61
Where's the lie ? (thelemmy.club)
submitted 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) by to c/catholicism@lemmy.ml
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 6 hours ago

The abrahamic faiths are death cults.

Can we please denormalize deadly delusion?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 11 points 7 hours ago

    All of this is true but using religion as a pretext for imperialist aggression is an idea that is a old as religion itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    Well the problem comes from the fact they want that God to be white.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

    We're all guilty of excluding people from other groups :

    • for most people it's ideological(, e.g., our national bourgeoisie may feel closer to the comprador bourgeoisie of other countries), which is i.m.o. the main cause of modern wars(, which aim to erase islamism(, or at least the anti-zionist ones, for now), communism, indigenism, and whatever really different ideology survived colonization) ;
    • for our kings/presidents it was/is about the nation : we talked about the french/german/.. "race" for decades before WW2 ; communism was/is internationalist/humanist by opposition to the nationalisms ; it was the main cause of wars in the past(, which aimed to expand their national territories), as well as for (neo-)colonialism ;
    • for some it's about religions(, e.g. the surviving palestinians are treated inhumanely by jewish israelis, under unconvincing pretexts and more deeply a lack of compensation/responsability on our part for a situation we(sterners) created/maintain) ; it was not the main cause of wars in the past, i.m.h.o., except for the Crusades and internal schisms ;
    • ...

    In any case, the point is that, to me, we should be absolutely good to others(, all others, caveat), not in name but in deeds, right now, that's far from new, everyone makes mistakes.
    But it's not a "debate" on Lemmy that will change anything, however good it may be. Internet will produce better things than Wikipedia and social medias, it will force the discussion, it's not over as long as they don't censor our Internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •