Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) bashed former President Trump online and said Christians who support him “don’t understand” their religion.
“I’m going to go out on a NOT limb here: this man is not a Christian,” Kinzinger said on X, formerly known as Twitter, responding to Trump’s Christmas post. “If you are a Christian who supports him you don’t understand your own religion.”
Kinzinger, one of Trump’s fiercest critics in the GOP, said in his post that “Trump is weak, meager, smelly, victim-ey, belly-achey, but he ain’t a Christian and he’s not ‘God’s man.’”
“If those kids could read they would be very upset”
I kind of want to tell him that republicans who don’t support trump don’t understand their party.
…don’t understand the demographics of their party.
It’s all about advertising to the racists and to the putin-bots. Trump only is a smelly and horrible means to a very ugly end.
Even before that, it was about protecting the “good” people from the “bad” people. It just has gotten to the point where you no longer get cancelled for racism.
Fascism doesn’t care about how you smell. At least at first.
He wants to be in the Party That Cuts Taxes And Bombs Brown People, but not… you know… the Party That Tweets Rudely.
Or, you know, not the party that is openly authoritarian and anti-democracy. We don’t have to like Kinzinger’s politics, but let’s not be fucking morons and misrepresent the reasons why he’s turned against his own party. That’s good for no one.
We don’t have to like Kinzinger’s politics.
Oh thank god.
Side note, I’m still angry at the modern GOP for making me agree with the likes of Kinsinger, Cheney, and Romney on some things. That’s not okay.
not the party that is openly authoritarian and anti-democracy
Its a two-party system. If you write off one of the parties, what kind of democracy do you even have left? Yeah, the liberals are all about a softer, gentler, more egalitarian form of drone strike / police state / economic shock doctrine. But moving towards the lesser of two evils still leaves you in Hell.
let’s not be fucking morons and misrepresent the reasons why he’s turned against his own party
He’s turned against the party because they turned against him. Kritzenger was packed into the same district as Darin LaHood and chose to join the CNN talking heads parade rather than duke it out in a contested primary. Now he’s got far more invested in the Beltway Anti-Trump media cohort than his old pro-Trump Illinois GOP constituency. This is a career move, not an ideological shift. FFS, the man was close friends with Mike Pence his entire political career. He would be perfectly happy endorsing his home state’s brand of right-wing talk radio weirdo if Pence hadn’t dripped out of the '24 primary months ago.
deleted by creator
He still believes in all the things that gave rise to Trump, he just didn’t like the conclusion.
The bar is so low, it’s a tripping hazard in hell, but at this point I’ll take his dissent. At least it’s something and in the current climate is actually brave, so I’ll give him that.
Jesus would not recognize modern Christians by almost any measure.
If Jesus returned today, American evangelicals role would be first in line to crucify him a second time
Not if he came back with a loaded 45 in his rear jeans pocket, mumble rapping with face tatts.
You think American evangelicals would like that?
The first part at least
A black man with a gun? No sir, they would not like that!
Who honestly gives a fuck?
You, so that’s one person.
Cunt
Well that was rude and uncalled for.
What would your mother think of you being so rude to strangers on the internet?
Imagine if you had a time machine and could pick him up and show him St. Peters basilica today.
The shit fit he would throw would make the cleansing of the temple look like nothing.(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
If he existed as described, which is doubtful at least.
I always wonder what the point of the rapture is if it hasn’t already happened. Ain’t no one going up. Modern Christians can’t even be objective enough to understand their own failure to follow their own subjective morals.
I regularly jest that the rapture happened in 2012 but nobody noticed because only one guy in Montana was raptured and the rest of us just blithely continued on living. I imagine that Revelations is playing out and God and the Antichrist are both standing around scratching their heads as the horsemen are trying to do their thing and modern Christians look at it all and say “hold my beer”.
Maybe ask yourself why your people are so stupid in the first place, Adam.
He’s just pissy he wasn’t chosen as god emperor of the smoothies.
This guy was on the January 6th committee. He appears to be genuine in his disgust of trump, and I doubt he is envious of him.
That being said, he still holds all of the core conservative views that keep us poor and sick.
Like with Bush jr, I can acknowledge the difference between our positions and respect their adherence to theirs like I’m steadfast in mine. That’s where genuine debate and discussion happens IMO.
It’s the lying sacks of shit who do any and everything to capture more power are the ones who are the scariest to me.
Matthew 19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
They have an excuse for that. It’s really fucking stupid.
There are two popular interpretations for the phrase “eye of a needle.” The first theory is that it is a reference to the tiny hole at the top of a sewing needle. Simple enough. The second theory is that it is a reference to a gate with the name “the eye of the needle” that was in first century Jerusalem. The gate was so small that anyone that hoped to get a camel through would have to take all of their baggage off the camel, get it down to its knees, and kind of shimmy the camel through the tiny opening.
You can see why this is important for Bible readers. Either Jesus is saying that it is impossible for a rich man to get into Heaven, or he’s saying that it’s really challenging for a rich man to get into heaven.
https://classictheology.org/2021/10/12/through-the-eye-of-an-actual-needle-the-fake-gate-theory/
Of course, there is zero evidence for such a gate ever existing. Rich Christians just want to excuse their wealth.
Even with that questionable excuse it would mean you have to give up all of your possessions and humbly come to god on your knees. They really just want to ignore their own book.
Oh, but they tithe! So they don’t need to give up anything else!
Does willing all of your wealth to your children count as giving up your wealth when you die? Cause that seems to be their plan.
This is the real answer: tithing absolves you.
The OG priests were every bit the conmen that modern priests are. ‘Give your wealth to God (meaning me, his ordained servant) or you’ll spend eternity in torment!’
In some ways it’s amazing the grift has lasted 2000 years, but then again is there a better grift than capitalising on an existential dread (death) that everyone feels and whose aftermath can’t be proven or disproven? It’s ingenious, really.
It’s also stupid because it ignores the part right before the camel metaphor
16Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18“Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’ c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ d ”
20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
It just says sell your possessions and give to the poor.
Most Christians don’t really know the Bible very well. They think Paradise Lost or Dante’s Inferno are canon. They do all sorts of mental backflips to justify what they want to do anyway.
I was taught the gate analogy, because the idea is that the camel would be carrying a lot of stuff and that would need to be unloaded before going through the gate. Just like Jesus explains here, the rich man would need to sell what they have and give to the poor so they are not burdened by the desire for things and can then enter into the kingdom of heaven.
In other words, you need to be selfless enough that you’re willing to part with everything you have in other to live with God.
Good post, thank you for sharing!
Not to mention there was a similar expression in use at the time in the east using an elephant. The verse is pretty unambiguous.
Let me preface this by clarifying that I don’t claim to have the one and only right explanation that everyone should accept, I’d just like to point out that this theory also exists: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/43799
I have no idea how accurate any of that is, but ‘rope’ does make more sense than ‘camel’ and they both basically mean the same thing.
*enter into prison
FTFY
He’s not wrong, but this is honestly the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
The bible does technically say you should treat your fellows as you would want to be treated and promotes brotherhood, but it also says women and other races are inferior and advocates for truly heinous behaviour. Cherry picking has always been the point, and shitloads of crimes against humanity have been officially sanctioned by the church.
There’s a very good reason the founders these people claim to venerate wanted the church and state to be separate. They were deists, but not overt Christians, and they’d seen what happens when religion mingles with government: horrible, horrible things.
I don’t think so. He’s not saying they aren’t “true” Christians, an undefinable standard of "true. He’s saying they don’t understand it. Christ flipped the tables and whipped the money changers, these people worship a real estate speculator. Christ’s message is one of social welfare and commonwealth, conservative populists literally killed Jesus for blasphemy.
Like, he’s right, they don’t understand it. I went to Christian Sunday school. There wasn’t one lesson about taking health insurance from poor people and charging interest on school lunch debt.
I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make. He’s saying these Christians don’t understand their religion, as in they’re not following what he thinks Christianity is supposed to be. That’s the very definition of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
You’re doing it too, honestly. What you learned in Sunday school doesn’t match how these republicans are interpreting it, so they’re not following the real teachings.
I’m saying you can look through the history of the official stances of the Christian church and find many, many examples of sanctioned atrocities. You may not like it, but Christianity has never been what’s printed on the tin.
If we are going that road you could argue that much of the “Christian church” has split pretty far from Christ’s actual teachings.
Sure. Or that the original teachings were all over the place to begin with, because it’s an amalgamation of various regional beliefs and stories meant to gain political and social control over areas it spread to, adopting and bastardising random beliefs it encountered. Because that’s what literally happened.
Eventually the Catholic and Anglican churches decided which books/teachings would be ‘correct’ based on what whomever was in charge at the time wanted. There are many books that were included or excluded from the bible because they were convenient or inconvenient, and the end result was a weird, inconsistent mess. The Catholic Church’s official library has what’s now considered banned texts that were official canon a few centuries ago. What changed that made them wrong? Politics.
And of course the three major Abrahamic religions can’t agree over whose interpretation is correct, to the point of genocide. But yeah, one sect of evangelical Christianity is ‘right’ such that we should all be subjected to it.
Jesus wasn’t socialist, he literally said to leave to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. He wanted to part of government, and instead pointed people to the government of heaven.
His message was for individuals to choose to help the poor on their own, not to use the government to force everyone to help the poor. The message was always about the individual, not the group, and it wasn’t until the Acts that we start to talk about the “church” and any kind of centralization. He said, “follow me,” not “organize yourselves into communes.”
