing he’s consistent with is treating everyone the way you want them to treat you. He never said except the slaves, and yes I know the bit you’re referring to and it’s a smidge disingenuous in context. Either way, that main golden rule is the most consistent bit of preaching the man Jesus did, and even though I’m pretty sure the guy didn’t actually exist as a single individual it’s a solid bit of advice. Ick, I feel kinda gross defending religion. Ugh.
You can either try to meet people halfway, or you can be hostile to people. See which one works out better for you. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say not the later.
Why would you meet people who think a book that says slavery is OK and gay people should be stoned to death halfway?
Yes, the bible also says good things. That is an objective fact. But if I were to publish a book that tells people that we should love one another and also that christians should be stoned to death, would you meet me halfway?
You don’t have to do anything, but you’re not going to make a lot of progress being actively hostile to people.
Being hostile to a shitty book is not the same thing as being hostile to people.
I mean, it didn’t really work out for Jesus either…
Actually, worshipping other gods was a massive deal breaker… The idea makes up like 3 out of the 10 commandments
I enjoy how that bit implies that yahweh knew there were other gods.
The commandments are nullified by the pork exclusion clause
??
The old testament had a prohibition on pork. The new testament doesn’t exactly end it, but effectively says you won’t go to hell for things so inconsequential.
Realistically, the same lines christians use to justify eating pork can be used to disregard anything in the old testament.
Ok
So, like. That’s totally unsurprising.
Fascism keeps cropping up in Christianity because it’s an inherently fascist in nature. Keep in mind jeebus claimed to be the Jewish messiah who was supposed to be a king, and lead the people of Judah back into religious purity, rise up against the oppressors and defeat all the other kingdoms in their small little version of the world… and enslave them.
To this, Jeebus added the whole “I’m going to throw everyone I don’t like into a pit of fire for the rest of eternity while everyone else glazes me and gives me blowjobs”
The idea that Jesus was somehow peaceful is the crazy shit.
I’m an atheist and fiercely anti-religion, but I was raised with a certain Christian education and I don’t remember anything resembling this about Jesus. Only that he said he was the son of God. Nothing about rising up against people, defeating them and enslaving them.
His message was to have some fucking empathy and stop hating each other for once.
Especially since early Christianity saw Hell as a freezing cold place, not a fiery inferno. That imagery didn’t come along until much later when Dante’s Inferno was written.
I hope this sarcasm
Then the people giving you that certain education either lied to you or never read the damn Bible.
Am in paraphrasing it? Absolutely. But the only peace Jesus was going to bring was the same kind of “peace” palpatine brought the empire.
As for throwing people into eternal torture, that’s just an honest reading of his words in the New Testament.
Did you read it? Because I did. For shits n giggles. Or to actually see what the fuss was all about. And I can confidently say that you’re way off.
You either didn’t read all of it. or you didn’t understand it. Are there parts where things sound nice and kind and gentle? sure. But even Hitler occasionally advocated for social responsibility and communal welfare and I don’t think anyone here would disagree on how fucking evil Hitler was. Don’t just read the nice, lovey-dovey parts like “love your neighbor” and ignore the fact that Jesus literally had more to say about paying fucking taxes than slavery and saw people selling animals for sacrifice outside the temple and got pissed off despite slavery being- in my mind at least- far worse an institution and also a thing he’d have encountered near daily.
Lets start with an easy one: Mathew 28:18-20.
Theocratic Authoritarianism. Weee.
And what did jesus teach them? the law of Moses (Mathew 5:17-20:
So if you don’t obey the shit he taught…you’re not getting into heaven. Where do people who don’t go to heaven go? Hell. Fire. eternal torture.
