[Jesus sits on a rock, speaking]
A new command I give you:
Love one another
[an angry character talks back to Jesus]
What if they’re something bad like gay, trans, brown, or communist though?
[Jesus is facepalming on his rock]
I don’t want to be a messiah anymore
Just a note, Jesus wasn’t actually purple even though he is depicted here as such.
Of course, canon Jesus reply would be “but we’re brown ourselves though?”
I honestly don’t know what colour of skin people of the levant would have at that time.
The canon version is people complaining about the Samaritans.
Maybe we are due an updated parable: The Good Transwoman
I honestly don’t know what colour of skin people of the levant would have at that time.
A very mixed bag, given that it was a major crossroads of the ancient world.
Maybe we are due an updated parable: The Good Transwoman
And when I was pregnant, you aborted my fetus
And when I was undocumented, you paid me fairly for my labor and didn’t try to gouge me on rent
And when I was addicted, you gave me methadone and a place to sober up.
i see you were paying attention at the church i play music at. we have (well, had. my contract just ended) a damn good pastor
In the whole Bible there is no indication that he wasn’t purple
It’s amazing that a sect leader that promoted peace and frugality unknowingly created one of the most violent and greedy religions.
Yes it certainly morphs after Constantine makes it the state religion, rather than a cult.
I am reading a book on the Baltic Crusades and it was talking about the diametrically opposed ideas of state violence and a pacifist religion. Essentially, pacifism doesn’t work as a state policy. The Christian church struggled to decide what violence the state should be able to commit.
Augustine, thought war could be justified in certain circumstances, one of which was if the following peace created more good than the evil if the war wasn’t fought.
Nowadays, I don’t think people even know that Christianity was/is a pacifist movement.
Augustine, thought war could be justified in certain circumstances, one of which was if the following peace created more good than the evil if the war wasn’t fought.
And don’t forget Aquinas, who literally sandwiched his one chapter on war between the chapters detailing mercy. If I remember the professors correctly, that was no mistake, and was very, very thematically intentional. Christians are downright fucked in the head as they try to cognitive dissonance their way into reconciling our species’ lust for war with high minded ideals of love and kindness.
Jesus Christ as depicted in the Bible, with near 100% certainty never existed. He was no more real than Harry Potter.
The absolute lack of evidence of existence for a person claimed to be the most significant person that ever lived, and who performed numerous miracles, means that the only reasonable conclusion is that he never actually existed.It would be like if we had zero evidence for the existence of Cleopatra, outside some scriptures written by a superstitious sect, where the earliest were written 2 generations after her death, by anonymous authors, and based only on hear say, and written in a place that it would take weeks to travel to or even months. With zero contemporary or first hand evidence.
And then imagine Cleopatra performed miracles regularly too.
AND Cleopatra lived 1 generation before Jesus, and 3 generations before the first “books” of the new testament were written.But in difference to Jesus, there are loads of historical evidence that Cleopatra lived. When she lived, where she lived, and who she was. But not only her, also her family, like father and brother are well documented, and several events Cleopatra was part of are also very well documented.
Add to that that the search for evidence for the existence of Jesus is probably the by far biggest historical and archeological search in history. Spanning almost 2000 years, with massive financing from wealthy Churches especially the Catholic and Mormons have spend insane amounts of money searching for evidence, but not only that, also traditional historical institutions have participated, because they too, despite the absolute lack of reason for it, thought that there ought to be evidence for the existence of Jesus.
This search we know for sure started already in year 200!! And it was pretty intense for more than 1500 years!!! And the search often included scholars, because they too were deluded.And their combined efforts have turned up nothing but fakes created after the fact. Zero actual historical evidence.
The few pieces (about 3) some claim are evidence are heavily refuted as obvious fakes too.I mean, the idea that a guy made a weird sect, telling people to throw away all of their money (to who?) and performing tricks to pass them as miracles isn’t so absurd. There’s been a lot of scammers throughput history, he could have simply been one that happened to have a long lasting effect.
It’s far from being the most significant person or whatever, more of a butterfly effect of some dude that wanted to have his own cult.
Isn’t that him the romans were describing it, as a cult gathering people fast? That’s probably all it was.
I mean, the idea that a guy made a weird sect,
There is still no evidence of that. It’s just moving the goal post, but in reality it doesn’t make a difference.
There are also communications between Christian groups where the personification of Christ is debated, to make it easier for people to understand Christianity.t’s far from being the most significant person or whatever,
Again you are completely missing the point, because according to Christianity Jesus is clearly the moist significant person to ever live, and if the bible was true, that would be a fact, as his existence is claimed to be the salvation of billions of people through 2 millennia.
