Without Paul there really is no Christianity. Jesus would have just been one of the many minor prophets at best.
As for his conservative teachings, based on what he supposedly said and did he respected the laws of Moses. He argued over specific rulings but not the laws themselves.
This is the apotheosis of Reagan’s cynical exploitation of Evangelical voters. They were always going to end up rejecting the very deity they claimed to follow as the culmination of their path astray.
Like, as soon as “Christians” started voting to cut social welfare programs and programs to help children, they were on the road to apostasy (in their religious framework).
Christians are a religious group who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught many liberal ideals. Some of these include:
Helping others
Not hoarding wealth
Not judging others based on their life choices
At present, many Christians also consider themselves to, politically, be Republicans. The Republican party believes in none of what Jesus taught. They use Christianity to do exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught.
Welfare? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!
Capitalism and profit at all costs
Condemnation of non-heterosexual lifestyles
It sure seems to me that Republican Christians long ago decided that the teachings of Jesus are too liberal.
liberals are rejecting “conservative” teachings of Jesus
And it appears something went wrong and my comment isn’t listed as a reply to that one. This changes the context significantly. Where did you find my comment?
Conservative Christians praise Jesus and follow the example of God. Liberal Christians praise God and follow the example of Jesus. One judges, the other forgives. One smites, the other saves. One says “praise me”, the other literally says not to worship him but to follow his example.
“Conservative Christians praise Jesus and follow the example of God. Liberal Christians praise God and follow the example of Jesus.” This is a very interesting insight, does it come from your own observation or from e.g. the bible?
It was a quote from someone I heard on the internet a long time ago. Can’t remember from whom, so I guess it is my quote now. USA definition of liberal and conservative.
“When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
Half this story is about the idiot SBC constituency. The other half is about top SBC officials who have somehow come to believe that the teachings of Jesus were anything but subversive to begin with.
Saying he was the Messiah in and of itself was subversive to established thought.
They had a long long history of people making claims to kingship based on having a supposed message from God. Like Jeremiah which is clearly the story it was plagiarized from. Additionally, the narratives are contradictory on what exactly he said while interrogated. Which makes sense if you are just making it all up.
The Jews at the time thought the Messiah would come in clad in armor, sword in hand, on a white horse, come to slay their enemies.
Citation needed. Please use the Talmudic prophecies and the references of Josphius to back up your claim. There was a wide variety of different messiah prophecies in circulation at the time. Some of them yes we’re closer to warlike image you made, copying from the Maccabees and Samson. Others were much closer to Isaiah and Jeremiah. Just a guy going around preaching.
Instead he rolled up humbly on a donkey
Not according to Gospel of Matthew. In the Gospel of Matthew he was riding a horse and a donkey at the same time. The author of first Gospel liked to double stuff, made his lies easier to swallow I imagine. Or he just didn’t know Hebrew and Aramaic and misunderstood the last sentence repetitive structure of the poetry.
talking nonsense like “love each other, treat others kindly”
Like here?
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
-Matthew 10:34
Also all the nice stuff he said was from Hillel or Proverbs.
Wanna try again? Or just admit that he is a fictional character that con artists poured Jewish history and thought into.
Christianity is syncretic - is that not inherently subversive of the source?
And in this way it created common ground regional cultures, but the direction of the syncretization was also that of Romanization - the new mythos served to legitimize the earthly authority of Rome (and their territorial claims) in a way the teachings of the Jewish tribes had not.
Christianity is syncretic - is that not inherently subversive of the source?
Oh I think I see what you mean. To one extent every religion is. No one starts from page 1. I am not quite seeing however what Biblical Jesus borrowed from Rome that the Jews of the area hadn’t already. Can you list some examples?
And in this way it created common ground regional cultures, but the direction of the syncretization was also that of Romanization - the new mythos served to legitimize the earthly authority of Rome (and their territorial claims) in a way the teachings of the Jewish tribes had not.
Really only discussing what Biblical Jesus is supposed to have said. He was clear that he was only there for the lost sheep of the Jews, not for the rest.
Yes! History is a tale of cyclical power struggles. I disagree that every religion is syncretic but in principle that’s right. It’s exactly why this headline exists!
I am not quite seeing however what Biblical Jesus borrowed from Rome that the Jews of the area hadn’t already. Can you list some examples?
No I cannot because Biblical Jesus wasn’t real, whether historic Jesus was or not.
The human being that is most recognized as being the inspiration for Jesus had nothing to do with the Bible or the stories in it. The first hint to this should be that many Biblical stories predate the preacher, of course with different characters in the originals. Jesus was simply the device needed to create the opportunity to rewrite regional beliefs in a format more compatible with the contemporary nation-states.
It was non-contemporaneous authors that made Christianity what it is, not some Jesus character. During the time of Jesus around a century after iirc, the practices now called Christianity were not present. There was a very ambiguous and locally varied new twist on the old stories, but Christianity did not start with Jesus as a singular point and then branch from there. Christianity started as an influence on existing religions that slowly tied together disparate branches with a story that became more and more consistent only after it had been around for generations. When his name first started to be used to retell these stories, 2000 years ago or so, there was little agreement on who Jesus was or what he preached. And so the things Jesus is claimed to have said now, are not the same things they were claiming he said back then, which were themselves removed from what the human preacher actually preached (which is currently understood to have been pretty standard teachings for the time and region).
And so, as a character in a story, Biblical Jesus was not an entity that ever had agency. He couldn’t “borrow” anything.
Really only discussing what Biblical Jesus is supposed to have said.
Then you must pay attention to who wrote his lines! It was Rome. Forget the Bible, if you want to learn the answers to your questions, then go read history books to understand the actions that went along with the words. Christianity was the vessel for Roman colonialism.
If you’re too attached to approach it without biases, you could study Islam instead. After understanding the history of Islam, the history of Christianity should become easier to understand for Christians.
The passage where the man expels the people from the temple, accusing them of betraying the teachings seems very much subversive.
Please see: Jeremiah 7:9-15, Jeremiah 23:11-15, Isaiah 1:10-17, Isaiah 66:1-2, Isaiah 59:1-2, Isaiah 56:7-8, Amos 5:21-24, and of course Micah.
The Jewish theocratic state had divisions of power. At that time it was mostly Pharisees and Temple. If Jesus had existed, he would definitely been on Pharisees side. Biblical Jesus was at least. It’s a bit like claiming any political commentary is subversive. There is a difference between being willing to take pot shots at the other political team and being against established order. The references I gave are only the ones that have survived. Most likely there were quite a few authors being very critical of how the Temple was run.
Here is a single man going against status quo and establishment. If that is not a good exemple of subversion, there is none.
I thought you Bible literalists believe he had 12 apostles plus over 500 camp followers. Which is it?
Pharisees and Sadducees are, in very broad terms, like Democrats and Republicans today. Sadducees tended to be wealthy and conservative, while the Pharisees were more about the common folk. At least on paper. In practice, maybe not so much. Like the way a lot of modern leftists hate the Democratic party, historical Jesus could very easily have hated the Pharisees while aligning somewhat with their stated positions. That certainly comes through in the literary version of Jesus.
Can you please spend some effort in your responses instead of just little quips. You made a really bad analogy and you won’t retract it or defend it. Me being a bad debate partner in your eyes at least doesn’t mean you have to be worse.
Don’t really know. I’m aware such a depiction exists but precise details are moot, for what I care.
I think it revolves around the temple grounds being used as a market and/or being a place where moneylenders were present, thus, again, going against the teachings advising against greed and materialism.
There is a lot of argument about that incident in the “Jesus was not supernatural but he existed crowd”. A few main solutions:
It was understood that the next Messiah would build the 3rd temple, but you can’t exactly rebuild the temple if there is a temple. So he was trying to bring about the events.
Roman coinage was dicey for strict monotheistic people to use hence the need to change it before you entered. It was a sore point for the holier-than-now crowd. Oh you use forbidden currency normally but change it at the temple? Morality when it suits you.
The temple had a dual-aristorcracy structure. The outside was run by one and the inside by another. The outside was more politically acceptable to attack. It definitely wouldn’t have been the first time one of the other Jewish factions had gone after how the Temple was run. By attacking the outside one he could set himself up as the quite a few “restorers of the Temple”.
You probably are just trying to be quippy but actually Jesus was quite subversive to established Jewish doctrine. You can see it in the parables.
