810
Jesus rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 143 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 85 points 2 years ago (6 children) 
    [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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] 21 points 2 years ago (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 59 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Evangelicals: "Jesus? Who? You mean Paul, right?"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 50 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 45 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah but you see, to the conservative, it's the woman's fault he's horny so he's going to control the woman.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    do it, no (eye)balls

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    meow

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •