Christ doesChristians do say canonically that the church is like Christ's wife.Marriage—Christ and the Church
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
(Ephesians 5:22-24)
And bridal theology goes back to the Old Testament, in Song of Songs.
That's not canonical to Jesus.
Anything written by Paul is suspect. Dude just showed up after Jesus died and started writing letters like he was some sort of authority. He's the source of many of the problematic parts of Christianity, like that and original sin.
Some Muslim scholars think he was deliberately trying to weaken Christianity on behalf of Judaism. Thomas Jefferson called him "The First Corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus"
Yeah it's where we get a lot of purity doctrine as well... But when you read it you get the sense that Paul is a sex repulsed asexual. He's like "well if you gotta do it be married... But also like just don't if you can."
Paul just comes across as an opportunistic narcissist riding on Jesus's popularity and codifying things in a way people will do whatever he wants. "Give me (err mean my church) lots of money and listen to me and do what my most loyal friends tell you to and you'll... Go to heaven... Yeah!"
Christianity is severely outdated, yes.
Sorry, that's Paul. Paul was trying to fit the young Christian church into acceptable Roman society. All the crazy shit in the new testament (controlling abusive crazy shit, not psychedelic type crazy shit, that was John the Elder) is from Paul. Paul is a piece of shit.
Thanks for pointing out that it was Paul not Jesus who said that. I feel silly now. Corrected my comment.
Conversely, cells that grow despite being told not to are referred to cancer, and computer programs that refuse to listen to the OS are called variations of "undead" (unless its intentional and then then it's a "virus" or "trojan" or "worm" or some such).
So fuck religion, and especially those perverts who twist it around to feed their own ends at the expense of others - even Jesus said that much, on both counts - but philosophically I wanted to point out that this is an improper comparison between a marriage, with presumption of equality, vs. a very much unequal relationship between, if we are talking Christian, a creator and their created beings, or more broadly a higher vs. lower being. e.g., who among us doesn't get mad at our household appliances & tools if they do not work precisely as we want them to, every time?
i.e. while there are some fantastic arguments against religion or more specifically Christianity, chief among them being hypocritical-as-shit fundies, this is not one of them imho.
Household appliances aren’t living beings.
A more apt comparison would be beating your pet for not listening to you. Which is evil.
The Abrahamic god is evil.
The Abrahamic god is evil.
Its a fiction, so it can be whatever you like.
I tend to see people fixate on the ugly and abusive verses when they are trying to justify violence. But if I picked up a copy of "Conan the Barbarian", read the bit where he says what is best in life is "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!", and then start swinging a baseball bat at anyone nearby I don't like, it would be a wildly insincere to assert "Conan is evil because look at all the people with baseball bat injuries around me!"
Don't confuse the problems of an Evil God with the problems of Evil People who are looking for social permission.
Household appliances aren’t living beings.
I mean... not currently, no. Star Trek - standing on the shoulders of giants like Isaac Asimov ofc - does a fantastic job of exploring a variety of scenarios where they are, examples including Data in TNG and the holographic doctor in Voyager. But the main reason that humanity has not (again: yet!) created "living" appliances is lack of ability, though we seem to be fast closing this gap.
When we do, how will we relate to them then - will we demand their service? Force it? e.g. would you give your toilet a choice to flush or not? Perhaps you would, but only after having given it the ability to feel pleasure whenever you (as the Master) use it? Even if so, what if it decided, despite that, to never flush again? Or conversely, perhaps its the act flushing that gives it pleasure, so it flushes constantly all day long, using up your corporate-sponsored daily allotment of water - what do you do then? You NEED a toilet still... but this one doesn't work. Also this one is using up resources that you also NEED (in order to live yourself). Or maybe you are so wealthy that the loss of one toilet doesn't matter, but then again the loss of a large number of toilets, who I guess talk to one another on the internet in this example, would be too great to bear?
"God" is not the only one who is rather brutal - we can be quite brutal ourselves. Therefore we expect it of others. Conversely, if you believe the bible - that's not an accusation, I'm just saying it's good to consider multiple POVs - then humanity is brutal b/c God was such first, and that was a trait inherited in the copy process.
The Abrahamic god is evil.
I advise thinking beyond such simplistic terms but... by your definition, yes. e.g. when he reportedly punished I think it was Joshua for not killing every last man, woman, and child from a village - including toddlers + even those still in their mothers' wombs, & even the animals too - as the invaders took over the land that they were pillaging, but were not ruthless enough.
People forget that the original name for God is not "the santa-claus/easter bunny who brings good gifts (chocolate!) if you've been good all year long", or even "Jehova" but rather what translates essentially to t̶̳͠h̷͓̔e̴͆ͅ f̵̼̽e̴͆ͅa̵̛̦r̴͍̓, like He was some eldritch monstrosity (b/c to those primitives, He was!). For someone who actually believes in God, unlike the numbnuts fundies, they are - or at least should be - terribly afraid of Him. All the more so when they make shit up and talk in His name. Jesus may have come as a lamb (translation: gently), once, but even the New Testament makes mention that He will return later as a lion (translation: killing everyone on earth). For the sake of argument, just imagine that if it were to be believed, I picture it sorta like the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where the aliens are like "okay, the earth is mine now, gtfo!":-P Which is just about the furthest thing from "nice" as you can get!
Anyway, He is indeed reputed by the original texts to be quite brutal, therefore the people engaging in revisionist history of what they claim to believe in are idiots living in a fantasy dreamland of their own design. I presume b/c it's more comfortable that way, since nothing whatsoever is demanded of them, especially in Christianity but also not much was asked in its predecessor Judaism either, mostly just sacrifices every time you are bad (even/especially if it was intentional). Which tbf seems to be human nature, common to all religions + atheism alike:-|.
That reminds me of a conversation I had with a preacher. I asked, if god is a loving god why does the Bible say to fear him? His answer? Fear means love.
Turn the gaslight off already!
"He'll send you to a place full of fire, and death, and burning, and smoke, and brimstone to be tortured for all eternity... But he loves you!"