One can see it in the Parable of the Woman called out for adultry. To deeply paraphrase with a shit condensed version : A bunch of Jewish scholarship - the folk who basically serve as biblical laywers - try and cast a woman in front of Jesus for judgement for her supposed flagrant overstepping of the rules with the prescribed punishment under Jewish law. This law is one of the actual commandment breakers and these community leaders demand Jesus judge her by their rule book. Jesus refuses. This is where we get the whole “he who is without sin cast the first stone” thing. Jewish law contained the punishment for adultry was not written by god, it was written by priests. Jesus does tell the woman not to do it again so God’s will is communicated so one could read this as a message to be wary of the laws of priests because they do not reflect the will of God. “Do not kill” and “do not covet” which means something closer to “be jealous of/desire” superceed those laws. It’s not on humans to take it upon themselves to render judgement. That is up to God.
This made the teachings of Jesus ridiculously unpopular amongst Jewish priests because they got a law for everything. One could look at the inclusion of Leviticus - a description of Jewish laws in the Christian Bible as a reminder that priests made those laws. They were unauthorized human expansions on the simple directives that came straight from the source.
One can see it in the Parable of the Woman called out for adultry.
3rd century forgery. Not found in early manuscripts of John or any other Christian works. Also not aligned with other things he said. Such as in Matthew where he talked about how he wasn’t subtracting from the law. Also doesn’t align with the incident with the “lepord” found in Mark, Luke, and Matthew. Where Jesus shows absolute respect for the legal authorities.
Jewish law contained the punishment for adultry was not written by god, it was written by priests.
I agree. God wrote nothing.
s not on humans to take it upon themselves to render judgement. That is up to God.
I thought we were talking about Jesus. Why are you bringing up Rabbi Hillel. You know the guy who said things like this, lived in that area, and died decades prior?
This made the teachings of Jesus ridiculously unpopular amongst Jewish priests because they got a law for everything. One could look at the inclusion of Leviticus -
So did Jesus. You don’t remember your Sermon on the Mount.
Other parables to look into were “The unjust judge”. But yeah. Jesus was about as anti authoritarian as you could get.
Proverbs and Leviticus.
Again, everything Biblical Jesus said was establishment.
I love how I cannot tell from this message whether you are a koolaid-drinking Christian Fascist or a Dawkins-huffing New Atheist. Both have a strong interest in this particular version of Jesus that you are pushing.
Most of us take it for granted that Jesus forgave the adulterer, and further, that only by his forgiveness can we enter the kingdom of heaven, according to contemporary vernacular Protestant American Christian Mythology. The Biblical Scholars like yourself - amateur or professional, earnest or polemical - will always debate like Talmudic rabbis about it, but we’re out here in the real world where people are alive and living their various gospel truths.
I love how I cannot tell from this message whether you are a koolaid-drinking Christian Fascist or a Dawkins-huffing New Atheist. Both have a strong interest in this particular version of Jesus that you are pushing.
Attack the argument and not the person.
Most of us take it for granted that Jesus forgave the adulterer
3rd century forgery.
and further, that only by his forgiveness can we enter the kingdom of heaven, according to contemporary vernacular Protestant American Christian Mythology.
And? There is an entire branch of Christian thought dedicated to figure out how to be saved. That source has just as much justification as Calvinism. Of course none of it is true, the only place we go when we die is the ground.
The Biblical Scholars like yourself - amateur or professional, earnest or polemical - will always debate like Talmudic rabbis about it,
I have discussed facts only.
but we’re out here in the real world where people are alive and living their various gospel truths.
So you are naked, barefoot, and demanding the rich to give up all their money?
I remain atheist at my deepest heart, but I understand after many years of wasting my time being wrong that anything which doesn’t exist, also doesn’t deserve any time wasted thinking about its finer details. In its own way, this deep dive into biblical archivism is just the Atheist’s version of The Courtier’s Reply.
Any honest Atheist, when pressed hard, has to concede the final thousandths of an inch to uncertainty and give the highest and strongest ground to the Agnostics, and that’s really the one that allows for the most freedom. I use chemicals, some from my doctor and some from the store, to boost my mood and my productivity. Some people use Jesus or Allah or Idontfuckingcarereally, as long as they don’t try to take my weed or my Vyvanse.
edit: we all do what we do to get by. If you’re not harming anyone with your drug of choice, I say you should have as much of it you can handle without burning out.
