Where's the lie ? (thelemmy.club)
submitted 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) by to c/catholicism@lemmy.ml
 

https://x.com/nxt888/status/2109355523418317215

My answer is that christians weren't in control of the government, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
However, the immediate counter-argument will point out that power corrupts, even the Church was at some time in its 20 centuries-long history corrupted by the powerful/wealthy, who couldn't care less about meekness, poverty, ...
Now they don't even have a territory left, nor schools or any kind of power. Christian families aren't even allowed to teach their children outside government schools in France. State workers aren't allowed to wear visible religious signs. Etc...

No need to develop, it's just the same usual opposition between a "liberation theology" and a "prosperity gospel", between a focus on the obviousness/message/urgency/future and a focus on the faith/identity/tradition/past.
The far-right clearly does not care about helping those outside our tribe/group, such as ethnic/religious minorities, the poor, foreigners, homeless, marginalized/vulnerable, ... If we had been polytheists for the last thousands of years, then they wouldn't be the kind of people to convert to christianism. They'd laugh at the past importance of a "gentle man", only idealists&losers aren't machiavelians they say, what's one more lie if Hell doesn't exist.
They're in my group though, like non-humans, i still believe as i did back then that it's a matter of finding the right words, of listening to their answers, ...
One day they will be forced to confront better alternatives to the present, the kind in which the whole benefits instead of them, and i will see them unable to spin the arguments in their favor. I live for that day, and i will help in making it happen, one day.

Anyway, nothing new, just one more useless post telling things that everyone agrees with, and without receiving a counter-argument since i'm posting in an echo chamber. It's pointless but whatever

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

A lie indicates the author is deliberately trying to decieve. I think the author is presenting a one-sided critical analysis of Christianity and is somewhat accurate in spirit at least.

To start off saying they built a civilization with the idea God is on their side defines a lot of cultures outside even abrahamic religions. I think it is a point, but perhaps not a very strong one considering most civilizations have operated similarly.

When he says not a foreign God I would have to disagree. Christianity was very much a foreign God that was introduced by the sword to my ancestors. I think this is a minor hang up on my part though because I have always looked at Christianity as a religion from the Middle East.

He makes a point that the older gods in the abrahamic faith were brutal and if the Americans (I am guessing here) were to worship them they would at least be honest considering how much destruction they cause. This is an interesting thought experiment and seems to have some merit at face value.

He correctly highlights some of Jesus's core tenets and ask the common question, if you believe in this man then why the abuse, violence, discrimination, war, etc. I think you can ask this question of any country though so while correct it doesn't seem to be a problem with just America.

He creates some interesting mental imagery saying putting Jesus on aircraft carriers. The US is definitely guilty of the Jesus Warrior mentality that has existed for a very long time. He goes on to highlight the US intertwining its Christian beliefs with its violent actions. This is very valid criticism. I know I always cringe when God is brought up in the context of the military.

His coup de grace is that the US military is fundamentally opposed to the message of Jesus. This is valid criticism, but it doesn't really hit hard on a Christian Fundamentalist just like bringing up passages in the Koran advocating peace doesn't hit hard on a Islamic Fundamentalist.

So back to the question. I don't feel the author is trying to lie. There are a lot of ways of viewing these things. Their viewpoints have some good reasoning behind them but may not be strictly historically or factually correct by every assessment.

  • source