top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 94 points 3 weeks ago* (36 children)

I do find it interesting how many arguments I'll see online that rely on an idealized version of Christianity to make a point of Christianity, as though Christianity would be pure if people followed the "actual" morals. But like, this is what it is, they're talking about a Christian church in the United States of America and the argument is that if MAGAts followed that Christianity, they'd be following "real" Christianity. Christianity was an engine of colonialism and all of the genocidal violence within it; institutions are what they do, not what they say they want to do.

I think a lot of people don't realize that they're making conservative, revisionist narratives when they want to privilege hypocrisy in their arguments rather than morality.

  • source
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

    Not to mention that the early Christians were nothing like what came several hundred years later.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago* (10 children)

    I mean, sure, but what I'm cautioning against is prescribing any normative definition or configuration of Christianity, as it then implies an idealized version is real, and therefore that the problem is that people aren't following the religion the "right" way, not that there is something systemic that influences how the religion functions in society.

    There were baptists in central Europe that allowed women to serve as pastors as early as the early modern period, which is markedly different than what Baptism is like in the US today. During the Second Great Awakening of the early nineteenth century, there were Christian denominations that practiced polyamory and collective property ownership. These were developments that coincided with Christianity as an institution of settler-colonialism and EuroAmerican imperialism, and they were certainly not accepted by larger or more formal denominations at the time; still wouldn't be today. It should also go without saying that they wouldn't reflect the churches in the period you're referring to even if just because they emerged in relation to what came afterward.

    It is important to deny ownership of moral values by the institutions that configure and disseminate them for this exact same reason. Even though they serve a purpose within the system they exist in, they meet a need of the people who subscribe to them, and normativity is what stifles their ability to wrestle that utility away from these institutions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    Oh sure, I think my point was more that they've cherry-picked what "version" they want to idealize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Yes, I'm saying "cherry-picking" suggests there are bad and good cherries, when it's just cherries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    Well, it's arguable that some of these religious "cherries" are worse than others, but I don't find any of them to be crisp and delicious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (3 children)

    Yes, exactly, it is arguable, which why I'm saying that you can't say there's actually "good" or "bad" cherries.

    Check out "postructuralism" and scholars like Derrida or Foucault. The role that language plays in our constructions and effects on things forces us to interrogate the reality of how we understand this thing to be "good" or "bad," as it is itself subject to the systems of power we are subject to. So, it's very hard not to reproduce the values we're trying to challenge when we don't address how those values are constructed.

    Yes, we all know white supremacy is bad, but if it is only bad because it hurts people, then many people think that it only exists at the level of individual actions, like calling someone a slur, and not at a systemic level like how laws and knowledge are oriented around fundamentally devaluing certain groups of people; or why it is those groups of people in the first place besides "hating what's different." White supremacy does hurt people, and that is bad, but our understanding of how it does that changes how we understand what is needed to end it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    Yeah, it’s also not an “airtight” set of beliefs. The bible is a messy collection of books distant from each other in time and goals. You can probably find a passage to justify any point.

    Folks looking to use it for their own means are spoiled for choice. Have been for centuries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    Can’t find a passage justifying abolition of slavery.

    “Slaves! Obey your masters!”

    Nor can you find a passage justify sex equality. “As the church are slaves to Christ, so you are to your husbands”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago

    The livonian crusade brought serfdom god and good morals to my people, I'm sure they were happy!

    Nah seriously, we still had tribes with pretty loose organization some thousand years ago. Then 800 years ago some lovely people decided the pagans needed God and of course that meant God's order: feudalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    The hilarious irony is that Jesus was quite clear: the Law of Moses is eternal… therefore all the progressive christians have it wrong.

    The whole “no you don’t have to get your dick chopped” thing comes from Paul… who directly contradicts Jesus on the matter.

    Not even Paul said fuck all about slavery being wrong or women being actual people, and he had some very strong opinions on LGBTQ matters. (And Jesus was much worse.)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (15 replies)
    [–] 46 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

    Leviticus 19:33 and many others say the exact same thing.

    Leviticus 19:33 commands, "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago* (6 children)

    Okay, but

    Consider the work of Old Testament scholar James K. Hoffmeier, which has been embraced by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization devoted to reducing immigration across the board.

    ...

    In Hoffmeier’s view, the duty to not oppress “strangers” (“ger”) found in Leviticus 19:33 does not apply unless a person already has gained legal approval to be within a nation’s borders. That “legal status” had to be obtained “from the appropriate authority in that particular culture” or else he or she remained a “foreigner” (“nekhar” or “zar”).

    The problem with Biblical (and Rabbinical) scholarship is that people argue over this shit extensively and ad nauseum. Hell, the Talmud is just an extended historical account of these arguments (often highly pedantic and endlessly nuanced, turning on interpretations of definitions of terms used in historical observations).

    You can come at a modern policy argument waving the Bible and find a dozen other people from every side of the debate doing the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 34 points 3 weeks ago (15 children)

    Jesus was a pussy for caring about people.

    • MAGA
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

    I saw a post on Reddit saying that Jesus was not a pacifist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 28 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)

    "Actual christianity."

    Bruh, there was no actual christ. Can we please grow up?

    The bible is literally unbelievable. It contradicts itself. Which gospel are we supposed to believe? Which version of Jesus? Or do we believe Paul, who claimed Jesus was lord yet altered his teachings?