So no, I absolutely do not think Jesus was a socialist, he was the polar opposite of Trump. He shared a message of tolerance, love, and personal improvement, whereas Trump shares a message of intolerance, hate, and blaming others for your problems.
His message was for individuals to choose to help the poor on their own, not to use the government to force everyone to help the poor.
Nope. He never once said “don’t rely on government”. You made that part up. He said give Caesar his taxes, knowing that those taxes will go to pay for free food and entertainment for the public “bread and circuses”. The reason he didn’t talk more about government is because his country was under the equivalent of foreign military occupation and all the decisions were made in a distant capital of which he would have had zero influence. His message was for everyone to do everything they can to help the poor, and in particular for rich people to redistribute their wealth to the poor. And only if they did that would rich people be eligible for heaven. Jesus used Yahweh’s coercion in place of government coercion.
No, he said give Caesar his taxes because that’s a moral and legal obligation. Here’s the NIV translation, which makes it clear (Mark 12:15-18):
… Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
Nowhere in that exchange did he mention what it would be used for, just that it’s Caesar’s and he deserves it back. That’s it, that’s the only mention he made of the government, and he mentions the current leader, not the state itself (e.g. he could’ve said “Rome” instead of “Caesar” if he wanted to make commentary about the government).
And later in that same chapter, he talks about the offering of the widow:
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
He obviously cares far more about the gifts to God than the taxes paid to the government, so the whole point of the exchange was to highlight that gifts to God are more important than obligations to governments.
You can also look at the rich man that came to Jesus asking what he lacked (the camel through the eye of the needle thing), and the advice was to give to the poor and follow Jesus, not to become a philanthropist and lift the poor out of poverty. The gift God cares most about is humility and meekness, so giving to the poor was never the point, the point was to eliminate worldly desires to serve God.
That’s a constant theme throughout the New Testament, especially in the gospels. When Jesus healed people, he didn’t do it to ease their suffering, he did it to give them a chance to repent and serve God. Every time he did so, he admonished them to repent and sin no more. The focus is always on the next life and serving God, not on this life.
And that’s why I’m disgusted with many modern Christians, they like to donate large amounts for recognition instead of quietly giving like Jesus did. They’re like those people in the temple giving large amounts, not the poor widow who gave the only pennies she had. Your gift to others should be live and compassion, trying to amass wealth to give more to the poor misses the point.
and he mentions the current leader, not the state itself (e.g. he could’ve said “Rome” instead of “Caesar” if he wanted to make commentary about the government).
Nope. Julius Caesar was long dead by this time. Tiberius was the emperor when Jesus lived. After before him, Augustus.
He obviously cares far more about the gifts to God than the taxes paid to the government
These aren’t gifts because there is coercion involved that is far greater than government coercion. If you don’t redistribute your wealth to the poor, you are going to be tortured forever by the devil. Anything the government can do to you pales in comparison to Yahweh’s coercion.
are more important than obligations to governments.
You made this part up. Again. He didn’t say anything about obligations to governments, except that you should pay your taxes.
Caesar
Starting with Tiberius, Roman emperors gave their heirs the name “Caesar,” such that “Caesar” came to be known as the term used for the emperor or his heir (i.e. it’s the root of kaiser in German, tsar in Russia, “qaysar” in the Ottoman Empire). Tiberius wasn’t born with the name and adopted it later, and took the honorific “Augustus” when he took the throne. So “Caesar Augustus” was the emperor, and “Caesar” was either the emperor (shorthand) or the heir. It’s kind of like a mix between family name and title, so “Caesar” can refer to any of the line of dictators following Julius Caesar, or it can refer to the title of the emperor or his heir.
So that’s why I understand “Caesar” in this context as whoever the ruling dictator is, not the government or society as a whole. This isn’t an admonition to act in the greater good, but to show obedience to those in charge, which is a theme I’ll get back to later.
If you don’t redistribute your wealth to the poor, you are going to be tortured by the devil.
Jesus never says this. The only thing that’s close is the “eye of a needle” allegory, and the intention seems to communicate that it’s incredibly difficult, though not impossible. He has been more explicit about hard requirements elsewhere:
Matthew 5:20
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven
John 3:3,16
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
So Jesus hasn’t hesitated to use direct language, so it doesn’t make sense to take this as “it’s impossible.” In fact, just before the “eye of a needle” allegory, he says it’s merely difficult.
Mark 10:20-23
And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.”
And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!”
So it’s not the money itself that’s the problem, but the love of money. You’re not going to hell because you have a lot of money, you’re going to hell because you love it more than God, who has been explicit in what’s most important.
Matthew 22:36-40
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
A wealthy person should feel obligated to help their fellow man because that’s what God would do. But the actual law is to love God and your fellow man with all your heart, and that’s possible while having a lot of wealth, just incredibly unlikely because most with wealth get it by being selfish.
In short, if you feel God wants you to give everything away, you should not hesitate to do it, and that hesitation is what damned the rich young man, despite being otherwise righteous.
