deleted by creator
I want to see the one that gets yeeted out of a window.
John 13:34-35 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
When was the last time you encountered a Christian who was a disciple of Christ? The only ones I know don’t call themselves Christian anymore.
Last Sunday
I worked in churches for over 15 years, and during that time, I met many kind, well-intentioned people. But what I often ran into—and what eventually wore me down—was the disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and the behavior of many who claimed to follow Him.
The command to “love one another” wasn’t just a suggestion. It was supposed to be the defining mark of discipleship. But instead, I saw love regularly take a backseat to doctrine, tribal loyalty, and personal comfort. When challenged, many defaulted to talking points instead of compassion. They could quote scripture fluently but seemed unable—or unwilling—to embody it, especially when it required real humility or sacrifice.
What was most painful was the hypocrisy: preaching grace but practicing judgment, offering community but withholding inclusion, speaking of Jesus while acting more like the Pharisees He opposed. And often, faith became a shield—not to protect the vulnerable, but to protect egos from the hard work of self-examination. It blinded people to their own contradictions. They believed they were living rightly, when in truth they were often just defending their culture, not their Christ.
So yes, I hope your experience is different. Truly. Because for many of us who once lived and breathed church life, the gap between Jesus and those who speak in His name grew too wide to ignore. That’s why I and some of the most authentic followers of Christ I’ve known don’t call themselves Christians anymore. Our Christian values won’t allow it.
I understand where you’re coming from and the pain it can cause.
PK here. Agnostic Atheist these days. Extremely anti-fundamentlist Christianity. Ultimately, I don’t need the stress, guilt, and strife in my life.
I hate what is done to children by the evangelical Protestants, these organizations are evil.
I prefer the Bill and Tedism, “Be excellent unto one another.”
My girl is a Christian, she had a lax-Catholic upbringing.
To sum up my spiritual views at this point. If there is a god, she can judge me when I’m dead and I’ll have questions about cancer babies. I’m done worrying about it or trying to figure it out. I’m going to take care of my people and be good to others.
deleted by creator
That’s why I and some of the most authentic followers of Christ I’ve known don’t call themselves Christians anymore. Our Christian values won’t allow it.
That was an awfully long story just to say you’re prideful at the end.
You’ve spoken fifteen words to me. And here’s what they’ve told me:
You went to a Christian church last Sunday. You believe I wasted your time with a “long-winded” explanation. And you accuse me of pride.
If you wish to defend yourself as a disciple of Christ, then tell me: Which of the 1 Corinthians 13 attributes of love have you shown me so far? Patience? Kindness? Have you honored me?
Because I can’t point to a single thing that resembles love. No curiosity. No grace. No questions. Just a dismissal, a judgment, and a label.
So let’s talk about pride.
Was it pride that compelled Jesus to overturn tables in the temple courts? Was it pride that moved Him to confront the Pharisees, the respected religious leaders of His day, for their hypocrisy, their arrogance, their empty performance of righteousness? Was it pride that led Him to say, “You honor me with your lips, but your hearts are far from me”?
Or was it love? A love so fierce, so holy, that it refused to be silent in the face of corrupted religion. A love that demanded truth, even when it cost Him everything.
What I shared with you didn’t come from pride. It came from grief. From years inside the Church, serving, loving, and ultimately mourning how far we’ve drifted from the heart of Jesus.
Pride would have stayed silent. Love compelled me to speak.
If you want to continue the conversation, I’m here and I would welcome it. But if you want to show yourself a disciple of Christ, then let your words be grounded in truth, wrapped in love, and spoken with a willingness to listen. Anything less isn’t worth the breath.
Was it pride that moved Him to confront the Pharisees, the respected religious leaders of His day, for their hypocrisy, their arrogance, their empty performance of righteousness?
empty performance of righteousness
Like your entire post? You know when you read the Bible you’re supposed to see yourself in the bad guy of every parable right? You’re not an “authentic” follower of Christ. You are suffering from severe prelest. You’re literally a sinner and should be begging God for mercy and praying daily for all the people you disparaged earlier.
Try pulling the log out of your own eye before talking about the speck in your brothers.
Also if you’re a follower of Christ you have to go to Church. It’s not optional. Your antisocial musings about your “authenticity” are a clear sign of somebody who is out of orbit and believing their own BS.
absolute shithead
Post history, full of more shit
.ml user. Coincidence?
