281
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2026
281 points (91.0% liked)
Not The Onion
21978 readers
1051 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
“Christian extremists” always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. A real Christian extremist would be giving away everything they owned and responding to all violence with pacifism. I think Christofascism usually fits better.
I hate the "those extremists are not REAL members of my religion" rhetoric. We shouldn't forget that christianity also tells us to stone gay men to death, that slavery is good if the victims are from other nations, and that women should subject themselves to their husbands. The European slavers of the past were some of the most horrible people in history, and they were very christian too as they followed these rules to a tee. They did break the laws about respecting your fellow man, sure, but the inverse can be said of the christians who are decent people. They adhere the love thy neighbour rules, but break the rules that say that they should stone gay men. This means that the decent christians are much better people, but not necessarily more or less christian than the slavers of the past.
So if you are a christian and you feel bad by this association, I suggest that, instead of defending your relegion, you re-evaluate it.
I agree with the main argument of what you’re saying. I’m sharing that I’d flag these ones as fascist-forward, not religion-to-the-extreme.
At the end of the day, people are people and you’ll get the worst of us rising to the top in any power structure. In the case of Christianity, moving from a Jewish sect to a formal empire-backing religion of its own may be the worst thing that ever happened to it. Slavery, the crusades, the inquisition, imperial colonialism, they’re all up there too.
Stoning gay men? That’s not Jesus-based, although it is definitely supported by some Christian sects even today. But that supports fundamentalist Judaism, and isn’t what Jesus taught (“whoever is without sin, cast the first stone”).
So the problem then comes down to: what do you do when you share an identity with people who proudly do vile things in the name of that identity?
The teachings of Jesus actually are useful in exploring the answer to that question. He wasn’t Christian, he was Jewish. And he never renounced Judaism, even though he denounced the actions of the contemporary leaders of the Jewish faith.
Weird to only make that distinction for Christians, as if it's the only religion with lofty ideals. An extremist Muslim who's fervently committed to jihad would be someone who's really dedicated to self-control, charity, and protecting the vulnerable.
Eh, fascists are a kind of extremist. Every religion has good and bad parts and for some reason when you hear about extremists in the news it's always people who go hard on the bad parts.
Supply Side Christofascists.
As I recently learned: there were people like that, for example Waldians. There policy of forgiveness, giving to the poor and supporting each other didn't sit right with the clergy and nobleman, so they terrorised them and persecuted them e.g. via the Spanish inquisition.
I wish there were more "extremists" that were like that.
Even Jesus said to sell your cloak for a sword, a good Christian shouldn't seek to start conflict but is entirely allowed to defend themselves.
No, he didn’t — at least not in any Biblically recorded passage. And the one time one of his apostles took his metaphors literally and wielded a sword, he was chastised for it.
There’s nothing by Jesus in the Bible stating that a person should defend themselves. There is, however, a command that if someone demands your cloak, to give them your tunic as well, and as far as you are able, to be at peace with those around you.
All the “fight in the name of Christianity” stuff is from Constantine and later.
Luke 22:36. I was directly referencing the Bible. Later when Jesus chastises Simon it's for defying Jesus's will and trying to prevent his arrest. When was the last time you read the Bible?
There are two interpretations here of this passage. We seem to have come down on opposite sides.
The first is that he was calling them to take up literal swords to defend themselves, and that two swords would be enough for the purpose. The later rebuke of Peter was then about him using the sword to defend Jesus instead of himself.
The second, which makes more sense in my view based on how the gospel of Luke is laid out, is that Jesus was speaking figuratively, and when the disciples responded by producing actual swords, he rebuked them with “that’s enough!” This lines up structurally with his interaction with Peter in the garden as far as the literature goes. However, if taken as a recorded literal event, ignoring the structure that Luke used to frame the story, it does raise the question of: why did Jesus allow Peter to take one of the swords with them to the garden?
In my view, that doesn’t overcome the context of the events in Luke’s narrative or align with the events in Matthew, Mark or John, but I can see why others could use it to defend their position — Constantine certainly did; the early church did not.