He didn’t say anything about obligations to governments
His Apostles did, such as Paul:
Romans 13:1-7
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5
Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.
For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
Jesus taught obedience consistently, and the Apostles taught what Jesus taught, so I see this as a retelling of what Jesus taught, not something new Paul came up with.
So to me, the message is very clear, Jesus and God expect obedience, both to earthly rulers as well as heavenly ones. And here’s how Jesus expects leaders to rule:
Matthew 20:25-28
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
So you must obey your leaders, and Jesus expects to leaders to serve those they lead. In that way everyone serves each other, but there’s also order.
Edit: couldn’t get the spoiler block to behave, so I can’t hide all the noisy verses.
Why did you supply all those quotes that were irrelevant?
Roman emperors gave their heirs the name “Caesar,” such that “Caesar” came to be known as the term used for the emperor or his heir
The emperor was the “Augustus”. “Caesar” was the heir. Either way it makes my point. It was talking about the government, not a specific person.
If you don’t redistribute your wealth to the poor, you are going to be tortured by the devil. Jesus never says this. The only thing that’s close is the “eye of a needle” allegory, and the intention seems to communicate that it’s incredibly difficult, though not impossible.
It means that it is almost impossible for “rich” men to go to heaven. Like one in a million. George Bush? Hell. Carly Fiorina? Hell. Betsy Devos? Hell. None of those people have anywhere near the humility and meekness to be the one in a million rich people who don’t go to hell.
You are mixing up socialism and communism. Fair enough, Jesus wasn’t a socialist, because he lived millennia before that particular political stance was coined, but the examples you give kind of actually support the argument that he would have been a socialist if he lived today/he espoused an early type of socialism. Paying taxes, helping the poor, individual responsibility; these are all things a modern day socialist would support. Organising into communes - not so much.
Also, it seems you are suggesting Donald Trump is a socialist? If so you’ve completely misunderstood the meaning of any kind of socialism.Jesus would’ve been closer to communist, which is a stateless society based on communal ownership. He asked how followers to eliminate personal possessions and follow him, presumably subsisting on the charity of others. That’s the spirit of communism.
Socialism, on the other hand, is democratic ownership of the means of production. Jesus wanted no part in ownership of anything, much less socializing ownership of communal goods. He believed in following the law, but only so far as his legal and moral obligation went. He never discussed setting up poor houses, redistribution of wealth, or anything a socialist might push for, he instead urged his followers to follow his example in helping the poor.
If we have to ascribe a political philosophy, he’s a libertarian who is morally opposed to personal ownership, but also opposed to forceful removal of ownership. He’d rather live destitute than force others to share, because this life is ephemeral and true rewards are in heaven.
Trump
No, Trump is not a socialist, he’s a narcissist. He would support a socialist policy if it meant he could get recognition for it (see COVID checks, which he insisted bear his name).
Jesus, on the other hand, told people to not tell others he healed them (Luke 5:12-14). Jesus didn’t want recognition, he just wanted to do good and set a good example. That’s the sense that Trump is the opposite of Jesus, not wrt policy, but the examples they each set.
And yeah, Trump would be a socialist if he thought that would get him into power. He doesn’t really care about policy, he cares about fame and money, and money only because it buys fame. Jesus rejected both from Satan (Matthew 4:1-11, esp verses 8-10):
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ”
Trump worships himself, Jesus calls others to worship his father.
Removed by mod
I can’t tell if you’re being serious, but in case you are, these definitions may help:
No true Scotsman fallacy: No true Scotsman fallacy is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when one tries to define a term or group in a way that excludes certain counterexamples by arbitrarily changing the definition to fit their argument.
metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
Removed by mod
Obviously Trump is not a Christian. That’s not the bit I’m referring to.
I mean the bit where he’s talking about people who follow trump and who call themselves Christian. Literally no true Scotsman. They 100% think they’re Christian, and they have just as much a claim on the title as anyone.
eta: relevant quote:
“I’m going to go out on a NOT limb here: this man is not a Christian,” Kinzinger said on X, formerly known as Twitter, responding to Trump’s Christmas post. “If you are a Christian who supports him you don’t understand your own religion.”.
e: and if you think they can’t be logically correct in squaring their devout Christianity with their support of Trump, they’ve got several ‘imperfect vessel’ bible quotes for you.
You are assuming though that Kinzinger is…
arbitrarily changing the definition to fit their argument
…, which he is not doing. He’s using the definition as defined by Jesus.
Or, as @[email protected] puts it …
Jesus would not recognize modern Christians by almost any measure
I’m not assuming, I’m asserting that those gospels are heavily edited and censored by the church, so who really knows what the original intent was?
Leaving aside that the KJV that most Christians learn is filtered, sometimes erroneously, through multiple language translations, several of the original texts were cut from fairly recent editions because they contradict other texts or were morally problematic.