If I had to venture a guess, that poster is just another .ml poster clocked in for another shift at the local troll-farm. May not even be a real person…
I know. I took a look before I responded. I had a sense of who I was dealing with. I decided to extend an olive branch, but I wasn’t surprised by what I got in return. At this point, I’m mostly replying for the sake of others who might be reading the thread.
Which part of what I said is wrong?
Manmoth, I have done this long enough to know when someone isn’t interested in genuine conversation.
To everyone else reading this exchange: this is exactly what I was talking about.
I shared a deeply personal experience about the gap between Christ’s teachings and the behavior of many who claim to follow Him. And this was the response:
Dismissal. Accusations of delusion. Demands for repentance. Theological gatekeeping. No curiosity about my journey. No questions about what I saw or experienced. No willingness to consider that someone might leave the church for reasons worth examining.
Instead, I was told: “You’re deluded. You’re prideful. You’re antisocial. You must go to church.”
This is the pattern many of us have encountered. When we raise concerns about the church’s witness, we aren’t met with reflection or dialogue. We’re met with accusation and calls for submission. The response isn’t, “Help me understand what went wrong,” but, “You are the problem.”
Notice what happens: Scripture becomes a weapon instead of a balm. Theology becomes a wall instead of a bridge. And the conversation becomes about control, not compassion.
And this is precisely why I can no longer bear the name Christian myself. Because this, this dismissal, this judgment, this refusal to engage with genuine spiritual struggle, is what that name has come to represent. Manmoth isn’t an outlier. This response is the norm. This is Christianity as most people experience it.
For those of you reading this who’ve had similar experiences, you’re not crazy. You’re not alone. Your concerns about the gap between Jesus and Christian culture are valid. And the fact that raising them often provokes exactly this kind of response… should tell you something.
To those in the church who genuinely want to understand why people are walking away, this exchange is a case study. The ones leaving aren’t always rebellious or prideful. Sometimes, they’re the ones who took Jesus’s words about love and integrity so seriously that they couldn’t ignore the contradiction between His call and what they saw happening in His name.
I’m not swayed by your moral posturing and stand by everything I said.
I shared a deeply personal experience about the gap between Christ’s teachings and the behavior of many who claim to follow Him.
“I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first.”
Unless your deeply personal experience about the gap between behavior and Christ’s teachings starts with yourself then you are just being a Pharisee.
Dismissal. Accusations of delusion. Demands for repentance. Theological gatekeeping. No curiosity about my journey. No questions about what I saw or experienced. No willingness to consider that someone might leave the church for reasons worth examining.
News flash. Christianity isn’t about what works for you. It’s about repentance and submission to God. You CAN be wrong and there is a REAL church and fundamental theology that cannot be dismissed.
If you’re leaving a church because the people there are “bad Christians” then you should look at yourself in the mirror because – guess what – we’re all bad Christians. The worst ones think they are the best.
No matter how “good” of a Christian you think you are you will always fall short and be a sinner.
This is the pattern many of us have encountered. When we raise concerns about the church’s witness, we aren’t met with reflection or dialogue. We’re met with accusation and calls for submission. The response isn’t, “Help me understand what went wrong,” but, “You are the problem.”
The Bible is literally a book telling you that you are a fallen, spiritually sick creature that despite this fact is made in the Image of God and can be saved. In short, you ARE the problem. If you don’t understand that then you’ve missed the entire point. Submitting to God is actually the best, most healing thing for yourself because only then will you cooperate with the Holy Spirit and begin the process of spiritual healing.
Instead, I was told: “You’re deluded. You’re prideful. You’re antisocial. You must go to church.”
Notice what happens: Scripture becomes a weapon instead of a balm. Theology becomes a wall instead of a bridge. And the conversation becomes about control, not compassion.
Exactly. You are using Scripture to keep dominion over yourself instead of submitting to God and living in accordance with the doctrine of the Church. You are building a wall to separate yourself from the body of Christ.
And this is precisely why I can no longer bear the name Christian myself. Because this, this dismissal, this judgment, this refusal to engage with genuine spiritual struggle, is what that name has come to represent. Manmoth isn’t an outlier. This response is the norm. This is Christianity as most people experience it.