Did I say halfway point? I think I specifically said something more resembling the tiny domains of delta that come into play as you endlessly approach the speed of light but never reach it. One can endlessly approach Atheism, but until you can somehow use logic to prove a negative, in the end, you are the one who is trafficking in false knowledge. If you were so sure - if you were as sure as I am that no deities exist - you wouldn’t be wasting your time in this way, and particularly not resorting to deliberate mischaracterizations of what I said.
Atheism is about belief not about knowledge. You can identify as an Agnostic Atheist. Someone who doesn’t believe in a god but knows it can’t be demonstrated one way or another. I for example do that. You are mixing up the assertion of knowledge with the assertion of belief.
It is true, as a white man in North America, I have the luxury of pretending I exist independently of all the labels. It’s a delusion of course; all politics are identity politics. That being said, to purposely put one on yourself as a conscious choice seems like putting the yoke on yourself.
Yes, and also: one need not be a ‘believer’ to perceive, comprehend, and accept the utility functions that religious behaviors have accommodated (albeit inefficiently and with a significant amount of superfluous baggage) throughout history and within the human psyche.
As a tribal species, we function better when we have some kind of overarching organizational structure to inform individuals of their own (psychological and social) position relative to the community to which they belong, so as to better focus individual efforts toward cooperative goals. It’s the heart of skill specialization that enabled us to become more than generalist hunter-gatherers, after all! Some kinds of cult-shaped collective gestalt entities will always emerge whenever the constituent humans of a community begin to specialize their expertise.
One of the elements that separate us from our ancestors is that we have an opportunity to synthesize an organizing system that features fewer of the maladaptive, exploitative, abusive traits of naturally arising cult entities.
(and by ‘cult’ I don’t just mean religious - I also mean political, commercial, and recreational memetic entities too! Even fandoms are an example of this phenomenon!)
I think you’re right if talking about heroin, but religion can calcify a worldview that is not representative of objective reality. Maybe 1000 years ago its pros outweighed its cons, but we should not make any room in this world for other-ness, and especially not things like genital mutilation and child marriage.
Oh, yeah, you’re right that the present paradigm has outlived its usefulness, for sure.
But like any technology, not everybody has access to the latest developments.
It’s unfortunate, but nevertheless true, that there are many places on earth where people have no other means of social support than the meager and dubious amenities provided by religious orders.
I’m sure there are those who might successfully litigate the argument that having no hospital at all could be construed as somehow better than having a hospital founded via religious means, and the imperialistic, colonizing aspects of missionary work, which directly damage cultures and societies on a generational scale, may indeed have caused more harm than the acute disease and occurrences of injury which they can treat on an individual basis - but that’s not an argument I would personally back.
The corrupting mimetic contagion of religiosity can be inoculated-against while a society continues to benefit from the medical or nutritional support… although only if the society in question either learns how on its own, or is taught. Like most things in life, not quite so simply cut-and-dried, alas.
Of course logic isn’t enough. Logic can tell you how to do something, but it can’t tell you why. In other words, logic can’t tell you why one outcome is better or worse than another. You need emotions for that.
indeed, an illustration of how one cannot derive an ‘ought’ from statements of what ‘is’ unless one incorporates some sort of conditional framework such as a desired outcome or consequence.
for instance, it can be perhaps framed as an if-then statement: IF one wishes to produce a specific result, THEN a certain action must be taken - but even then, WHY someone might wish to produce that result is still left undefined; and even when a number of those reasons can be listed, the act of actually engaging any of those reasons is still the exclusive domain of a sapient agency perceiving their own emotional state.
In the end, we’re all just doing what ‘feels right’; the logic, reason, and rationality around it are just there to focus and refine how our emotions resolve.
With a convoluted enough Rube Goldberg Machine of excuses and justifications, ANYTHING can be made to ‘feel’ like it will achieve the desired effects… just like how any good tool can become a weapon if grossly misused.
Ah, but the proof that you mention that it was a 3rd century forgery was actually a 6th century forgery! You can always disprove something, but proving something is much harder if you don’t share the same base truths. But as Pilate said “What is truth?”… or was that a forgery as well?
