>>18010762
Politics is Treachery
Religion is Brainwashing

>>18010762
>Jesus would be very accepting and loving of everyone, including all the people so many Christians fervently hate, including all the LGBT
Sodomites get thrown to the lake of fire in Revelations.

Because Constantine decided to turn it into an empire and give religious leaders political authority and use teachings as tools for obedience to those in charge and not its original purpose

Christianity stopped being about Christianity centuries ago. It's only brought up when it pushes an agenda. It's no coincidence it's now "trendy" to be Christian again in mainstream America where for decades it was laughed at and seen as low class low IQ until those in charge decided to use it to push their political campaigns and base their political careers off of wearing a cross necklace or tweeting a bible verse.

>>18010762
Jesus didn't exist. If the myth of the magic flying jew was based on a real person, we know literally nothing about him.

>>18010762
>How did such a kind, charitable, selfless person over time become a symbol for hardcore conservatism?
>Jesus would've been socially liberal

Jesus said:
>Everything God did in the OT was right and just
>Affirmed the Mosaic Law, which includes slavery and the killing of homosexuals
>Divorce is only allowed in instances of infidelity
>You must love God above all things, to the point of hating your family and even yourself
>If you're rich you're going straight to Hell
>Coined the phrased "if you're not with me, you're against me"
>He is the only path to God and salvation, there is no other way, if you reject him, you're fucked
>Said to set the world on fire, turning brother against brother and son against father.

Plus there's all the stuff in Revelation which depicts Jesus as a conquering lion destroying all of his enemies in his second coming.

File: 1732673951213728.jpg (9 KB, 225x225)

9 KB JPG

>>18010762
>Jesus
>socially liberal
Lie of the nonbelievers
Jesus accepts everyone. Not anyone

If you will not accept him as your King, you have no business in his kingdom. You belong to your father - the devil

>>18010878
>Jesus accepts everyone. Not anyone
my mistake *Jesus accepts anyone. Not everyone

>>18010818
>Coined the phrased "if you're not with me, you're against me"
In the earlier gospel of Mark, there's the passage: "Teacher," said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, *for whoever is not against us is for us.* Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward."

The author of Matthew seems to have left that out, and he instead puts something Mark "left out" which is the "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." line.

So it's highly suspect whether that goes back to the historical Jesus if there was such a person imo. And Matthew is also where you get the strongest pro-Mosaic law sayings, though even there Jesus says some things that seem to go against the Old Testament in a way that makes me wonder if the Gospel's roots are more Ebionite-like (the Ebionites dealt with the questionable side of the Old Testament by saying humans added false stories and commands to it.), like Jesus' emphasis on the "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" quote from Hosea, the "which one of you if he asks for a fish will give him a snake" saying which seems at odds with the bit in Numbers where the Israelites are complaining about not having water and good food, so God sends snakes to bite them and many die, and the whole sermon on the mount with Jesus revising, ahem, "not abolishing but fulfilling" various OT commands.

>>18010818
What a childish and disingenuous interpretation.

>>18010818
>If you're rich you're going straight to Hell
The church has always been rich, including the tsars and so on. It's full of rich Christians. They all hate communists. Why is that?

>>18010883
>In the earlier gospel of Mark-
Let me stop you right there. We categorically reject textual criticism and affirm confidently and arrogantly the apostolic authorship of all the gospels. Everything written in them is true and everything Jesus says in them is factual.

>>18010886
>“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-19
>And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:9
>“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:26
>“Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mark 10:24-25
>Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Matthew 12:30
>I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:6
>Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
Matthew 10:34-49

Very liberal indeed....

>>18010886
>>18010934
Also forgot:

>I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.
Luke 12:49-53

Oh, so liberal....

>>18010762
Satanic shithead.

>>18010762
Protip: We know nothing at all about the historical Jesus (assuming he existed) save for his crucifixion. The Gospels are meta-parables, with Jesus representing how the ideal christian is supposed to behave. The Gospel of Mark is about how the end-times are near and represents a Pauline (gentile friendly) sect.
The later Gospels are polemical responses to the Mark, with Matthew representing a Torah observant sect, and Luke wanting to reconcile the previous two Gospels.