“well yeah, but they’re awful people…” you might say… yeah. Awful people who… wear blended fabrics and eat pork or shellfish or, uh. stuff… I mean there’s worse there. Like people who don’t stone unruly children
the authoritarian nature of Jesus is self-apparent, and the consequences of ignoring anything are fucking psychotic… And lets be clear: the thing Jesus claimed to “fulfill” was the messianic prophecies
according to the messianic prophecies, jesus would have been expected to:
*At the time of Jesus in the early first century, jews understood the Roman occupation in the context of the exilic period. which they understood to have been a punishment for breaking the mosaic covenant. After the exile is over, they’re allowed to go back and such like. Then the romans come along, kick their ass in war, and oppress the shit out of everyone around there. There’s a sort of angst against the Pharisees who taught adherence to something called the Oral Law, or the Tradition of the Elders, which is a sort of updated version of the “written” law. Some things were dropped (stoning children for disobedience was severely restricted), some things were added (ritual cleansing of hands before eating,). you can see some of that in Mark 7 when Jesus was beefing with Pharisees and their followers. Jesus and people of that bend see it as punishment for stepping away- because in their Iron Age understanding, the only reason their all-powerful god would allow that is if it was angry with them for something… and uh… go read Deuteronomy 28.
as far as my claims about the Messiah being a military leader… he’s supposed to bring “security” to Israel… defeat their oppressors, and such like that only happens with a military campaign. for example, Zechariah 14. (i’m snipping the unimportant bits.)
As for the rest of us being enslaved? yeah. That’s because of how the ancient israelites were instructed- by god- to prosecute a war. (Deut 20, again, kinda reformating it.)
Is it really so surprising that christian nationalists (and Israelis,) are so cool with genocide? I mean. really. And I know, you’re brain is probably hissing and screaming right now. something like “that was just for coming into the Promised land”… but there’s also the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15(centuries after the offense, by the way. which. uh. didn’t actually happen.), the Midianites in Numbers 31, too. Part of it, is that this is just how war was conducted. Everybody, not just the Israelites, were genocidal assholes that would enslave entire populations.
And Jesus taught all of that.
Or more directly, are the words of Jesus, in mat 10:28: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell” not the the words of a psychotic fucker and a threat. Particularly as Jesus claimed to be that very person? “don’t be afraid of them. Be afraid of me.” totally pacifist.
Damn. You brought the receipts for that one!
Mic. Drop.
The more I’ve been listening to discussions about the rest of the cult’s book, the more evil it shows itself to be.
Most people want to be good. Many Christians want to be good, but they’re doing it in spite of their book, not because of its teachings.
I was surprised to see that you were getting downvoted so heavily despite being completely correct.
Some people really don’t like to hear that shit I guess.
I’m a fervent anti religion.
But your arguments are your own interpretations of the passages that you quoted. And I gotta say, it’s just as bad as the interpretations of the Christian nationalists.
I didn’t even interpret these passages in the same way you did. I see them as plain metaphors.
And to say that this is directly connected to what’s happening with Christian nationalism and zionism, that’s a bit much. There are way more Christians and Jewish people globally that reject these movements and denounce them as nothing more than a misinterpretation to fit a violent narrative.
I’m saying it’s unsurprising that christian nationalism crops up because Jesus- the figure head and literal christian god claimed to be a judean monarch and was himself authoritarian in nature.
That there’s other people who chose to ignore that doesn’t mean I’m wrong about Jesus saying some abhorent shit.
If you ignore all the awful shit Hitler said, you’ll find there’s a few times he talked about communal welfare and social responsibility in a way that isn’t entirely offensive. The difference here is that we don’t literally ignore all the awful shit Hitler said and recognize him as an utterly vile example of human awfulness.
For example, In Mark 7 and Mathew 15, Jesus criticizes the pharisees for not stoning disobedient children. Do you think it’s appropriate to kill children who disobey their parents?
So you’re saying Hitler was right???
I’m kkidding!!!
It’s all good. I get your point. Maybe you interpret it that way. Maybe it was just a metaphor. But the truth, really, is that the English translation is a translation of a translation of old English of a translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic translation and it might even go beyond all that. It could have been a story ripped off of another story, etc.