I’m not morally posturing or softening my language I’m giving you real Christian advice. Go to church, repent, participate in the sacraments and engage in fellowship with your struggling brothers and sisters in Christ. Your “story” doesn’t matter because Christianity isn’t about you. It’s about prayer, fasting and almsgiving. It’s about being a functioning member of the body of Christ and cooperating with the Holy Spirit.
If you’re upset because you’re not getting the response you want then maybe you want the wrong response.
To those in the church who genuinely want to understand why people are walking away, this exchange is a case study. The ones leaving aren’t always rebellious or prideful. Sometimes, they’re the ones who took Jesus’s words about love and integrity so seriously that they couldn’t ignore the contradiction between His call and what they saw happening in His name.
The Church (Eastern Orthodoxy) is eternal. You are always welcome but it is up to you to take your seat at the wedding feast. Any church that bends to the arbitrary demands of modernity isn’t a real church. At best it’s a community with a vibe.
Reads the part where Jesus flips the tables on the money lenders.
“No … no … not that part, we love money and need to elect all the greedy billionaires.”
Reads the part about a certain golden calf.
“OH! Good idea, let’s make a gold statue of Trump. Also a weird fucking golden goat with money glued onto it. Totally not cultists. Totally Christian.”
They cut out jesus entirely and worship paul.
I agree with the message, but I just can’t watch that clip of Mickey, Donald, and Goofy being so destitute and downtrodden without getting intensely sad. To whomever hasn’t seen the original animation this is from, prepare to feel worse than the opening of “Up” when you finally look this up.
I might regret, but, source?
It’s from the start of Mickey and the magic beanstalk. The voiceover really ups the misery by talking about how they’re destitute and their spirits are broken, and Donald and Goofy both go delirious from the hunger at one point.
Of course, after that tear jerker the typical Disney magic sets in again and the whole thing is largely played for laughs, but those first few minutes are intensely sad IMHO.
https://archive.org/details/mickey-and-the-beanstalk-1947 - this scene starts at 6:30 in the file.
The Disney version of The Three Musketeers, iirc.
“Heirs of the Perisphere” by Howard Waldrop.
Three androids based on Mickey, Goofy, and Donald try to rebuild civilization after WW3.
Real tearjerker.
Never heard of that one, and I am sure it’s not the animation in question, but it’d an interesting suggestion nonetheless. I’ll check it out.
“Please, 2000 y/o Middle Eastern Jewish Communist in the sky who was executed for being a threat to the elites, help us recreate these contitions so we can feel closer to you.”
Recreate? I am not sure if “worsen” wouldn’t be more accurate.
I always wanted to try that bread as a kid. I would even get our giant bread knife out and try with a slice of bunny bread but it would always just tear and squish. I even put it in the toaster slot (a catastrophizers wet dream because they have to always be plugged in near water unless specified not) then slowly let it come up while I furiously sawed.
This is false advertisement
Watching those japanese kanna competitions brought back old cravings
edit: I wonder why toilet paper doesn’t do the same thing?
I had to go find this for you, hope that helped a little.
I appreciate how insanely sharp that knife is.
Oh wow, that was extremely satisfying to watch after seeing this gif.
Nope. My kid brain wants cartoon bread or thin Japanese wood shavings. There is a cartoon sliced pea too that looked pretty good.
There’s a couple more super thin Sandwich videos on youtube, maybe you’ll find one with a pea in it!
They follow any of his teachings?
Here is an excellent 18-minute-long Christian sermon by James Talarico I stumbled across earlier today which condemns Christian nationalism as being fundamentally opposed to the teachings of Christ. Based on the video comments, it has inspired many people regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blph_2RSBno
Sermon transcript, part 1
Our pastor, Dr. Jim Rigby, is on his writing leave, but I don’t know how much writing is really getting done. I sent him a text asking for some inspiration for this sermon, and he sent me this:
It’s “The top reasons beer is better than religion.”
- When you have beer, you don’t knock on people’s doors trying to give it away.
- There are laws forcing beer on minors who can’t think for themselves.
- Nobody has ever been burned at the stake because of their favorite brand of beer.
- You don’t have to wait more than 2000 years for a second beer.
- If you’ve devoted your life to beer, there are groups to help you.