John responds polemically to the synoptics by criticizing how harsh Jesus appears in them.
In Luke Jesus tells the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which ends with Jesus telling the rich man in hell that if his family won't listen to Moses and the prophets (who say nothing about the afterlife, strangely enough) they wouldn't listen to the walking dead.
And what do you know, in John Lazarus appears for the first time, is raised from the dead, and people come to believe because of it. John also features Jesus turning water into wine, showing Jesus can be just as fun as Dionysus!
John is also more focused on salvation by faith than the synoptics, and it's opening is about God's love of the world.

>>18010762
I think one part of it is that it's difficult to continue to think of yourself as very firmly Christian in modern times if you're not at least a bit willfully ignorant on the subject. And that selects for a certain type of person.

>>18010762
He's God, not a limp-wristed faggot. He whipped people and preached fire and brimstone and scripture calls Him despot. The liberal Jesus never existed

It’s not really about faith; it’s about pushing identity politics with a Christian mask.

>>18011441
All politics is identity politics.

>>18010801
Wrong. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy and created the new covenant. All that fire and brimstone OT garbage was deleted by the love of Jesus.

>>18010886
Interpreting Jesus as a treehugging egalitarian is *the* most childish thing to do
>jesus would be social liberal
One look at society since sexual liberation and Jesus would call it Sodom and Gomorrah

>>18010818
>>If you're rich you're going straight to Hell
He said that it's seemingly impossible for the rich to go to heaven, but that with God, everything is possible.
Also you forgot he straight up called the Pharisees "sons of the devil". Not very wholesome of him, where's his le empathy?

Jesus acknowledged the existence of nations and empires, and seemed to hold more appreciation towards the Romans than to the Jewish authorities. He also set the grounds for the church with a clear hierarchial structure.
Actually reading the NT, you don't get a very pro-equality feeling from him.

>>18010818
>>Everything God did in the OT was right and just
This is the key and why the OT is so important. It stated clearly and explicitly that God hates the wicked, no interpretation required. He hates all who do wrong.

File: umitroony.jpg (72 KB, 729x547)

72 KB JPG

>>18010762
Jesus was good and forgiving, but he had morals.
To love your enemy, is to not condemn them, but their actions.

Some people can't separate themselves from their actions and ideas which means most ideologically indoctrinated people feel persecuted by people that want them to stop acting morally corrupt, and that will use every mean possible to stop them.
This doesn't mean hating them, but to condemn their actions.
> posting hanging trans wojaks or calling people niggers or faggots, all of which are objectively sinful in the eyes of the person they claim to love
Artistic freedom and comedy, Jesus would love them. It's just wojaks, if you identify with them, that's your issue. Same applies to slurs, which are just words.
I can accept a tranny as a friend, but if the tranny will try to groom and fuck a kid, I will beat the fuck out of the tranny. That doesn't mean I hate the tranny, in fact it means I love the tranny and I want the better outcome for everyone.
Can you understand this distinction?
>I don't have the best understanding of this stuff so I'm trying to learn more about it
The only thing you need to understand is that actions =/= identity. And to love your enemy means that no matter their actions, you have to do what's right for them .
We will condemn bad behaviour, we will tell you to metaphorically kill yourself, but that doesn't mean we hate you as human beings and want you to die. Some do, but they are idiots that don't understand these intricacies.

>>18011493
>that doesn't mean we hate you as human beings and want you to die. Some do, but they are idiots that don't understand these intricacies.
You can pray for a person's salvation and still hang them at the gallows. There's no contradiction.

>>18010762
Enjoy Hell.

>>18011493
>just words
"You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder,' and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment, and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council, and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire."
Words are violence, chud.

"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person brings good things out of a good treasure, and the evil person brings evil things out of an evil treasure. I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

(Matthew 5 & 12)

>>18011510
NTA, and I do think many internet shitposters are acting out of wrath and are being sinful.
This does not contradict the bigger picture in which we must do our best to cultivate a righteous society, even if we know we can never be 100% perfect.
Yes, that includes no tolerance of homosexuality and transgenderism.
I will never take my eyes of that goal no matter how much you'd like to distract me.