When the specific bit of fiction was added to the book of fiction seems entirely irrelevant when it is the compiled book, including the later bit of fiction, upon which modern people claim to be basing their moral philosophy. I don’t believe the vast majority are reaching that verse and going “oh well this was added late so let’s skip over this part.” “Legitimate” (feels a funny concept for this topic, tbh) or not, it is included in most modern Christian’s interpretation of Christ
The whole thing is allegorical fiction; debating which is most historically fictional is pointless when the vast majority only consider the thing as a whole, not individually. It isn’t that you’re not correct, it’s that your correctness is wholly irrelevant to how the Bible is consumed
Yes, I’m aware. Those people are even less likely to do the due diligence you seem to be requesting of examining the veracity of each book or passage. The salient point here remains - the Bible is being interpreted as a whole book, thus whether or not your specific passage passes the veracity test or not is fully irrelevant
You really seem to be willing to generalize. I was one of those people and I did put in the leg work. Very nearly went into some sort of theological training as my career. Lost my faith before that, got a real job. It was not an allegory for me it was the word of God. So yes I studied the heck out of it.
And no you don’t get to do that. The Bible contradicts itself. Taken as a whole does not work. Sometimes the contractions are found within the same book.
Everything you’ve written in this entire comment section has been both maximally dick AND asshole simultaneously.
You are by far the one person I have ever seen most well-equipped to go fuck yourself.
And for the record, there was no biblical jesus.
The closest approximation would be any itinerant populist rabble rousing grifter “faith healer” just as fraudulent as any modern day snake oil salesman who went by the name “Yeshua” and claimed to be a “messiah” only to be summarily crucified by the Roman occupational authorities for sedition at the time, of which there were dozens, if not hundreds.
Furthermore, any one of them could have rolled into town with their posse of simps right after the last one was put down and exploited the FUCK out of the situation by saying “oh why yes, that was indeed me who was crucified last week but I came back to life because I’m a special boy and the real deal, evidence: TRUST ME BRO”
Anyone who had something to gain from spreading the rumor certainly would have, and the motive was simple: anyone gullible enough to believe the story tags themselves as an easy mark for fraud and manipulation, because they were either stupid, desperate, or both.
The whole “camel through the eye of the needle” bit is likely as radical as it looks at first glance. It was tried to be explained away through the centuries as more rich Christians started to appear, such as by claiming it was a small doorway in the city wall that would be difficult to get a camel through.
These claims don’t appear to hold up. Meanwhile, there were sewing needles uncovered with a recognizable design to modern ones, and you ain’t getting a camel through it. The way we would plainly read it today seems correct: rich people aren’t getting into the Kingdom of God.
Pharisees lived on donations not via state funds. For him to tell a rich guy to give away all his money was basically him telling a rich guy to give himself all the money.
Don’t forget that Jesus is no longer this peace preaching hippie, but mister superstar with real red blood who don’t take no shit from no pharisee. Oh, and no more free healings
Don’t forget that Jesus is no longer this peace preaching hippie,
Suppose ye that I have come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three”
I know, the bible is full of inconsistencies. Weird that the same guy also preached something along the lines of “when someone slaps your face, offer the other cheek” and told one of his apostles (Judas) to distribute the money he collected among the poor. The same hippie that also expelled the merchants from the temple with a whip. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
And that is “just” the philosophy ones. The biography details are massively different.
Which isn’t surprising given that it was all made up by illiterates. Of course they couldn’t keep the details straight. Heck I have problems remembering what I had for breakfast last week and Peter was supposed to remember how many imaginary people went to an imaginary tomb and what they saw?
That is a really, really good fucking idea. We should make a Bible that is adapted to modern American vernacular and interprets some of the stories in insanely biased and hateful ways. You could make a massive amount of money.
That version sounds a good deal like Mad Max films.
I would expect Trump at some point to “write” a book narrating his struggle in life, an inspirational narration of his hardships, to elevate his followers and supporters.
Actually, Phyllis Schlafly’s kid was trying to crowdsource a “conservative bible” translation back around 2009, claiming that modern translations were done with a “leftist bias” and that several passages were added by “liberal scholars”, including the story of the adulteress in John (“let he who is without sin cast the first stone”), and editing any mention of the Pharisees to either “intellectuals” or “the elite” depending on which ‘translator’ you wanna go with. Oh, they also get rid of Christ’s prayer on the cross, because, and I quote, “it implies that Jesus forgives unrepentant people.”