My granddad was a Baptist preacher. I’ve been a member of this church since I was two years old and now I’m in seminary studying to become a minister myself. My faith means more to me than anything but, if I’m being very honest, sometimes I hesitate for telling someone I’m a Christian.
There is a cancer on our religion. Until we confess the sin that is Christian nationalism and exorcize it from our churches, our religion can do a lot more damage than a six-pack of Lone Star. There is nothing Christian about Christian nationalism. It is the worship of power - social power, economic power, political power - in the name of Christ, and it is a betrayal of Jesus of Nazareth.
He told us we would know them by their fruits. Jesus includes. Christian nationalism excludes. Jesus liberates. Christian nationalism controls. Jesus saves. Christian nationalism kills. Jesus started a universal movement based on mutual love. Christian nationalism is a sectarian movement based on mutual hate. Jesus came to transform the world. Christian nationalism is here to maintain the status quo. They have co-opted the Son of God. They’ve turned this humble Rabbi into a gun-toting, gay-bashing, science-denying, money-loving, fear-mongering fascist and it is incumbent upon all Christians to confront it and denounce it.
Christian nationalism is on the rise. Two years ago, Christian nationalists stormed the US capital killing police officers while carrying crosses and signs reading “Jesus saves.” Last year, Christian nationalists on the US Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade, allowing States like ours to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest. And as we speak, two Christian nationalist billionaires are trying to replace public schools in Texas with private Christian schooling. We are closer than we think to a Christian theocracy.
How did this happen? The first followers of Jesus didn’t call themselves Christians. They called themselves “the way.” Their crucified teacher taught them a different way of being human and they intended to follow it. The early church was a revolutionary community built on radical love - a peculiar people who shared all their possessions and refused to participate in the economy, the military, or the culture.
The book of Acts tells us that the first Christians were persecuted for turning the world upside down but, 300 years after Jesus was executed by the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official state religion of that very same Empire. Constantine was the first Christian Nationalist and ever since the powers-that-be have been taming Christianity, domesticating it, diluting it into something more palatable: pro-war, pro-wealth, pro-white supremacy. That original countercultural movement became a tranquilized, privatized, weaponized religion: the official sponsor of Western Civilization. A religion of sharing became a religion of greed. A religion of peace became a religion of violence. A religion of forgiveness became a religion of judgment. A religion of ego transformation became a religion of ego affirmation.
Today, Christian nationalists obsess over people’s private parts while the planet burns. Eight men own as much wealth as 3.6 billion people and Christian nationalists are boycotting Barbie. The Bible doesn’t mention abortion or gay marriage but it goes on and on about forgiving debt, liberating the poor and healing the sick. Christian nationalists like to say this is a Christian nation. Not only is that historically inaccurate, not only is that theologically blasphemous, but it’s also just not true.
Look around us. If this was truly a Christian nation, we would forgive student debt. If this was truly a Christian nation, we would guarantee health care to every single person. If this was truly a Christian nation, we would love all of our LGBTQ neighbors. If this was truly a Christian nation, we would make sure every child in this state and in this country was housed, fed, clothed, educated, and insured. If this was truly a Christian nation, we would never make it a Christian nation because we know the table of Fellowship is open to everybody including our Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sihk and atheist neighbors. Jesus could have started a Christian theocracy, but love would never do that. The closest thing we have to the Kingdom of Heaven is a multi-racial multicultural democracy where power is truly shared among all people - something that’s yet to exist in human history.
Christian nationalism is not only a threat to the American experiment in democracy, it’s also a threat to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When someone asked Jesus to name his most important commandment, he cheats and gives two - two that he says are related. The first is to love God. The second he said is like it: love thy neighbor as thyself. It’s like it because, when I recognize the Divine image in myself, I can’t help but recognize it in my neighbor whether they’re Christian or not, whether they’re religious or not. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus specifically defines neighbor as someone different from us: racially, economically, politically, religiously. God loves diversity. God loves variety. Just look around this big beautiful planet of ours. Do we really think think God would make all these beautiful people with all their beautiful traditions for no reason at all?
