Where's the lie ?
(midwest.social)
sous-merde
Catholicismhttps://x.com/nxt888/status/2109355523418317215
My answer is that christians weren't in control of the government, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
However, the immediate counter-argument will point out that power corrupts, even the Church was at some time in its 20 centuries-long history corrupted by the powerful/wealthy, who couldn't care less about meekness, poverty, ...
Now they don't even have a territory left, nor schools or any kind of power. Christian families aren't even allowed to teach their children outside government schools in France. State workers aren't allowed to wear visible religious signs. Etc...
No need to develop, it's just the same usual opposition between a "liberation theology" and a "prosperity gospel", between a focus on the obviousness/message/urgency/future and a focus on the faith/identity/tradition/past.
The far-right clearly does not care about helping those outside our tribe/group, such as ethnic/religious minorities, the poor, foreigners, homeless, marginalized/vulnerable, ... If we had been polytheists for the last thousands of years, then they wouldn't be the kind of people to convert to christianism. They'd laugh at the past importance of a "gentle man", only idealists&losers aren't machiavelians they say, what's one more lie if Hell doesn't exist.
They're in my group though, like non-humans, i still believe as i did back then that it's a matter of finding the right words, of listening to their answers, ...
One day they will be forced to confront better alternatives to the present, the kind in which the whole benefits instead of them, and i will see them unable to spin the arguments in their favor. I live for that day, and i will help in making it happen, one day.
Anyway, nothing new, just one more useless post telling things that everyone agrees with, and without receiving a counter-argument since i'm posting in an echo chamber. It's pointless but whatever
But Christians WERE in charge of the government. They didn't do things legally in the name of god, but they were directed by their hallucinations of him just the same.
Christians did this to the image of Jesus. In the name of Jesus. There is no worming your way out of responsibility. This is not a call for the government to be REALLY Christian because the first time it wasn't the right Christian. Very nearly every politician in the history of this country has been a Christian. Their beliefs shaped the country. Undeniably. That's what Christians truly believe, because they elected them over and over and over and rarely acknowledged those who espoused the message that Jesus gave in the Bible.
Slop PFP?
The abrahamic faiths are death cults.
Can we please denormalize deadly delusion?
Western society is less religious than ever, yet it's more murderous than ever. Obama wasn't bombing countries because of religion but "self-defense" the favorite Casus Beli for any imperialist force.
Blaming religions for Capitalist imperialism is a Liberal cop-out to not have to face the root cause.
Your reply doesn't really make sense.
Abrahamic faiths are death cults. That's an independent and true statement.
Technology has increased capacity to murder at scale--that's independent of an empire's 'religiosity'. Your post suggests that if the Western empire was more devote to a religion it would be less murderous. I don't think that makes any sense at all, especially when the most angry and confused in Western politics come directly from the Churches.
you didn't understand his reply
No, their point isn't that religion makes you less murderous, but that whether you're religious or not plays less into how much murder you commit, compared to factors grounded in material reality, such as the mode of production, the competition for resources, geopolitics, etc.
The Japanese fascists didn't go around enslaving, genociding and so on because of religion, and they were certainly not Abrahamic. And you also had slavery in Europe way before Christians showed up, but you'd be a fool if you blamed Roman and Greek slavery on their polytheism.
Religion is an important factor when analyzing a society, for sure, but it's not the main driver of history, it never was, it never will be, and there's a good chance it will simply wither away under socialism, assuming the government isn't wildly reactionary against religious people and so on.
None of this makes sense. There's one message that states abrahmic religions are death cults. That's true. The reply isn't even a tangent, but responds to something that isn't even in the message.
No the entire blaming Abrahamic religions for extravagant capitalism is just a cop-out.
You can also blame Hindu nationalism in India, etc. Even in fully atheistic societies, greed still persists.
The Neoliberal French loved blaming religion and "educating the barbarians".
the entire blaming Abrahamic religions for extravagant capitalism is just a cop-out.
Explain why it says "in god we trust" on our money.
Explain why it says “in god we trust” on our money.