That’s hilarious. Not sure why they would need to crowdsource it however. As a good Christian scholar dont they already know the biblical languages fluently?
I can’t remember who said this but there’s a line about “if republicans can’t win democratically, they’ll abandon democracy before they abandon their ideals.” I guess the same goes for (some) Christians.
I was raised in a very devout liberal Episcopal family, most of my associate priests growing up were lesbians. Im an atheist but I grew up around a lot of theological discussions.
Christ’s message is neither liberal nor conservative as it is not political. Your “job” as a Christian is to love everyone and do everything you can to care for those that need help. It’s nothing more than that. It isn’t a political take to say you should feed/clothe people who are naked or hungry and avoid judging others.
To expand a bit, Christ said, "“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
I had a very similar upbringing but I fundamentally disagree that Christ’s message isn’t political. Christ was a political figure in his era, executed for political reasons. Early Church history is full of Christians being tortured and executed by sovereigns.
I think you’re correct only to the extent that Christianity won’t tell you how to set budget priorities for FY2024, but Christ’s message will almost certainly inform certain decisions made in that budget, like feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, welcoming migrants, and pursuing justice and mercy. And to the extent that we have one political party who consistently claims to represent Christ’s teachings and similarly rejects Christ’s message as applied to the policies they support, it’s inherently political right now as well.
That is cherrypicking a single verse if I’ve ever seen it. (For reference: “Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.””) You gotta look at some context elsewhere as well - Jesus couldn’t be everywhere at once and had to start somewhere, and Israel was really supposed to be a shining example to all people, the priests for all nations showing love to everybody.
Sure the context. A women comes to beg for her son. Jesus tells her he can’t help. She grovels at her feet and calls herself a racial slur. And only then does he agree to spend a minute helping.
I agree I should definitely mention the groveling and bigotry of the story. Thanks for the correction. I would hate for people to think that fictional character wasn’t a bigot.
Yeah I hear you. I was raised Episcopalian/Anglican and I was always shocked at the horror stories I heard from other kids coming from more conservative denominations. I was like “I don’t believe any of the supernatural stuff but youth group is fun and it’s not like they’re preaching bad things…”
That said, the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. Essentially no modern denominations get it right. Essentially all Christianities today are extremely Westernized as opposed to Semitic.
It’s not so much about Jesus himself being a political figure, it’s more a question of which ideologies more closely align with his teachings. So it’s probably more accurate to say “liberal ideology is significantly more similar to Jesus’s teachings than conservative ideology.”
I have to ask this. How is feed the hungry not political. I jist don’t get how there can be apolitical morality, or laws. What isca politic what makes something’s political
You’re right. His teachings (on how the individual should act) are politics, and they are viable as the basis for a political system. It was actually put into practice, too, in monasteries and other communes.
I think the problem stems from cognitive dissonance. The popular political ideology that most closely reflect his neighborly teachings, is anarcho-communism. That is the exact opposite ideology from fascism (i.e., in-group authoritarianism) which is the ideology practiced by most of his adherents.
They are motivated to find ways to convince themselves and others that the teachings aren’t political, so that they don’t have to reconcile the teachings of their in-group identifier/shibboleth with their practices in the real world.
(I’m not saying this is why everyone says it isn’t political, I’m saying that this is the source of the meme that religion-isn’t-political.)
I’m about as atheist as it gets, not like the angry kind but I firmly don’t believe any kind of higher power exists, at least in the way religions do. I grew up in a Christian family and went to church in my early years. I guess the message got through to me because that’s basically my philosophy just without all the spiritual stuff.
There are not and have ever been Christians in America. What Christians pretend to believe is fundamentally incompatible with America, so they invent things like the prosperity gospel and the eye of the needle gate so that they can all pretend to be Christians while serving themselves above all. If someone who actually followed Christ’s teachings ever wandered into America by mistake, that person would be murdered by “Christians”. They took all the Christ out, now there’s nothing left but entitlement and child genital mutilation.
How do you interpret the “camel through the needle” saying other than a (nonviolent) leftist (anarchist, actually, because the only authority that matters is God) stance or the “meek inheriting the Earth”?
Ok, ok, I can concieve of Christianity in a pre-left-right-divide (before the French Revolution), but back then it was essentially a branch of government in Catholic countries.
Add comment