There are so many pathways to the sacred. The Islamic Mystic Rumi said, “every religion has love but love has no religion.” God is so much bigger than our human categories. God is not a Presbyterian. God is not a Christian. God is not a noun at all. God is a verb. God is not a being. God is being itself. God is love and that’s why Jesus is against anything that gets in the way of that love between neighbors, including religion. That’s why he’s always breaking religious rules. That’s why he’s always getting in trouble with the religious authorities. That’s why he says “sinners will see the Kingdom of Heaven before religious people do.” Sorry to everyone here. I know you came all this way.
Religious supremacy is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus. Christ Jesus didn’t come to establish a Christian Nation. He came to reveal ultimate reality, which he called the Kingdom of God, but it’s not like any kingdom we’ve ever known. Instead of a throne, Jesus sits at a table. Instead of a warhorse, Jesus rides a donkey. Instead of a sword, Jesus picks up a cross. The Kingdom of God inverts the power dynamics of all the kingdoms in the world. True strength is vulnerability. True status is equality. True wealth is sharing, and we as Christians are called to realize that “Kingdom on Earth as it is in heaven” not by force but by faith.
Jesus asked us to have the faith of a mustard seed, trusting that by living and dying for love, we give birth to a better world. That’s not easy to do. In a world full of fear, Jesus knew we would put our trust in something other than God - something other than love. As a Jewish rabbi, he called those things idols: money, status, and the most dangerous idol of all, power. When Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, one of the things the Devil offered was power. All the kingdoms of the world and Jesus rejected it. When his disciples asked who will be the most powerful in the Kingdom of God, Jesus said “you know the lords of the Earth push their people around, but among you it’ll be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be a servant.”
And when they still didn’t get it and they asked who will be the greatest in the Kingdom of God, Jesus said little children - the least powerful but most trusting members of any human community. That’s the Kingdom of God.
I think Chance the Rapper said it best: “Don’t believe in kings, believe in the kingdom.” Jesus knew. In the words of Dorothy Soelle, there is only one legitimation of power and that is to share it with others. Power that is not shared, power that is not transformed into love is pure domination and oppression. Christian nationalists are more committed to the love of power than to the power of love, and it exposes a lack of faith because the opposite of faith is not doubt. Doubt is a healthy part of any faith. The opposite of faith is control. When we stop trusting God, when we stop trusting love, we start taking control ourselves.
Christian nationalists want to control what we read, who we marry, where we travel, when we have children. They want to control our minds and our bodies. “Oh, ye of little faith.” Christian nationalists trust domination because they think domination is what works, but Jesus revealed that the true power of the universe is not domination, but love.
A problem is that “christians” don’t actually give a shit about jesus. They worship some heretic called paul.
This reminds me of the words of Frederick Douglass.
…between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of “stealing the livery of the court of heaven to, serve the devil in.” I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me.
- Frederick Douglass, 1845
The entire thing is worth reading. The “corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land” is clearly the very same that overwhelmingly persists and thrives today… 180 years later.
Thanks, that message is truly powerful, by embracing love and keeping faith despite everything that’s running against it. Let’s hope that humanity will be more open to this message.
Sermon transcript, pt. 2
In Daoism they teach that, over time, the soft overcomes the hard. The water wears down the rock. The wind takes out the mountain. The grass upends the concrete. The meek inherit the earth. Violence may win in the short run but, in the end, love always wins. Jesus said this Kingdom of God is in our midst - it’s hiding in plain sight. Heaven is already here: inside of us, above us, all around us.
On my mom’s side, my granddad was a Baptist preacher, but on my dad’s side, my Grandpa Talarico never went to church but he was one of the most generous, compassionate, moral people I’ve ever met. He was an immigrant from Italy whose family saw firsthand the dangers of mixing church and state. He settled in the Texas hill country and, on Sunday mornings, he would take these long walks through the wildflowers and live oaks and he would take me with him. He said it was the best chance to see G-O-D: the Great Outdoors.
Biologists tell us that everything in nature is connected and evolving toward greater union. Anthropologists tell us that our ability to share and cooperate is humanity’s superpower, and astrophysicists tell us that the universe is just gentle enough to make our existence possible. This universe of ours is nothing but gratuitous grace.