    Define "god" and demonstrate that any god exists. No one has been able to do this, which is why I remain an agnostic atheist. Meanwhile, we have more evidence every day that belief in god causes harm to people, which is why I remain antitheistic.

    The god of the christian bible is one of the worst ever conceived. A petty, hateful abuser who demands complete subjugation. People call it "love" when god uses violent slaughter to get his way, such as flooding the entire world. "Don't worry, the good people went to heaven. That's better than being alive." It's a death cult.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • I always just call christianity a fandom and the bible "a sci-fi" novel. I'm somewhat convinced that "religions" are just fandoms from thousands of years ago. In 2000 years I would not be surprised to see "Jedi" as a top "religion" (it's already nearly 1% of all brits in the uk).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    It's a death cult, in which some of its foundational tenets include torture, human sacrifice, cannibalism, vampirism, and zombies, AND their logo is literally their founder in agony on an ancient torture device.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (17 replies)
    [–] 13 points 3 weeks ago

    Priest going on a rant during mass? Unheard of! Why can't they just sit down and do their job XD

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    Since they said "mass" and "priest", I'm guessing they're talking about a catholic church. I have been to a lot of catholic masses, and if my experience is anything like other people's experience, catholic priests seem to actively avoid political statements in their sermons. I'm sure political priests are out there, but I've been to a lot of different catholic churches all over america as a kid, and I never heard a political sermon.

    Almost always, sermons are either about the specific bible passages for that day, or they're a story that the priest heard, or they're about a moral dilemma that the priest observed somewhere or made up, or they want you to donate money to something, and so the sermon is about how good that thing is or will be.

    It wasn't until recently, when I was forced to watch some catholic masses on the internet, that I ever remember seeing any political sermons. And they were from a priest I think called Chris Alar, who also said that his family all advised him not to become a priest. When he told that story, I think he was implying that his family all thought he was far too stupid to get people to listen to him. But anyways, he talks a lot about politics and even argues with YouTube comments to his previous sermons during his sermon. He truly comes off like a pompous idiot, at least to me.

    I finally got my mother to watch the priest I think called Mike Schmidt instead, who seems to give the typical catholic sermons that I grew up with.

    Sorry for the detour, but my point is that I suspect the odds are good that this priest didn't actually say "ICE." He probably just talked about treating immigrants in the way that the Bible tells you to. I think it's this thing with bigots that when they hear somebody talking about bigotry in general, they somehow hear it like they were mentioned by name.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [+] 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
    [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    I've heard of churches that have been asked to stop doing the Sermon on the Mount due to concerns that it's "woke"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Obvious point here. If you are saying "mass" and 'Church" and "priest". Then you are in a religion with a central governing body that probably insists you don't beat people down and shoot them.

    Not sure he's going to be happy just switching buildings.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    As always, anyone can interpret the bible any way, and there is no way to verify which is correct.

    So we get catholics like this:

    "Despite what some Church leaders in America have indicated, a faithful Catholic can support strong and humane immigration law enforcement — by means such as physical barriers, detention and deportation — without violating the teaching of the Church," the report states.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/exclusive-catholic-bishops-chided-sowing-confusion-deportations-stance

    And this:

    “Political leaders should stop stirring up resentment against officers who are endeavoring to enforce the laws of the country,” he continued. “And protestors should cease interfering with the work of ICE.”

    https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/01/19/bishop-barron-says-ice-should-focus-on-serious-criminals-urges-protesters-to-cease-interfering/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    This is obviously the strategy of the MAGA crowd and all their allies: Take existing things, make them your own, strip away everything meaningful, humane, productive or entertaining about them, and replace it with inhuman cruelty.

    There’s nothing remarkable or new about this; it’s simply proof that, despite all the possibilities available to humanity today, we’re still unable to shed our most primitive instincts. Nothing fundamental has changed just because people carry the knowledge of generations in their pockets: it’s just as archaic as it was hundreds of years ago.

    It’s almost remarkable just how incorrigibly obtuse the masses are.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago

    Sounds like a win/win

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children)

    If you have to qualify it then you are the qualifier and not the other thing.

    Maga christian... Youre just maga. Conservative christian... You are just conservative. Liberal christian... Just liberal.

    If you are christian then be christian ahead of all other qualifiers. Pretty sure that's even in the ten condiments right before mustard but after ketchup and mayo.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Guess its all just mega churches and scams left for them.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (4 children)

    Plenty of the rural red state churches and strip mall wanna-be fire and brimstone pastors left.

    Megas get all the press. But plenty of them just play to the crowd and are just as happy to go hard in the paint for a Hillary or Newsom or Obama as a Bush or Trump.

    Hell, some of the most deranged criticisms of Trump (he's the antichrist, he's possessed by a devil, he's a skin walker / lizard person / hologram / secret Communist) came from Cruz/DeSantis allies during the primaries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    Evangelical is the preferred nomenclature

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The Bible and Jesus have some good lessons in it (some archaic lessons too)

    But fuck whatever America's version of Christianity is is mean spirited and cruel and intolerant. Jesus would be disappointed to put it mildly.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    America’s version of Christianity is is mean spirited and cruel and intolerant

    The Settler Movement is all of these things. But religion is as often a source of opposition as support. The earliest abolitionists were devote Quakers. The earliest anti-war activists were Catholics. The earliest socialists and Communists were Jews.

    Nothing about American religion pre-supposes public policy. More often than not, it is the policy that shapes the religion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    They're starting to setup digital fences around churches to target ads to gullible imbiciles.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›