You stupid socialist
You stupid socialist
You're viewing a single thread.
109 comments
-
My church squared that circle by only caring about others in the "eternal souls damned to hell" sense. If your physical needs weren't being met, that was a personal failing as far as they were concerned. What's that? Jesus did a lot of caring for the physical needs of others? Nah, see, that was as only as a metaphor for their spiritual needs. Get your hands off my stuff, dammit.
-
Yearly reminder that Mother Theresa was quoted as saying she withheld medication from children because she thought their suffering brought them closer to her god.
The most revered catholic saint in modern times wanted to increase the suffering of children with excruciating diseases because it was holy.
As someone with a lifelong genetic condition that causes chronic pain, fuck everything about any religion that would venerate that. It’s absolutely barbaric, and that mentality needs to die the agonising death it’s inflicted on others.
-
So the loaves and fishes were only metaphors and he didn’t actually feed the masses. Got it.
Bet he also didn’t mean to pay taxes when he said “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”
-
Is this /s?
Yes, it’s all metaphors. Pretty much all the Bible stories are lifted from earlier Mesopotamian, Greek, Egyptian, and Pagan fables. There are direct translations of previous myths and fables that we can trace through ancient manuscripts. None of it is true, and we’re all far better off understanding that.
We can still take wisdom from the stories, but they’re nothing more than stories. No, there was no literal incident of a guy named Jesus cloning bread and fish to feed people. If you want to take a moral from that story, that’s lovely – just the same as we can take a moral to question strangers from Little Red Riding Hood. Just don’t expect us to believe a wolf literally swallowed a child and her grandmother whole, and they cut themselves from his stomach as he slept.
-
-
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)
Wow, those apostles and primitive Christians completely missed the metaphor!
-
I once sat through a whole ass sermon about how actually that’s not communism 🙃
-
Mark of a good sermon: did they say what it is?
-
It was communal spirit. Yes you can call that communism if you want. But what most people mean by communism is the state backed variety that you are forced to participate in. And this wasn't that. What happened in the early church was voluntary, as is made quite clear in the passage. The rest of the epistles make it quite clear that private property was ok and the church couldn't force people to share anything (not even a fixed percentage) because all pleas to help the poor are i) voluntary and ii) based on ones conscience as to what the right amount is. That looks a lot more like "moral capitalism" than any kind of communist system.
I'm an atheist socialist by the way, I'm not saying this to defend Christianity or capitalism in any way.
-
It’s been so long I honestly don’t remember, this was at least 20 years ago. He might have, but all that stuck with me was how stupid it was to spend this much time on ‘this obvious parallel with modern communism isn’t communism, because communism is bad.’
-
-
It was the only time it happened and it was voluntary. That's pretty different from most real world communist systems.
-
-
It's always fascinating to go back and re-read the Bible without the blinders of dogma on. For instance, Paul was held out as a divinely-appointed guide to the early church, but if you don't take his conversion story at face value it's quite clear that he's a conservative trying to take control of a nascent religion and steer it away from the more radical ideas that some of the other early followers took away from the teachings of Jesus. That fun children's story about Joshua and the walls of Jericho (remember the French Peas from VeggieTales)? That was the opening act of a years-long campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing that God commanded the Israelites undertake to claim the Promised Land!
My favorite, though, is Song of Solomon. It's straight-up erotic poetry, right in the middle of a book handed out to children! I know they claim it's metaphorical, but come the fuck on... the author spends whole chapters describing his lover's naked body, that ain't a metaphor for anything other than "I want to bone you."
I'm not going to go as far as to say it's good erotic poetry, though. I've tried "your breasts are like fawns, twins of a gazelle" on my wife and was immediately ejected from the bedroom. YMMV, though.
-
to take control of a nascent religion and steer it away from the more radical ideas that some of the other early followers took away from the teachings of Jesus.
tbh authentic Paul was in many ways more radical that Jesus.. Jesus told people to give to the poor because the end was near, and so did Paul. Jesus chose all male disciples, Paul refers to Phoebe, Prisca, Euodia and Syntyche (all women) as his "fellow workers" or "ministers". Jesus affirmed "for this reason a man will leave his parents and be united with his wife". From Paul we have "there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus". Jesus followed synagogue traditions (male only), Paul allowed women to pray and prophesy in his churches. Jesus taught the Jews to follow a loving version of the Torah, Paul pushed the utterly radical idea that Jews were freed from the Torah and united with gentiles in "one body".
(The conservative line taken in later letters attributed to Paul are believed by academic scholars to be from his later school of disciples, not from him himself.)
-
There are some aspects of Paul which tick the conservative box in that he comes across as a sex negative asexual who uses part of his soapbox to preach his own distain by insisting that pleasure in sex is bad and linking the idea of anything but purely reproductive sex with a spiritual uncleanliness and immorality. It fuels a lot of bad shit from purity doctrine to anti-same sex relationship rhetoric.