Teilhard wrote that the very physical universe is love. We see it in the harmonies of music, the principles of mathematics, the patterns of nature. We are all expressions of that creative power. We are the universe becoming aware of itself. As children of God, children of the cosmos, we are loved unconditionally, indiscriminately, infinitely. No achievement can add to it. No mistake can take from it. No amount of church-going or church-missing can change it. That’s truly deserving of the title “Good News.”
We are made by love with love to love. I call that love “God.” You may use a different word, and that’s okay. There are a thousand ways to kneel and kiss the ground. We can cure the disease of Christian nationalism. We can protect against the virus of religious extremism with healthy religion.
The great faith traditions of the world have so much to offer us in this time of global crisis. Hinduism’s ahimsa provides an alternative to the logic of violence. Buddhist meditation provides an alternative to the abuse of our attention. Judaism sabbath provides an alternative to the demands of capitalism. And in a world where everything can be bought and sold including the earth itself, native American traditions provide an alternative to ecological extraction.
It’s hard - it is so hard to protect your spirit in a world trying to kill it. That’s why we need faith communities like this one. That’s why we need stories and traditions and practices that heal our soul and transform our mind.
Every time in this sanctuary that we say the prayers, sing the hymns, sprinkle the water, eat the bread, drink the wine, we’re tuning our hearts. Our Buddhist friends tell us that compassion takes practice. Neuroscientists tell us that we can become kinder, more empathetic, if we work at it. Things like love, peace, and hope - they require strength training. A gym for the heart. And so every week, we gather here to sing our songs and tell our stories just for the opportunity to, in the words of Thich Nhat Hanh, “dwell in the ultimate” together just for a moment. And that’s almost better than a cold glass of beer.
I invite you now to your own reflection on these words.
If you saved yourself you would save us all.
I think they just hold up the stale unused loaf, even place it on display … never touch, taste or eat it … and tell themselves and everyone else how delicious it is.
Everyone knows you’ve gotta eat Jesus if you want his powers.
lol They’ve been cherry-picking since Constantine’s Council of Nicaea. Half of Rome was still Pagan and half of it was converted Christian. Constantine felt that civil war was coming, so he invited all of the most influential from both sides and they sat down to decide what should stay in the Bible and what should be removed to make both sides happy.
That’s not quite right. Council of Nicaea didn’t choose biblical canon. They chose the teachings of certain Christian sects over others, which later had an affect on canon.
Ah, I apologize, then. It’s been a long time since I went deep down the history rabbit hole, but I knew it was something along the lines of changing it somehow.
All good, it’s a pet peeve of mine. I’ve seen Ratheists try to say Nicea set biblical canon, and when I point out otherwise, they cite the WikiPedia article on Nicea at me. Which explicitly says the council did not set biblical canon. It’s not even like the atheist argument against Christianity hinges on when and where biblical canon was established; it’s fairly easy to make without it.
Yeah, I was reading up on it again. Its surprising how much misleading information there is on that particular subject. There was a time I went deep into Gnostic texts and rumor. I was interested in this time period particularly, but I admit life got the better of me and it took a back burner.
It seems to get generalized as “they changed it and took stuff out” a lot with no further context, which is where I picked up on it. In fact, some Gnostic articles seem to go as far to say they did remove things. However, I’ve read that a good amount of Gnostic texts are dated much later than the Council of Nisaea, somewhere between 500-800AD. Its all so blurry, but I find it fascinating. Its like “don’t believe what you read on the internet” before the internet existed. So many rumors and legends.
Yeah, and it’s fascinating to me. I grew up in a high control Christian group (Jehovah’s Witnesses), and their narrative is that the first century Christians were completely united in belief and purpose, and that they are the direct inheritors of that. A more careful reading of the gospels will show there were stark differences in belief among those writers. A quote from Jesus shows up in one that doesn’t in the other because each writer was trying to advance a certain viewpoint that wasn’t universally shared by Christians at the time.
I find this way more interesting than one set of unified beliefs.
Oh hey,I also grew up JW. I also like being specific and correct when criticizing beliefs etc.
Greetings, my sibling in apostasy!
You can just say “Christians.” The actual Christians it doesn’t apply to won’t care/know it’s true. Source: I know 2 actual Christians.
ITT People who think they understand Christian doctrine well enough to critique Christians
Jesus wasn’t a communist. Sorry folks.