Claiming authority on what Jesus did or didn’t mean when referring to people who believe just as strongly they’re right is a fallacy, especially when, given the context of many other horrible teachings the bible espouses, it’s morally dubious at best. And those same texts have been used by church officials who should be authorities on the topic to justify atrocities.
So yeah, this is a fallacy.
I’m not assuming, I’m asserting that those gospels are heavily edited and censored by the church, so who really knows what the original intent was?
That’s one hell of a debate catch-all escape hatch you’ve got there.
If you’re arguing that what we’ve all been told about Jesus’s intent and teachings are not true, then that’s a completely different discussion to be had, and we’re wasting our time discussing this current subject.
Claiming authority on what Jesus did or didn’t mean when referring to people who believe just as strongly they’re right is a fallacy,
Not when there is an entire book explaining the ideology of Jesus. Ignoring everything it says proves they haven’t read it which proves Kinzinger right.
by arbitrarily changing the definition to fit their argument.
I don’t think he was doing that though, but instead was stating that what Jesus says is Christianity is different than what today’s people say Christianity is, via by how they actually act, as “Christians”. In other words, Jesus practiced Christianity different than today’s Christians.
Or are people not allowed to say to someone else that they do not act in the way that the group they are in says they should act?
Sure, they’re allowed. I’ve spoken to loads of them (where I live, I’m surrounded), and they fully believe people like Kinsinger are the ones not following those teachings.
My point is when a belief system is so subjective and abused – even by the church itself – it’s the Spider-Man pointing meme.
They’re reactionary nationalists; I think they understand their religion just fine.
That’s kind of the whole problem with basing one’s worldview on magical thinking though: when you have to interpret moral instructions, its only as good as the lens you use. In this case, their religion is filtered through fear, bigotry, and power politics.
I have much more respect for Christians who use humanism as their lens, but they’re also picking and choosing what they want to from the Bible Buffet.
Realistically, there’s no shortage of Christians who are just in it for the abuse. They like the way bigotry feels and the church gives them plenty of targets.
Supply Side Jesus
For those not in the know, Al Franken [D-MN] is a former comedian and senator who resigned from Congress and who created this epic comic critique of the state of modern Christianity in 2003 as part of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them – A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.
The comic is called The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus, and it’s worth reading through.
e: link and formatting
There’s a question here of scripture vs religion. I think very clearly people who follow Trump do not understand the Christian scripture/Bible.
But scripture isn’t what religion is. Religion is the faith system that develops around that scripture, even if it’s contradictory at times. In that sense, evangelicals understand their religion perfectly well.
Yeah. Folks don’t understand theology and exegesis in religion. The critics of religion are guilty of the same problem the evangelical right: biblical literalism. Literalism is a modern method of interpretation where texts historically read as “mythos” arr now read as “logos”.
Yeah it always annoys me how some outspoken atheists often treat the Bible and other religious texts in the exact same manner the stupidest religious people do (maybe harsh way to say that). When I was still a Christian I was basically immune to atheist critiques of the Bible simply because I didn’t recognize the Bible in the literal way they attacked it, and the Christian arguments against Biblical literalism I found to be way stronger than atheist ones that dismissed so much information to function.
I went to a Lutheran University. Entered with some C.S Lewis style views, exited agnostic AF. But it was my religion and philosophy professors with Masters of Divinity that really pushed me in that direction. Despite exiting less religious than I entered, I exited with more respect for religious thought than when I entered.
Very similar especially with friends who were taking MDiv, and I actually lead the Christian fellowship at my school for 3 years before becoming atheist agnostic. I had a driving job 30 hours a week and would listen to philosophy and all kinds of lectures and popularized academic courses after I went through a bunch of literary classics. My ancestors also founded the Mennonite Brethren church and there’s a lot of radical beliefs like pacifism I was exposed to through that environment, I’m the first generation to fully assimilate.
I can pick and choose verses as well.
I’m not picking verses though, I’m talking about the overall theme of the gospels.
The narrative consistently has Jesus praising the poor and shunned while condemning the religious and rich. He tells people to lay off a prostitute, interacts face to face with lepers, and talks about how a friendly foreigner is better than indifferent countrymen. And he constantly calls out the hypocritical religious people.
I’m not Christian, but I think Jesus’ actions and teachings are worth following in these regards. Helping the poor, telling religious zealots to fuck off, and providing food for everyone. A political party that actually embodies what Jesus does would effectively be a communist + socialist group.
I highly recommend reading through the gospels as literature, if only to throw it back at evangelicals in their face. Remind them how Jesus promised damnation to those who don’t help the poor, when they start going on about entitlement programs and policies that hurt the poor.
You are picking and choosing verses. I can do it as well. In Matthew we are told that he is for the lost sheep of Israel, only. Sure charity is great but for your tribe. In John we are told that he (and this the church) is more important than charity. In Mark sure he cures the leper but only after yelling at him*.