>>18011515
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons, not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy or an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Are you not judges of those who are inside? God will judge those outside." (1 Corinthians 5)

>>18011521
The purpose of this verse is to distinct between purity church membership and judgement of sinners. It does not imply that homosexuality should permitted in a civil context in any way shape or form.

>>18010762
>Jesus would've been socially liberal
Considering the historical Jesus thought the world was going to end in two weeks, it's not correct to assume his political affiliation.

>>18011451
>Jesus fulfilled the prophecy and created the new covenant. All that fire and brimstone OT garbage was deleted by the love of Jesus.
According to Paul. A dude who never met Jesus.

>>18011532
I'm not sure whether at any point "Separation of church and state" is explicitly stated as an undeniable principle in the New Testament, but my impression is that it's more consistent with that than the alternative. And to me the plain reading of "For what have I to do with judging those outside? Are you not judges of those who are inside? God will judge those outside." would be that imposing specifically Christian morality on non-Christians is not something Christians are supposed to concern themselves with.

See also:
Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here."

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

I suspect that if I spent enough time looking I would find more support for this position, though, very surprisingly, it isn't something that's ever come up directly in any discussion I've had.

>>18011547
This is not a separation of church and state thing, it's a legislated morality thing. And morality not only can be legislated, it must be legislated, otherwise we end up with rampant casual sex, promiscuity, abortions, homosexuality, and transgenderism as we see today.
It is not about Christiants imposing morality on non-Christians, it's about imposing morality on ourselves.

File: dancing egge[sound=https%(...).gif (2.35 MB, 1022x1022)

2.35 MB GIF

>>18011510
Words are violence only if you let words have power over you.
If you are in such condition, then words can be violence. But if you are a mature adult (like you should be if you want to post on this site), that shouldn't be the case.

The evidence is that to me it doesn't matter if you called me a chud and tried to school me, because I still think you are wrong and that your view of words and ideas is a warped one that should be avoided, because it victimizes the individual over empowering them.

>>18011553
>otherwise we end up with rampant casual sex, promiscuity, abortions, homosexuality, and transgenderism as we see today.
On what basis are you saying that these things are in dire need of being legislated away, though? Your statement that "we must do our best to cultivate a righteous society" makes it sound more religiously motivated than not, which sounds like Christians imposing Christian morality on non-Christians for its own sake.

Also abortions aren't even clearly immoral looking at the Bible (there are passages that can be interpreted as for or against, nothing clear), so I think a person can be legitimately Christian without having a problem with abortion. Homosexuality is something the New Testament takes issue with, but I don't think it's going to destroy society to let a few adults have consensual same-sex relationships if that's what they're inclined toward, unless you think that by itself counts as destroying society. but that sounds like an entirely personal or religious preference, and again I'd refer to Paul saying that judging the sexually immoral of this world/outside the church is not his business.

Casual sex might arguably be bad in some ways, but it's very hard to legislate, and anyway haven't you heard? The kids are barely having any these days relative to past generations. Transgenderism isn't super obviously *immoral* to me for consenting adults, and as far as I can remember off hand like abortion it isn't something that's very clearly discussed. Cross-dressing is forbidden in the OT, but that's in the same chapter disallowing clothes with mixed fabrics and fields with mixed plants, among other things. Though I am concerned that it's mainly a social contagion and could be harmful, so it isn't something doctors should going along with. But that's a matter of evidence and consequentialism, not religious morality.

>>18011591
I understand now. You're not Christian, you're one of those mainline prots. You must understand that the rest of the Christian world does not view you as Christians, for good reason. Enjoy your female bishops.

>>18011604
Regarding female bishops, I see nothing obviously immoral in that either, and I accept the arguments that most of the anti-woman content in the New Testament is a later imposition by forgers and interpolators. Though I do think Patriarchy might be a decent heuristic in some ways, (That the Christianity with artificially imposed misogyny is the one that triumphed might say something), I think it's very important to distinguish good heuristics from what should be made into an absolute law.

>>18011521
Is Paul saying not to associate with any non-Christians? And why does he say that when Jesus famously dined with hookers?