But the core principle is, like I said, to have empathy and to be nice to each other. This has always been the message.
It was also part of Republicans “Southern Strategy” to target Christians and fold them into the party. This is the result 50 years later.
That’s some very wild and original claims, lol. I know you don’t want to, but I recommend you actually read the Bible before participating in these things. Just the Abrahamic religions in general, it’d be good to brush up on the basics.
If you want to be all grumpy at a teligion, speak out against those that weaponise religions, because that’s actually what’s happening here and has happened all the time through human history. You don’t need to make stuff up and try to link a religion to facism; one that was all about showing kindness and forgiveness to the fucking Romans, no less—who coincidentally did what with religions?
Did what? I’m curious what you think the obvious answer is here.
Without wading into the core tiff you guys are having, I do need to push my proverbial glasses up my nose and point out that the Romans were pagans - polytheists. From what I’ve seen they were pretty tolerant of other gods being worshipped, which is why there was a temple, and the Sanhedrin, and the Pharisees, and so on and so forth, in occupied Jerusalem.
So I think the answer to your rhetorical question above is that the Roman’s famously absorbed or accepted other religions, as long as they didn’t disturb the peace and as long as they weren’t in direct conflict with their laws - which I think Judaism and most early sects of Christianity mostly were - in part because they were intolerant of other gods.
To the degree that there was persecution, it seems like it was mostly linked to Jews or Christians in other cities who refused to make sacrifices to the local gods. If the harvest wasn’t great one season, the locals might start to blame those weirdos who only want one god for some reason, and who offended their local gods. So even this was almost more about disturbing the peace then theology.
Even then, they were often offered amnesty if they would change their minds. They just had to stop doing the thing that was pissing off the locals and their gods.
Obviously Nero Neroed all over the Christians later on but there are good reasons for thinking that was all about framing them for the Great Fire of Rome, which he supposedly started himself so that he could build his Golden House.
Anyway, carry on with whatever this is.
Nah, that’s good points and all true.
My remark was more toward societal use and punishment of religions which varied hugely and was literally opposite of true or reputationally true depending on the Caesar.
Like, Christ was ultimately killed because the Romans were being so chill, “I don’t get it, but if it means that much to you, let’s kill the guy.” Though, Christianity’s own gospel establishes itself on that whole “Go the extra mile” peg aligned to that era’s oppression.
So really, what I said was just broad and kind of valueless since we know what the Romans were like in that period.
And as for what that is; wasn’t ever sure. It seemed like a whole lot of regurgitated doctrine that was unfortunately very easily triggered and presented in a gigantic everything salad. I think it’s still going, but it really depends on fatigue levels. My only investment was around the misrepresentation and not the details, since these are all recorded and widely known. It’s never nice to see history weaponised and cherry picked, but in there lies some irony.
I think at this point it’s just a typical “The devil’s advocate is the devil” scenario. Faceless target dummy and all.
only if your level of understanding comes from Sunday school classes that don’t actually go into anything uncomfortable. If you read the scholarship… it’s not that uncommon.
First off, recognize that Jesus wasn’t “christian”, he was an aramaic jew. You can read about what (modern) jews say here, for example.
Of particular note is that the messiah is going to gather the exiles, restore mosiac law, bring reward to the righteous, restore the line of david (because they’re a direct heir to david,) and rebuild jerusalem and the temple there.
that link also has the list of all the passages that are deemed to be messianic prophecy at the bottom. These are the prophecies that the coming messiash is supposed to fulfill. I don’t think christian Sunday School teachers (or priests, or pastors, or even the pope himself) is going to admit to you that Jesus did not fulfill any of them, in the context as originally given. Which is why, for example, the authors of mathew go to Isaiah 7:14 and insist there’s a virgin there. (‘parthenos’ originally was just a young woman. it only later came to mean, specifically, a virgin woman. the orgiinal hebrew was “a pregnant young woman” and the only purpose of that was an indication of time for the rest of the prophecy to be fulfilled.)