You mention that he tells religious leaders to fuck off but you fail to mention that he told the leper to go to a Rabbi right after curing him so he could go through the repentance ritual. In Matthew again he tells his followers that not one particular of the law will be removed.
Of course you probably think the stoning of the adulteress story was in the original text, but whatever. Go read the Sermon on the Mount again and tell me that is the same guy who was sex positive.
Everyone reinvents Jesus in their own image. You want him to be a hippie communist so you pick verses that make him one. The evangelicals want him to only be concerned with his own tribe and to hell with the rest (quite literally says as much in Mark 4:11-12) so they got their verses. Like warfare? Jesus tells his followers to cast his dead enemies bodies in front of him. Like fascism? He tells his followers to follow the government. The man is a Rorschach test.
Go ahead and read the Gospels as literature. I encourage it. Mark invented the empty tomb and we find other Roman writers using empty tombs as a motif to signify that some mortal ascended to godhead. Last supper? We got a novel (predating Paul) of a Greek guy hosting a dinner party and telling everyone there how he is going to die tomorrow.
*They viewed that disease how we view STDs but even more so. It was considered a direct punishment from God for bad actions.
Good points. We agree, they’re good literature, and like any literature, there are themes and messages you can take home from it. I suppose you’re right though that you can interpret the gospels to fit whatever your existing ideology is. I have interpret most of the passages you present differently – but, I agree your viewpoint is valid and has merit.
I very much prefer discussing this academically vs religiously. It’s rather fascinating how it’s written to be acceptable to almost all viewpoints.
Well the thing is these stories didn’t happen. They were the picked by the authors from various other literature works. The total lack of a unified voice means that you can slap archetypes on rapidly. Part of the reason you will see that people who believe in the historical Jesus will insist that they alone have culled through the layers to find the actual man.
It is like the Joker. Over his near century run the Joker has become every possible villain. From a gutter junkie, to an urban terrorist, to a Mafia kingpin, to a harmless trickster, to a gimmick serial killer, to a literal evil godlike being, to an immortal force, to a very mortal criminal, to a fourth wall breaking super genius, to a rent a terrorist, to a gang leader, to a victim pushed too far, to a chemist and failed comedian, to a former special ops rogue, to emo BDSM, to gay for Batman wearing makeup dandy…
Since Jesus never existed he could be whatever people needed him to be and since the Roman-Greek/Jewish world was highly prolific at store writing it was possible for writers to dip into the rich traditions and pull out stories that everyone had some familiarity with. The NT is derivative and the older the chapter the more obvious the derivative.
Yeah, and then you’ve got things like the virgin birth which features in a lot of religions. Plus as it grew more popular, it took over some pagan traditions as well.
I’m not sure what the latest scholarly consensus is on if he even existed or not, but if he did, he wasn’t born around Christmas. The date was chosen to match a pagan holiday.
Scholary consensus is that he did exist however scholary consensus is that the resurrection was a true event and a man named Mark wrote the first gospel. So yeah turns out the majority of people who make a living studying the Bible believe in accuracy of the Bible, big surprise.
I prefer to look at evidence and see where it goes.
Whoosh!
I prefer the Marxian view of religion that people’s religious beliefs are not the source of their actions but instead that the religion is determined by conditions and motivations external to it and that religion is used to morally justify these conditions, as well as provide a means to address the suffering caused by conditions. We see religion evolve as people’s relationships with production evolve as well as power struggles and compromises between state powers. People often view Christianity as wiping out paganism rather than adopting aspects of it that would solidify state power for example. And people often treat religion as it’s own domain separate from culture, but I think that doesn’t explain things like civil religion or how religion actually functions. The way Calvinism during the 1600s develop alongside capitalism and these new economic relations it’s hard not to see religion in this way, and in the US you saw things like the Adventists and Mormons come out of Christian tradition which is basically a historical record of this process.
I think an error is the idea that atheists aren’t necessarily religious in an ideological sense, because a lot of them follow notions of civil religion and morality that are very much attached to theistic religions, or at least rely on the existence of concepts found in theistic religion. The idea that atheists and Christians are separate ideologically I think is false, in many cases they merely take the same moral framework and apply it for different political ends within the same broad economic consensus. And this makes a lot of sense as the recent Atheist movement in the 00s was very politically attached to the post 9/11 stuff that was happening. That movement split in the 10s along culture war lines as well, I personally saw many atheists turn into “race realists” and anti-feminists and the skeptics group I was attending basically ceased to exist because of this.
He’s got an unrealistically high opinion of Christianity.
I’ve got a high opinion of Christianity and Christians. I have an incredibly low opinion of “Christianity” and “Christians”.
I’ve also heard that no true “Scotsman”…
Edit: no, it’s ok guys, I put it in quotes.