>>18011632
No, he's saying not to associate with people who call themselves Christians but are despite that persistently sexually immoral, greedy, etc. He specifically clarifies that he doesn't mean you should avoid all non-Christians who might do those things. It's in line with Jesus.

>So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.
How come we never follow this one?

>>18011510
>if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire."
>You foolish Galatians!
Ummmm, Paulbros? What do we make of this?

>>18011658
To be fair to Paul, that word is different from the one Jesus says leads to the hell of fire, and Jesus himself uses the exact same word in Luke 24:25 when he appears after his resurrection to two disciples without them recognizing him.
>He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!"
https://biblehub.com/greek/anoe_toi_453.htm

So it seems like the word must have a much milder connotation although it's still translated as fool.

>>18011672
In Luke 11:40, Jesus calls some Pharisees fools directly according to many English translations, not just foolish, but again the word is different, so Idk.

>>18011675
*the word is different in Greek

A book I highly recommend is “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” by Yuval Noah Harari.

In it, Harari takes you from the very origins of humanity up to modern times, explaining how we’ve evolved socially and culturally. He builds on solid scientific arguments but presents them in a way that’s clear and easy to understand.

This book can give you a much broader perspective on how we became what we are today. From there, it becomes easier to understand why so many people hold views that are either completely opposed to —or strongly aligned with— what are believed to be the teachings of Jesus.

>>18011678
Yuval Noah Harari loathes Christianity and religion as a whole, it's no wonder you invoke him.

>>18011672
>if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire."
μωρός: slow, sluggish, slow, dull, foolish, stupid. Sounds kind of like "retarded."
>You foolish Galatians!
>How foolish you are
ἀνόητοι: foolish, stupid (its meaning from its roots seem to be something like "not thinking")
>You fools! (Pharisees)
ἄφρων: senseless, crazed, frantic, silly, foolish (its meaning from its roots seems to be "not mind" Out of your mind? Mindless? Not using your mind?)

>>18011684
This isn’t about debating Yuval himself, I don’t see why you want to steer the thread in that direction. The topic here is a matter of social behavior, and in that sense I think Yuval provides very strong arguments about these dynamics in the book I mentioned earlier.

>>18011709
The vast majority of Christians who ever lived in the past 2 millennia have been closer to the backwards hillbillies which you have so much contempt for than to your, or Harari's, philosophy. The "evolving dynamics of history" can only point to reformist garbage as the real aberration.

>>18011706
Ah, μωρός is the same word from from which we get "moron."

>>18011715
Friend, your arguments are still full of fallacies. Why do you keep bringing up “backwards hillbillies” or “Christians”? That’s not the point. What we’re really discussing here is why so many people today stand opposed to the words of Jesus; that is the central issue of this thread. It seems like you’re trying to steer the conversation into a purely religious territory instead of focusing on the search for truth.

>>18011734
>why so many people today stand opposed to the words of Jesus
Yes as I said, many people today are opposed to the words of Jesus, while the vast majority of Christians throughout history were what you would belong to the religious right today.

>>18011740
Oh!

I think I understand your point better now. After rereading your last message, I believe I got it; but if not, feel free to reply and I’ll do my best to respond as closely aligned as possible to what you’re saying.

Building on my initial comment, I just want to clarify one thing: over the course of several generations, societies tend to forget the original principles behind things. What remains are vague memories, often locked away in books. Because of this, most people only respect what they see in front of them, showing little regard for what was built in earlier times.

The same happens with Jesus, with Yuval, or even with figures like Abraham Lincoln. In the end, there will always be those who speak unconsciously about things they don’t truly understand.

>>18011755
Christianity has held strong for millennia. Enlightenment, modernity, and mass industry have brought us the liberal secular permissive form of "Christianity"

File: 23452.jpg (241 KB, 960x960)

241 KB JPG

>>18010762
Matthew 10:34

>>18011684
I have a suspicion that you are >>18011604
and you think think the guy advocating for Harari is the same anon you were talking to in that comment (me), but he's not. Harari anon's first post in the thread seems to have been his Harari post. Meanwhile I went off into analyzing the meanings of words.

>>18011775
I understand what you’re saying, but personally I prefer to build my ideological framework based on my own experiences, rather than simply accepting the ideas of others or criticizing them solely on the basis of secondhand information.