I don’t think you quite grasp what Christian dogma actually is, and you’re doing a stellar job of proving it by passing judgment. Funny thing: the people most qualified to critique a system are usually the ones not inside it. Remember when the church opposed the printing press because they were worried people might start reading the Bible for themselves and realize the clergy were editorializing? Turns out they were only half-wrong. Most folks still haven’t read it, and judging by takes like yours, they definitely don’t understand what Jesus actually taught.
Funny thing: the people most qualified to critique a system are usually the ones not inside it.
The only thing funny about that is that it’s a baseless assertion.
Remember when the church opposed the printing press because they were worried people might start reading the Bible for themselves and realize the clergy were editorializing
The early church produced the canon of scripture we now know as the Bible. (E.g. It is literally the editor) What the Church was worried about is people getting Bibles and thinking they can figure it all out without the tradition of the Church. 40,000 Protestant denominations later it’s pretty clear their fears were well founded. This is why Joe Jimbob’s McChurch USA is playing with snakes instead of attending liturgy, participating in the sacraments and living the liturgical life of the church. It’s why ahistorical low-church Protestants are proto-atheists.
what Jesus actually taught
It will be very interesting to hear your opinion on what Jesus taught considering you’re entirely reliant on a canon of scripture assembled by a church you do not trust.
The only baseless assertions I’m seeing in thread are coming from you.
The first, drawn from your replies, seems to be that only those inside a belief system are qualified to critique it. I’d love to hear the logic behind that. Are we only allowed to analyze something if we’ve taken a loyalty oath? Do I need to be a card-carrying member of “Joe Jimbob’s McChurch USA” to point out inconsistencies in religious practice? And even then, would I only be allowed to critique that church, and not the broader system it’s derived from?
The clergy, across all denominations, has historically used the Bible as a tool of control. The sheer number of splintered sects is testament to the unlikeliness of divine clarity and more a case study in cultural evolution. Or is pointing that out off-limits to outsiders, too?
Which brings me to your next claim: that my understanding of Jesus must’ve come from some specific church’s Bible. That’s a bit of erog propter hoc, putting DeCartes before the horse. One doesn’t need to be religious to find value in religious teachings. Christ’s egalitarianism doesn’t require Sunday attendance to appreciate. And you certainly don’t have to be a capitalist to notice the glaring contradictions in the modern Christian zeitgeist.
Are we only allowed to analyze something if we’ve taken a loyalty oath?
I never subscribed to the binary view that you have. I think analytical minds can critique their own system as well as others.
Do I need to be a card-carrying member of “Joe Jimbob’s McChurch USA” to point out inconsistencies in religious practice? And even then, would I only be allowed to critique that church, and not the broader system it’s derived from?
I’m putting no such constraints on your ability to attempt a critique I just have my sincere doubts about you providing a coherent internal critique given your presuppositions.
The clergy, across all denominations, has historically used the Bible as a tool of control. The sheer number of splintered sects is testament to the unlikeliness of divine clarity and more a case study in cultural evolution. Or is pointing that out off-limits to outsiders, too?
Splintered sects are evidence of nothing other than humanity’s limitless capacity for ignorance and disobedience. When you examine church history it’s clear that since the schism of 1054 the Western Tradition continues to fragment further and further while the East is monolithic in comparison. Schism begets schism.
Which brings me to your next claim: that my understanding of Jesus must’ve come from some specific church’s Bible.
From a religious perspective saying one doesn’t conform to any given church’s interpretation of scripture is no different than founding a new schismatic denomination with a congregation of 1. (e.g. you are your own Pope)
From a secular perspective who cares because it means you don’t believe Christ is Risen and are arbitrarily picking and choosing what you like and don’t like without submitting to the totality of doctrine.
Christ’s egalitarianism doesn’t require Sunday attendance to appreciate.
It does if you want to interpret and experience Christ’s teachings the way the apostles intended.
And you certainly don’t have to be a capitalist to notice the glaring contradictions in the modern Christian zeitgeist.
Most modern self-professing Christians in the West derive from the schismatic traditions I was talking about and are only Christian in some vague cultural sense.
Also Christ instructed us to love all people but he gave his apostles authority at Pentecost so it’s natural that control is a part of the way the Church functions. Christianity is not a democracy.