It’s not a “No True Scotsman” if the definition of being a thing is acting a certain way and you don’t do that.
You can tell everyone in the world you’re an ultra marathon runner, but if you don’t run ultramarathons, you’re not an ultramarathons runner.
I was going to say… Has this rhetorical move ever convinced anyone of anything? I see Republicans pull it all the time on minority groups. “Uh, actually, all you black democrat voters are on a plantation and its not in your best interests to vote consistently for a single party.” And then, when it comes time for the GOP to put up or shut up, the best candidates they can produce are Herman Cain and Tim Scott.
Meanwhile, you’ve got a bunch of Cafeteria Catholics from Rhode Island tut-tutting the Evangelicals down in Texas who have convinced themselves that the End of Days is right around the corner, because Donald Trump has fucked more children than your average priest. Nah, dude. That won’t work any better than your boy Beto saying he’s going to take everyone’s guns. They’re not listening to you any more than you’re listening to Ben Shapiro call our California for hosting too many gay teen abortion parades.
The folks who pop off with these “By your own logic…” retorts are inevitably just preaching to their own choirs. That’s before they get back to the import Congressional business of gutting public education and exporting another billion dollars of cluster bombs into the Middle East.
No. It hasn’t, and it never will.
You can’t shake a belief. You can change an idea, you can rationalize with opinions. But once it’s a belief, nothing short of a world shattering hardship or literally putting them through the same treatment that you give to cult members is going to break them out of it.
These people have built a belief system that puts them at the top, no matter what branch of Christianity you’re looking at, you’re looking at the most righteous, the most correct, the most justified in their actions. If someone says to them “hey you’ve got it wrong” then clearly the only rational explanation is that no, you actually.
This isn’t unique to Christianity, not by a long shot. Most religious systems do this. But Christianity is the unique problem we have.
This isn’t unique to Christianity, not by a long shot.
In order to believe that, you’d have to believe Christianity really was magic. Nah, its an ingrained feature of the human psyche. One reason why “get’m while they’re young” is such an effective movement-building strategy.
But Christianity is the unique problem we have.
Even within the greater sphere of Christianity, there are plenty of people who hold very benign beliefs. Meanwhile, being not-Christian doesn’t seem to spare you from the brain poisoning. Hell, within the atheist community, we’ve got more than a few freaks and weirdos, too. At some level, this is far more about a particular brand of western ideology - a fundamentally fascist bent in social organization - that effectively drives people insane.
For a Republican, this is quite a smart analysis.
If you can believe some old book full of fairy tales is true, then you can believe literally anything.
I know, right??!
*le tips le fedora
In their defense, neither do Christians that don’t back Trump.
You should talk to some ELCA Lutheran’s or Unitarian Universalists. Not all Christians are bad.
Not all of them are bad, but all of them agree blatant sexism, racism, slavery and genocide aren’t deal-breakers.
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” ~Steven Weinberg
The ‘all’ in your comment makes this incredibly easy to refute. I am a Christian and I believe sexism, racism, slavery and genocide are all deal breakers. Frankly I’m not sure if you’ve met any actual Christians.
The Bible makes it really clear that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian should be considered one. Have a look at Matthew 7:1-5 and also especially verse 21:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
Lots of modern ‘Christians’ may have never considered that that verse might apply to them.
“Let me also quote some unsubstantiated bullshit” ~ Stalin (who was atheist, btw)
The person in that quote has lived their entire life as a shut-in. It’s the only way they could possibly think that.
This person lives in a world in which our prison systems exist. Prisons are ubiquitous, barbaric, and exist out of good intentions (removing criminality from society).
That’s not at all the only example, but it’s the easiest. Nationalism is evil based on love of country. War is evil as a concept, and the vast majority of wars were due to ideology or resources, and some were straight up just hate. People with the hands technically blood-free ardently supported the Khmer Rouge, for what they earnestly believed were noble reasons.
Like this whole idea is just nuts. Look right here on Lemmy. People on Lemmygrad are mostly not terrible people, they just exist in a culture that is misguided as fuck. The “Dirtbag Left” movement is reactionary movement to the general (in their view, sterilized, stale, and corporatized) cultural view that communism is a failure and a joke. By being abrasive and uncompromising, they’re really campaigning for legitimacy.
Now that’s really dumb, for sure, and does not work, as has been proven by their continuous isolation regardless of platform, but it is a plan that is, at least conceptually, noble.
Hollow succor when the bad ones do bad in your own name, without meaningful distinction. Christianity very clearly has no mechanism to prevent bad actors, and its god doesn’t seem to care to prevent them, either.
“A few bad apples spoil the whole cart.”