That’s why I almost never like to talk about religions. However, since it seems to be an important topic for you, I’ll share my reflection regarding Christianity.

I believe that, like many other human creations, Christianity has produced both good and bad outcomes. It’s the same with any tool placed in human hands: the internet, for example, clearly shows how something can be used for both good and evil. Without religions, it would have been difficult for societies to organize and grow; that’s why I tend to see them more as a political phenomenon than a spiritual one. Now tell me: what human creation has ever brought about absolute peace?

In the end, Jesus died precisely because of these matters. He was—and still is—a threat to established systems. He challenged the institutionalized religion of his time, confronted power, and overcame it.

As time goes on, the defeated will always try to manipulate the truth. But only unbelievers can be deceived, because as long as one keeps the beginning in sight, everything will remain clear.

>>18011783
A metaphorical sword that divides families against each other, yes.
Matthew 10:35-39
"For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it."

I don't know if I'd call it a liberal sentiment, but I don't think it fits especially well with conservative values either.

>>18011808
man this jesus guy sounds like a narcissist

>>18011646
It's just one of those details that isn't especially convenient for the dominant political/cultural agendas that like to claim Christianity as their own.

>>18011821
Are you against private possessions? Do you realize this is not just against the "dominant agendas", but would also be to the left of Lenin?

>>18011807
You're a marxist larping as a Christian because you apply revolutionary traits to Jesus, despite his clear acknowledgment of Rome as the legitimate hegemon of his period.

>>18011706
So we could rewrite it as:

>If you say, 'Dumbass', you will be liable to the fire of hell
>You stupid Galatians!
>How stupid you are
>You lunatics! (Pharisees)

>>18011847
Once again you resort to fallacies; it seems you’ve run out of arguments. The revolution brought about by Jesus is undeniable: even our calendar bears the mark of that change, divided into B.C. and A.D.

>>18011842
I think church and state separation are important and Christians aren't obligated to try to impose Christian rules on non-Christians by wielding the government. I also think it would be interesting if there were more attempts at Christian communes in the modern world.

>>18011859
Actually that would be BCE and CE chud, wouldn't want to impose Christian customs on non-Christians now would you?

>>18011865
You had one, it was called Jonestown.

>>18011867
Your focus is only on what you say. Anyway, I don’t think I can get anything worthwhile out of having a conversation with you, so I’m closing this thread on my end.

File: 1756054878817328.png (429 KB, 1080x1032)

429 KB PNG

>>18011867
Aaaaaaaaa I don't think that anon has said anything about not imposing Christian rules on non-Christians. I was the one who said that a few times and they aren't me.

>>18010762
its easy to justify horseshit by making pious rhetoric, not to mention mentioning his name gives you some bullshit creds. There's a damn reason he canonically said follow his word not whatever the fuck your minister or politician say

>>18010762
>How did such a kind, charitable, selfless person
Jesus was in equal ammounts mean, greedy and selfish.
People just put emphasis on his nicer side.

File: CALLNOW.gif (598 KB, 320x241)

598 KB GIF

>>18011913
Just one example:
>the poor you will always have with you
Jesus says this in reference to being gifted expensive perfume by a destitute woman.
Remind you of a certain class of people?

>>18011948
Jesus was a televangelist?

>>18011957
No but they share tactics.

>>18011451
He shaved an adulteress from being stoned only to warn here to repent and never do that sin again: because otherwise eternal hellfire would had been her punishment
He was ofc open to any sinner to redeem themselves: but anyone treathening Hell on a woman for fucking someone other that wasnt her husband cannot be considered a "liberal"

>>18011622
>and I accept the arguments that most of the anti-woman content in the New Testament is a later imposition by forgers and interpolators. Though I do think Patriarchy might be a decent

Nigga thinking the Holy Book is not the perfect, divine source of God's dogmas disqualify yourself from being a Christian

>>18011646
Bishops (you know, the actuall litterall successors of the Apostoles) have to renounce any inheritance or family. They live entirely over the collective good of the Church

>>18012084
>>18011538
Got all kinds of people in this thread who never met Jesus telling people how to hate others in his name.