Not that sexual control over women and reproduction particularly hasn't been a worldwide phenomenon but instilling pleasure and sex directly to sin really linked in to all the conservative bullshit that Paul's hijacked letters contained so I feel like there's a bit of a "depends on your definition of conservative" thing.
-
Oh both Paul and Jesus were morally conservative, no doubt about that. I was replying to someone I felt was implying Paul was somehow co-opting Jesus' liberal movement into something more conservative and respectable. Whereas I think the opposite is true. Paul pushed frontiers Jesus never mentioned.
soapbox to preach his own distain by insisting that pleasure in sex is bad
I don't think this is quite the right angle though. He was certainly disgusted by same sex acts and the contexts in which likely had in mind: cultic practises, orgies and temple pederasty.
But he is never against sexual pleasure within heterosexual monogamy as if there was something distasteful about pleasure itself. He never states that the purpose of sex is reproduction. Never condemns solo masturbation for instance (which one might have expected since he had a non-jewish audience). Also, neither he nor any other NT writer calls into question sexual pleasure once a couple can no longer bear children. (Which you would expect if they were against unproductive pleasure in a puritan way). On the contrary, his assertion that a wife's body belongs to her husband and a husband's body belongs to his wife and that couples were to not deprive each other of sex except by mutual agreement has to be seen as being both radically democratic in how relationships are conducted by also acknowledging that pleasure in sex serves a purpose in itself. (One only has to imagine a would-be prayerful monastic husband, perhaps emulating Paul himself, being told, no, you have to have sex with your wife, to realise that Paul was not some acerbic prude)
Paul's view he explicitly links to his expectation that the world is ending soon (forgive me I can look up references at the moment). He wishes that everyone was as he was (single and celebrate). But this appears to have been born out of a controversy over whether or not travelling apostles could expect churches to bear the cost of a wife travelling with them. Given his other statements on wishing to never cause stumbling blocks of cost on already very poor communities this seems to be born out of practical mindedness rather than any kind of general anti-sex view. He regards the better practice to be celebrate and await Jesus return. But that if people felt they'd otherwise be too tempted, then they should marry and that was fine. He explicitly notes that married people will suffer a lot in life, which has to be read in the context of the ongoing persecution of Christians. And the use of torture of one's loved ones as a psychological weapon.
conservative bullshit that Paul's hijacked letters contained
Yes. I believe Paul was visionary and radical. But I also think he felt his innovations were partially justified given "time was short". If there weren't enough male ministers and gospel workers then he was ok with talented women breaking the social mould. (And not begrudgingly, he sings their praises many multiple times). But it's impossible to tell how he would have felt or spoken had he known his system would be used for 2000 years not 20.
A later generation of disciples apparently decided Jesus' return was delayed didn't have the same appetite as Paul for breaking the mould and fell back on traditional gender roles more firmly.
-
-
-
I've tried "your breasts are like fawns, twins of a gazelle" on my wife and was immediately ejected from the bedroom
To be fair, the monk robe and tonsure haircut might not have helped..
-
-
-
Right wing starlet Erick Erickson likes to wax poetic about how Jesus' parable about the good Samaritan wasn't insisting people help those in need, it was about helping only other Christians in need. There was some Bible code or some shit that went into explaining how that worked.
-
What. Literally the entire point of it was that the good person helped a stranger who was different when the people who weren't different and had an expectation and responsibility to help. That's not interpretation anymore than deciding it's likely to rain tomorrow is interpretation of a weather report calling for rain on Tuesday.
So many Christians jump through hoops to ignore the explicit message. But these are the people who fetishize guns and excuse police murder while putting the words "thou shalt not kill" on government buildings
-
That's a lot of mental gymnastics, given that Jesus' selection of a Samaritan was specifically made because Jews and Samaritans loathed one another as a rule. The point was to treat everyone as your neighbor, not just those who were part of your in-group. It takes some incredible brain damage to argue "actually, it means the exact polar opposite of its plain meaning."
-
That's a lot of mental gymnastics…
Well, you see, the eye of the needle was really a gate on one side of Jerusalem, so if you wanted to get into that gate with your camel fully loaded with your trade goods and gold coin, you were probably going to need to get down and lead it by hand and therefore humble yourself before God as you brought your wealth into the city. Only some kind of Commie bastard would suggest that there was something literal about that story in the Bible. Duh!
-
-
-
:::spoiler Lyrics
[Chorus] You will eat Bye and bye In that glorious land in the sky Work and pray Live on hay You get pie in the sky when you die (that's a lie!) Long-haired preachers come out every night Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right But when asked about something to eat They will answer in voices so sweet: [Chorus] If you fight hard for children and wife Try to get something good in this life You're a sinner and a bad man, they tell When you die you will surely go to hell [Chorus] Workingmen of all countries unite Side by side we for freedom will fight When the world and its wealth we have gained To the grafters we'll sing this refrain: You will eat, bye and bye When you've learned how to cook and to fry Chop some wood, 'twill do you good And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye
-
109 comments