Edit: typo.
deleted by creator
I’ve always been a bit confused there. Historically I understand it came out of Protestantism. But my friends that attended a Unitarian Universalist “Church” seemed to do Christian things. But Is it correct that not all Unitarian Universalist have a church? Or perhaps it could be that because I went to a Lutheran Church and took religion classes with Unitarians they just were able to be conversant about theology in an intelligent and respectful way, and able to see positive aspects of it. It’s also been a while since I thought about John Adams and that form of Deist Unitarianism that believed in some God as a ground for some things.
Thanks for the correction.
deleted by creator
I’ve spent plenty of time with Lutherans and Quakers and the lot. What overall percentages of Christendom do you think these sects compose?
It’s irrelevant to the premise of the conversation what percentage of Christians act their religion. Your statement included all other Christians - that’s false and this person was clarifying that there are indeed Christians who are actually Christian.
Christianity is not worthy of hate. It’s a pacifist religion that very specifically calls for a separation of church and state, and glorifies the meek.
The problem is few human beings find that appealing, because by acting that way you lose a lot. That’s the point of the religion. That’s why there are so many pacifist Christian martyrs.
Hell, there being relatively few of them helps his point. The reason so many people just think “fuck man Christians are terrible” is because they only (or so close enough as to not matter) interact with shitty people who abuse Christianity for their own purpose
Meanwhile Jesus specifically cautioned against that.
I don’t think people don’t really act their religion, it’s the religion that acts them, or embodies what their ideology is, or what the ideaology of the state is, or ruling class. The best definition I’ve heard for ideology is, “the mechanism that harmonizes the principles that you want to believe with what advances your material interest.”
I grew up fundamentalist in the Mennonite Brethren and Evangelical Baptist tradition, then and was exposed to some Christian Socialist ideas and the New Monasticism movement in my later teen years. The radical pacifism of my ancestors required they migrate around Europe to avoid anabaptist persecution, conscription and military service, and they got very lucky by avoiding both the Russian Revolution escaping to the Weimar Republic (which included bribing train guards with paska buns), and the rise of the Nazis by emigrating to Canada.
I’m now an atheist but find a lot of atheists are not very knowledgeable about religion and use their performative opposition to it in a way to assert moral superiority in a way that gives them power in a political and civil religious sense. To me many atheists are ardent followers of civil religion, accepting the morality of individualism and the default morality of our culture, which itself has a lot of Christian aspects. As a Christian I found myself essentially untouched by all atheist arguments because they didn’t seem to recognize the religious beliefs I had. We actually read some of the New Atheist books like God Delusion in Bible Study, an agnostic religious professor was present at a session to answer questions and provide better resources for anyone interested.
Christianity is not worthy of hate. It’s a pacifist religion that very specifically calls for a separation of church and state, and glorifies the meek.
That’s where you’re wrong kiddo. Christianity has been a religion of violence since its inception.
Don’t judge groups or individuals for what they say. Judge them for what they do. Compare what they do to what they say. Evaluate the difference to decide if you should trust them. Christianity is and pretty much always has been a religion of violent extremists who will quickly resort to some of the worst tendencies imaginable. The vast majority of civilization destroying tragedies of the last two thousand years can be attributed either directly or indirectly to the spread and or conduct of Christianity. If not that, then Christianity found its way into the justifying elements. There is nothing redeeming or virtuous about Christianity or Christians, by merit of their actions. Its mass child graves in Canada, or Ireland, or any where else you find Christians; its the consistent and repeated attempts to turn women into a second class of people; its the othering of any religion, creed, or race they can’t or haven’t subjugated: Christianity lacks any redeeming qualities, and should not be apologized for.
Who cares if there are a microscopic number of truly good pacifist Christians? Almost assuredly those people would also be good people without the stone of Christianity hanging around their necks.
The incredibly small number of “good” Christians do not even come close to making up for or justifying Christianities actual material role in making the world a worse place.
I’d be willing to bet the amount of people - believers or not - who have devoted significant study to the Bible understanding its context, translation difficulties, relevance to the epoch at the time it was written (and the time it was “set”), and it’s journey between Judaism and modern Christianity, how it has changed over the various schisms and decrees AND has a solid grip on the ecumenical questions, conventions, devices, rituals… (e.g. “What colors should a priest wear on January 6th and why?”) are few and far between.
It’s a massive text with a huge amount packed into every line. Atheist or no, anyone claiming to understand the Bible without doctorate level study is lying.
Their religion is hate and harm.
That is distinctly different from their scripture, which is the exact opposite of those things. They call themselves “Christian” while spitting in the face of the teachings of the man their “religion” is named after.
I mean, have you read the Bible? There’s a whole lot of hate and harm in it.
I was with you at first, but scriptures have plenty of problematic stuff as well.
Yes Christians today are more selfish and cold hearted than the Bible would have them to be.
On the other hand, Christians are also less murderous and misogynistic than their scriptures dictate. And that’s not a compliment to Christians.
The Bible just kinda hits different when you’re a woman in 300 CE.
Kinzinger doesn’t understand their religion