If you don’t want to follow those links (it goes to sefaria, which uses the JPS english translation)… Here are the relevant prophecies in Isaiah, Jerimiah, Ezekiel 38:18, Hosea 3, Micah 4, Zephaniah 3, Zechariah 14, Daniel 10.
Jeremiah 30:18 pretty much sums up what I’m saying here:
it’s in the middle of a prophecy about restoring Israel from exile, so definitely read the full context there.
Or, there’s promises of protection as found in Ezekiel 38:17-23:
verse 18 is considered the messianic prophecy, but I’ve included the others fro more context. immediately prior, god is saying that he’s going to CAUSE Gog to invade. he’s saying he’ll put hook sin their mouth and drag them to war (verse 4,) that he’ll put evil thoughts into their minds (verse 10,)
or there’s Micah 4:11-13
Or there’s Zecharia 14:9
that’s a military campaign, yo. I would call that global domination. Though they only knew about a relatively small corner of the world. it goes on in 12-19
?16Then all who survive of the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Festival of Booths. 17If any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain upon them. 18And if the family of Egypt do not go up and present themselves, there will be no rain for them; there will be the plague that the Lord inflicts on the nations that do not go up to keep the Festival of Booths. 19Such shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to keep the Festival of Booths.
This is what Jesus was claiming here was here to do when he claimed to be messiah (John 4:25-26,, Mathew 16:15-17, 26:63-64)
Christians love to turn it into something else entirely, but that’s a straight up lie. In Mat 5:17-20, these messianic prophecies are what Jesus is “fulfilling” (as well as the broader covenant with Moses and abraham.)
and while the authors of mathew and luke are wrong every time they say Jesus fulfilled some messianic prophecy- half aren’t even prophecies- the reason they went to all that effort showing what prophecies Jesus fulfilled was to demonstrate that jesus was the messiah. Like the story of Jesus riding on a donkey to fulfill Zechariah 9:9, but jesus was never a king in jerulsalem and just riding a donkey isn’t fulfillment of that.
As for the eternal torture… C’mon. Jesus practically got off on all that torture.
whose the one making shit up?
I imagine Hitler said some nice things from time to time. he was still an awful fucking human. Most people are just people. No one is all-evil or all-good. So what’s your point? that the bible contradicts itself? this is known.
What I do know is that the words of Jesus in the NT contain some absolutely horrific shit and absolutely would- and should- be equated as “fascism” in modern parlance. I mean, in the words of jesus himself, as recorded in the NT: “Don’t be scared of the guy who can kill you… be scared of ME as I claim to be the guy who can kill you AND TORTURE YOU FOR FUCKING ETERNITY!”
Yeah. that totally sounds like a pacifist.
Which brings us back to reading the bible, no? Like. Seriously. there’s parts that are like “Don’t be an ass”, there’s parts that are trying to not be assholish, but would be so today, and then there’s parts that are total assholery. I’m not ignoring the parts that are “don’t be an ass” but I’m also not ignoring the assholery, or the parts where they try to not be assholes but we’d say they are. (like those bits about not beating your slaves to death. yeah. Like. it’s okay to beat your slaves as long as they don’t die that day.)
Jesus was absolutely teaching the Torah and the written law of moses, as stated in mat 5:17-20. not that christians seem to understand that. the implication here is that Jesus was totally on board with all the horrific shit in the “old” testament. including slavery, and it being permissible to beat your slaves to an inch of their lives, so long as they don’t day in a day or two.
Most of what you’re posting isn’t fact-checking, it’s traditional interpretation vs another, on a position of truth, just like a Sunday school teacher acts themselves.
You’ve done little much more than kind of point out some distinctions of why the Christian ideology came to exist while neglecting the foundational ones. Yes, obviously there’s contention of Christ meeting messianic criteria which is literally the whole fucking thing of Abrahamic religions being a plural. But then at the same time you keep referencing the Bible but no other literature whether Judaic, Islamic, or even Mesopotamian/Babylonian laws that suspiciously made their way over amongst other things.