There you go I highlighted it for you
Yeah, atheism didn't reduce the number of wars, and if we all had interracial marriages to the point of having the same skin color, then wars would still exist.
I'm ready to admit i'm wrong and that christianism is a death cult, but where's @dropdrip's argument ?
To me, the Gospels are on the contrary a life cult, and my sources could be numerous, if it counts to quote them :
John 10:10 : « I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly. »(, i believe that they meant life in at least one other meaning than life after death, which is that we didn't really lived until being christians, since our lives were devoid of meaning, we were always in search for more, it's linked with whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, i could/should develop)
There are dozens, but Mark 12:27 « He is not the God of the dead, but of the living »
I don't think there's a point in developing without understanding what they meant by "death cults"
(What i meant by « christians weren’t in control of the government » is that clergy-wo.men weren't the queens/kings, and could only hope to have their advices accepted(, with the exception of papal states))
And yeah, as you said before about Barack Obama : in the single year of 2016, he dropped nearly 30,000 bombs(, « This estimate is undoubtedly low »,) on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan
B.t.w., he never received any congressional authorization(, relying on the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 and 2002) :
Of these 7 countries, it's worth repeating that Lybia was the most prosperous country in Africa, he made it a failed state with slave markets.
But there are also suspicions that he participated in the coups in Egypt(, he at least openly supported al-Sissi), Honduras(, at least we know that he recognised the post-coup elections), and perhaps even Thailand according to some people(, the usual suspicion when a leftist/populist government is overthrown by an authoritarian conservative/royalist one). As usual, covert actions are kept secret, but it's not as if anything would change if a proof emerged.
As for Joe Biden the pacifist, beyond being called "Genocide Joe" and vetoing UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, he has my eternal thanks for Julian Assange.
However, he's an american president, so he ordered airstrikes in Syria a month after taking office, because we(sterners) have the duty of killing the bad guys, and who cares if these bad guys pretend to be good guys, what matters is to prevent them from speaking(, that's terrorism apologia). You cannot solve a problem if you cannot talk about it.
He also conducted airstrikes in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan, because the empire does what empires do. It would only be scandalous if China did it, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or ...
We're not talking about one month, but from 2021 to 2024, his whole presidency.
Like Barack Obama, he didn't obtain congressional approval, relying like him on the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 and 2002
It goes without saying that he increased sanctions against Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela, etc.
There, i said it for the n-th time : the US is the n°1 terrorist state on Earth. But what's the point ?
Even if all the journalists of the world knew that, why would they care ?
I would add that it's been many years since i've learned, progressively, about our biggest lie justifying every single one of our crimes, that these countries are authoritarian, and we ought to save their brainwashed population.
Afterwards, it's already been a few years since i've realized that even if that was true, and even if these countries were threatening us, then our argument would not hold, because we could be united in diversity, ensuring the security of everyone(, e.g. through a world army against overt actions and a world tribunal against covert ones, to simplify). And whether my solutions are right or not doesn't matter, since i would only ask these "leaders" to seek the mechanisms ensuring 'lasting peace'/'security for all'. I am forced to realize that we(sterners) do not care about even pretending to seek such mechanisms.
We(sterners) could invade any country, and are getting lazier and lazier with our justifications, because there's no need, we'll just do as we want, but yeah, sure, let me write words on the internet, that will teach them(, and it's not as if i'd be aware of their counter-arguments).
The cause of Iran and other anti-zionists is legitimate : we(sterners) are responsible for the presence of a state in their(/'one of their two') heart.s, if it's about giving a state to Israel then we should give it on our lands instead of forcing non-westerners to bear the cost ; and if it's about achieving what the Crusades failed to do, then we should give them something that they will all agree is worth exchanging for the Holy Lands(, or other solutions). You know, like civilized persons.
Anyway, thank you if you read all that, and for everything you've been doing for Lemmy these last years.
Thanks. There's plenty of good and bad. The Bible contains plenty of good messages, Engels primary inspiration was Christianity.
It feels like many Liberals just love blaming religions which they don't adhere to so they don't have to reflect on the(ir own) political system causing most of them.