Ah, and there it is. You’ve neatly demonstrated the argument that religion, at its core, can’t exist without a generous dose of authoritarianism. You’ve brought the receipts straight from Proverbs 3:5; a.k.a. “don’t think too hard about it,”. The church cheerfully instructs us to toss out reason the moment it gets inconvenient. Submit to God, submit to the church, submit to authority, don’t ask questions and just nod along.
You mention Pentacost, but even the bible is inconsistent on what Jesus told his disciples. Were they supposed to go out and spread the word immediately? Or wait in Jerusalem to be clothed with power from on high? Was the Spirit received quietly on Easter, or did it come down dramatically at Pentacost? Please understand that I’m not trying to undermine your personal faith here, just illustrating how things can appear to an outsider who did take the time to learn more the world’s various holy books.
Your perspective is familiar, and can be comforting in its own way. No room for pluralism. No room for nuance. Certainly no room for growth. And that, I think, is the fundamental dialectic underpinning our conversation: the church longs for an absolute, immutable scaffold onto which society can be safely and unquestioningly constructed. Meanwhile, I see all of human history, including the panoply of religious teachings, as a rich and chaotic mosaic to be studied, questioned, and woven into an ever-evolving understanding that supports pluralistic, humane, and thoughtful governance.
While our back-and-forth may seem combative, I appreciate your openness to discussion, and thank you for spending the time to help me better understand your perspective.
Edit: adding that I agree with you that Jesus was not a communist, as communism as a term was not coined until the 19th century.
Ah, and there it is. You’ve neatly demonstrated the argument that religion, at its core, can’t exist without a generous dose of authoritarianism.
So what? You submit to God not the other way around. A shepherd doesn’t ask his sheep for a vote.
You mention Pentacost, but even the bible is inconsistent on what Jesus told his disciples. Were they supposed to go out and spread the word immediately? Or wait in Jerusalem to be clothed with power from on high? Was the Spirit received quietly on Easter, or did it come down dramatically at Pentacost? Please understand that I’m not trying to undermine your personal faith here, just illustrating how things can appear to an outsider who did take the time to learn more the world’s various holy books.
Yeah you’re missing the tradition of the church which precedes scripture and explains everything you think is inconsistent. You mistakenly think you’re not blinded like us zealot lemmings when in reality you’re functioning with incomplete information from a sola scriptural paradigm that didn’t emerge until only 500 years ago.
Your perspective is familiar, and can be comforting in its own way. No room for pluralism. No room for nuance. Certainly no room for growth. And that, I think, is the fundamental dialectic underpinning our conversation: the church longs for an absolute, immutable scaffold onto which society can be safely and unquestioningly constructed. Meanwhile, I see all of human history, including the panoply of religious teachings, as a rich and chaotic mosaic to be studied, questioned, and woven into an ever-evolving understanding that supports pluralistic, humane, and thoughtful governance.
“My perspective” reflects the view of all Christians until the schism and, frankly, until the Protestant reformation. You are viewing an ancient religion with a post-modern lens. There was no such thing as “ecumenism” or “invisible church” in the first thousand years of Christianity. You were either in the Church or outside of the Church and there were fundamental beliefs such as the Trinity that everyone had to believe or be excommunicated.
Even the idea that someone living in the roman empire could be a communist is ridiculous.
Why?
The word “Communism” wasn’t coined until the 1800s, so technically there would have been zero communists in ancient Rome. That doesn’t mean that the concepts weren’t around; broadly speaking, egalitarian socialism has been a precept of many societies and religions for millennia.
Can a thing only exist once it has been named?
Because communism as a concept was created in the 19th century by Karl Marx. There can’t be any communists before that because how could you even be a follower of an idea/ideology/concept before it was inventet? There also can’t be any christians before Jesus lived or Buddhists before Buddah
When people say “communism” they mean the principles of communal ownership and shared property. Not the specific philosophy of Karl Marx (that would be Marxism).
It is possible for someone to hold those ideal, and even live by them, before the term is coined.
If christianity had ideals other than “live like jesus”, it would be possible to follow those before he existed too.
I think it makes sense to use the correct words, esp. if you’re using loaded words like communism or fascism. So the early christians (and many before and afterwards) were trying for a spiritual and communal life in a small group of believers. Like monks do. But that is not what most people are thinking when they are talking about communism.
Read it again.