Despite this, you seem to have picked full affirmation based on what the Torah asserts, despite being one of the main splits of Christianity. Completely glossing over how the entire function of Christian law in the NT is deeply covered by Paul—kind of the main guy that defined it all in detail, kicking off the ideology that would be established nearly three centuries later… Through the power of junk mail to different Mediterranean cities and societies, of all methods. Seriously, I don’t know how modern Thessaloniki somehow managed to be cooler than other Greek cities despite being an epicentre.
And then, out of no where, fast-forward to fascism? lol
I don’t think a 1st century apocalyptic preacher or even a 120-year old Nile baby is what Benito had in mind when establishing a political ideology of state rule over all other entities, including religions.
You’ve certainly got a position and I do not think it’s scholarly nor without personal religious influence.
“BUT BUT PAUL SAID!”
Paul disagrees with Jesus. so if you follow Jesus, then Paul is a heretic. Mathew 5:17-20 makes that exceptionally clear- the law of moses as written is to be in force until the earth itself passes away.
I’ve not mentioned Paul because he’s fucking irrelevant to what JESUS says. But of course you want to dodge to that. Not that it particularly makes things better. Paul was the kind of ass who sent a ran-away slave back to his owner so that the owner could give him back to Paul as a servant. Paul doesn’t overturn slavery either- and indeed tells slaves to obey their masters. He tells women to obey their husbands and be silent in church. None of this is particularly new or revalatory.
“But they were disciples!”
All a disciple was, is a follower. The women of influence in the bible were largely (rich) people with houses that the early church met at. and while bringing religious affairs into homes like that did give women more access and influence, “WOMEN BE SILENT” is Paul’s instruciton. Details suck, amirite?
the definition of fascism:
Mussolini wasn’t the first authoritarian autocrat to exist. Jesus himself says that:
3.2) Is a king of the line of david.
3.3) that would defeat all of Israel’s enemies
3.4) and institute mosiac law on a global scale
3…5) through military force.
Yeah. Seems pretty fascist to me. Most societies back then were pretty fascist and that sometimes gets glossed over. Particularly when people today want to justify following some dude’s iron age fundamentalist yearnings for bronze age legal codes… details, amirite?
I’m curious as to why I should consider the teachings of Mohamed when talking about the teachings of Jesus?
Explain that to me. Should I also go to the Buddha, as well? Hell. why don’t we go to the shamanism found in central America? or maybe the Sentinel Islanders, who I’m sure have some thoughts…
Nice distraction. As for not including judaic literature… I have been indirectly this entire time. If you don’t like the NSRVUE translation of that literature, would you prefer the JPS? you can find it at Sefaria.org. Given that the topic is Christianity, though, I’d just as soon not put in that work. You’re welcome to cite that if you think you’ll find something relevant.
You’re definitely a former Christian. Maybe Jewish Either way you were a suburban warrior and that “training” disallows you from being subjective.
Or I’m completely wrong and you just somehow naturally landed in your pile of bullshit lol.
I encourage more reading.
Your concept of Fascism is almost insulting to the concept of rationales. You can link whatever Googled output you want, but it won’t change the fact that the guy literally invented it, wrote books and essays about it, and absolutely none of it has anything to do with what you’re talking about. It is as fallacious as cclaiming the ocean is the sky because it too is blue.
You don’t get to claim that a book is the word of god with binding commandments and then say that the book is incomplete and subject to interpretation.
Which book?
I can’t tell if you’re being rhetorical. There’s many books like this…
Ephesians 6
How to foster a victim mentality 101 right there.
Are you trying to defend the chapter or something? Curious what a sword is supposed to be used for beyond violence, but sure ok.
Where do I get some of these fiery darts for fending off the local rabid Christians?
No one who would ascend to the kingdom escapes the fiery lashes.
That is NOT what they were saying.
I’m sure it wasn’t. Abysmal state of affairs.