You are right. Real Christianity is practically the opposite of fascism. But anyone can just call themselves Christian and we can't do anything about it.
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
41 points (79.7% liked)
[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation
6601 readers
1 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I’m not even sure I like real Christianity, but I would like the opportunity to see it and decide for myself. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it!
If you want to know real Christianity, read the Bible. I would recommend starting with the gospel of John.
I can’t tell if that’s an atheists POV or a Christians. John seems like a narrow view.
You might be interested in "The Law of Love and the Law of Violence" by Tolstoy. He makes the same argument, that most Christians are terrible at following the actual teachings of Christ.
There's also Dostoevsky's story "The Grand Inquisitor" from The Brothers Karamazov, in which Jesus returns only to be told that the church no longer needs him or his ideals.
Great example! Just read the book recently and loved it. The whole tavern conversation between the two brothers was very philosophically dense and insightful.
Why give a flying fuck to follow such when forgiveness, as a protestant, is a forever freebie if you ask but once and get that death promise.
Alternatively you can simply accept that the mouth runner will rape your kids and that's just fine.
They're both lies. Catholics ain't special. There are more changes to the new testament than there are letters.
Oh and what's true to you?
Facts.
What a specific answer
Better than nothing but proven an edit since the claim with no substantial reality.
"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
-- 1 John 4:20 (King James Version)
I fucking hate the King James version so much. I grew up with NRSE and it's like "why are you still using this archaic shit?"
Here's the same passage in language normal people can understand:
Those who say, “I love God,” and hate a brother or sister are liars, for those who do not love a brother or sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.
Generational thing, maybe? Plus conservative churches love holding onto archaic customs, like the old KJV translation.
Honestly doesn't make sense to me either way.
Of course I can love something I can't see over something I can see. The reason I hate them is because I can see them.
That's not the point he was trying to make. :)
It's hard to make sense of it now, let alone two thousand years ago.
Here goes nothing:
God is in everything, so you cannot love God without loving each and every part of Him. It's easy to love something you don't experience in your everyday life -- the true challenge is to love that which you do experience, like your "brothers" and "sisters". If you have hate in yourself at all, you do not completely love God.
Makes sense now?
There are more edits to the new testament than there are letters. I just cannot consider any sense of any canonic status to entire set of make-shit-up books.
If it's anything I guarentee it isn't a prediction. It's a fucking plan.
Well it is an oxymoron. At least in the way people use the term. Say someone said someone was an "anarchocommunist". The person wouldn't think they are "perfectly Marx" or "perfectly anarchist" because then that wouldn't be the term. I wouldn't even give Paul the pass on this, I doubt any ruler good or bad can say they stay true to the lord who made his stance on government clear.
Though I disagree with him, in the end he's probably going to end up more normal than people make him out to be.
You shouldn't use another oxymoron
What do you mean?
"anarchocomunism"
My very point is that it's not one or the other and it doesn't claim to be, it's a straddle.
Christianity isn't a book or a simple code of ethics, it is an evolving culture composed of living individuals and historical actions. It's also composed of subcultures, many contradictory. Saying "Christians should be this" isn't very useful, Christianity is what it is, and it's up to Christians to determine where it goes.
As an atheist this is just a grossly superficial reading of Christianity.
Christianity isn't about being non political it's about political expediency. Christians were told to obey the government for survival (i.e no needless rebellion, unlike prophesied in Judaism), there is no part of the Bible that says that you can't enforce Christian morality if you are in power. ("Judge not yadda...yadda"- that's about hypocrisy, it is infact encouraged to judge and purity test others, Christian or not).
Infact moral systems require some obligation to to follow them, as much as people want to circle-jerk about how they don't obligate others to do what they think is right, nobody actually believes this. The sheer fact that you believe something to be good or bad means that there is some property that makes this distinction relevant, this property is the obligation to do good and not do bad. People who assert that they don't think others have this obligation as well are engaging in special pleading that only they are obligated to do good and not do bad. In other words, individual moral relativity is universally rejected, the few people that claim to ascribe to it would object to being stabbed as a good action simply because the perpetrator felt it was.
"I don't believe Christians should be able to point at it and say 'yeh, but that's not my Jesus'"
I agree. If people don't believe in Jesus as described in the Bible, they shouldn't characterise it as "Jesus".
Your objection on the other hand is ridiculous. If someone identifies as X, and it is physically impossible for others that identify as X to force them to stop identifying as X (not exactly sure how you think people can "do something" greater than repudiating them, which you already characterised as insufficient), then the problem of categorisation falls on the observing third-party. Well it always was the problem of the third-party, the unreliability of self-reporting is simply more obvious in this case.
"If I was Christ, I'd be pretty darn upset right now"
Seems weird that the purported Son of God would not be more explicit in social critique. Jesus as described would probably be far more conservative than any public figure nowadays. I don't remember him advocating for democratic voting, freedom of speech, LGBT rights, or universal education.
He probably would be upset, just not in the same way you are.