All of this is true but using religion as a pretext for imperialist aggression is an idea that is a old as religion itself.
Tribes with religion usually made it further than ones that didn't. Only evolution could have created it. It's a framework we unintentionally weave ourselves into that makes the collective us a little more cohesive. The details don't matter a bit, so long as people buy it. Talk about oooh, my religion is a LITTLE less violent than yours, kill yourself heathen! And it's like, you're both willing fools, why can't you just agree it's made up and pretend together under the same god if it's so damn important. Religions make bones with each other because it helps religion as a whole move forward. It's alive in it's own way completely in our heads. I think that's beautiful and terrifying to try and recon with. You couldn't kill religion in a way that matters if you tried.
By arguing one over the other, or one as inferior in belief, you're missing the point. It's all made up so people can be used in a way that makes them comfortable with it for the sake of the whole. It's a power structure that can be used against others, but that's not unique to religion in any way. It's a red herring, and betrays any wisdom you might be trying to convey.
(It's always much more than just that, but )If you're grateful for the existence of everything, then express it.
Well the problem comes from the fact they want that God to be white.
my buddy says he's blue, and very tall
We're all guilty of excluding people from other groups :
- for most people it's ideological(, e.g., our national bourgeoisie may feel closer to the comprador bourgeoisie of other countries), which is i.m.o. the main cause of modern wars(, which aim to erase islamism(, or at least the anti-zionist ones, for now), communism, indigenism, and whatever really different ideology survived colonization) ;
- for our kings/presidents it was/is about the nation : we talked about the french/german/.. "race" for decades before WW2 ; communism was/is internationalist/humanist by opposition to the nationalisms ; it was the main cause of wars in the past(, which aimed to expand their national territories), as well as for (neo-)colonialism ;
- for some it's about religions(, e.g. the surviving palestinians are treated inhumanely by jewish israelis, under unconvincing pretexts and more deeply a lack of compensation/responsability on our part for a situation we(sterners) created/maintain) ; it was not the main cause of wars in the past, i.m.h.o., except for the Crusades and internal schisms ;
- ...
In any case, the point is that, to me, we should be absolutely good to others(, all others, caveat), not in name but in deeds, right now, that's far from new, everyone makes mistakes.
But it's not a "debate" on Lemmy that will change anything, however good it may be. Internet will produce better things than Wikipedia and social medias, it will force the discussion, it's not over as long as they don't censor our Internet.
A lie indicates the author is deliberately trying to decieve. I think the author is presenting a one-sided critical analysis of Christianity and is somewhat accurate in spirit at least.
To start off saying they built a civilization with the idea God is on their side defines a lot of cultures outside even abrahamic religions. I think it is a point, but perhaps not a very strong one considering most civilizations have operated similarly.
When he says not a foreign God I would have to disagree. Christianity was very much a foreign God that was introduced by the sword to my ancestors. I think this is a minor hang up on my part though because I have always looked at Christianity as a religion from the Middle East.
He makes a point that the older gods in the abrahamic faith were brutal and if the Americans (I am guessing here) were to worship them they would at least be honest considering how much destruction they cause. This is an interesting thought experiment and seems to have some merit at face value.
He correctly highlights some of Jesus's core tenets and ask the common question, if you believe in this man then why the abuse, violence, discrimination, war, etc. I think you can ask this question of any country though so while correct it doesn't seem to be a problem with just America.
He creates some interesting mental imagery saying putting Jesus on aircraft carriers. The US is definitely guilty of the Jesus Warrior mentality that has existed for a very long time. He goes on to highlight the US intertwining its Christian beliefs with its violent actions. This is very valid criticism. I know I always cringe when God is brought up in the context of the military.
His coup de grace is that the US military is fundamentally opposed to the message of Jesus. This is valid criticism, but it doesn't really hit hard on a Christian Fundamentalist just like bringing up passages in the Quran advocating peace doesn't hit hard on a Islamic Fundamentalist.
So back to the question. I don't feel the author is trying to lie. There are a lot of ways of viewing these things. Their viewpoints have some good reasoning behind them but may not be strictly historically or factually correct by every assessment.