So saying he is not, is actually the same as supporting my claim that he never existed.Isn’t that him the romans were describing it, as a cult gathering people fast?
No, Christianity was insignificant until the Romans themselves adopted it for political reasons.
I’m not saying that there is evidence, and I’m not sure what goal post I’m moving. My whole point was that the way Jesus is depicted by Christianity is as a weird sect leader that was promoting peace and frugality, and that it is ironic considering that the religion itself is quite the opposite.
I wasn’t debating the proof of existence of Jesus and to be honest, I don’t really care if he ever existed or not (and I would argue that most people don’t, because most Christians would absolutely ignore anything that would prove that he didn’t exist). My point was just to insist on the fact that Christianity has been for a pretty long time a religion of violence and greed, and that it is ironic.
the way Jesus is depicted by Christianity is as a weird sect leader
That’s false Jesus is depicted by christianity as the son of god, with supernatural powers that allowed him to perform miracles, including rising from the dead, and ascending to heaven after.
that it is ironic considering that the religion itself is quite the opposite.
On that we agree 100%. But the Bible is full of contradictions, and even the new testament has different books about Jesus that try to deliver very different messages about him, when telling the same basic story.
Same way as it could work with Harry Potter if we didn’t have copyright, and everybody could write their own story about him. And a century later a fan club makes a collection of the best 100 year old stories about Harry Potter that are decided by everyone to be canon. And they call it the Holy Bible of Harry Potter, and for 2000 years people actually believe it to be true, and that Harry Potter was a guy that really existed who could do magic.
Very few serious historians doubt the existence of Jesus the person.
The idea that Jesus was a purely mythical figure has a fringe status in scholarly circles and has had no support in critical studies for more than a century, with most such theories going without recognition or serious engagement.[21][2][note 4]
The theory that Jesus the person was himself a myth turns up in the 19th century, whereas skepticism and disbelief about the claims in the Bible about Jesus etc, (which are referenced in it) are older than the book itself, which iirc was begun tens of years after his death.
There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus[22][note 5]
Clearly you can believe whatever you want to believe of course, and I don’t think for a minute wikipedia is going to convince you that Jesus was a historical person, (you don’t strike me as someone who would take a detailed look into it having already decided it’s proposterous), but for the record, I have to tell you that your assertion that there is no evidence is just factually incorrect.
WTF are you quoting??? Quoting without a source is nonsensical.
Very few serious historians doubt the existence of Jesus the person.
Because over centuries of Christianity dominating western teaching, historians have been indoctrinated and even paid to accept or prove if they can that Jesus Christ as a historical person, exclusively based on the stories in the Bible, that are 2 generations after the fact, and by anonymous authors and based on hearsay at best, or rather they are simply made up. The bible is in no way a trustworthy historical document.
If you point to scholarly consensus, you also have to be able to point to evidence that scholarly consensus is based on, and the fact is you can’t. This scholarly consensus is 100% based on a circle jerk, where scholars conclude according to their own beliefs in Christianity without evidence.
Clearly you can believe whatever you want to believe
My beliefs on the issue are based on the evidence, if you want to believe based on superstition and group pressure your beliefs are not equal to mine.
Beliefs without evidence are generally false as in near infinitely unlikely to be true, and false beliefs that are a central point of your world view are demonstrably harmful, exactly in the way Christian beliefs can be shown to be harmful.WTF are you quoting??? Quoting without a source is nonsensical.
I already said: wikipedia.
This scholarly consensus is 100% based on a circle jerk, where scholars conclude according to their own beliefs in Christianity without evidence.
Forgive me for trusting the scholarship of the majority of historians rather than some random on the internet who wasn’t aware what the consensus of historians was that Jesus was a real person until a few hours ago, and just assumed there was no corroborating evidence because you didn’t think there would be!
Historians, as their day job, what they’re best at, and expert in, is evaluating historical documents, taking into account the bias of their authors and drawing appropriate conclusions. I’m going to trust them over you ranting.
Feel free to doubt the religious claims of the Bible, but it’s silly to base your whole argument against the church on the one thing that historians, with a few exceptions, agree on.
You’re behaving like a vaccine skeptic or climate change denier. There is a field of experts. There was controversy. There was a lot of examination of the evidence and now there is a consensus. You are disagreeing with the consensus on the basis of your instincts and your preexisting beliefs.
My beliefs on the issue are based on the evidence
No they aren’t! You had no idea there was any, you haven’t even begun to look into it, you have no intention of looking into it in any serious way, and you just today claimed that there couldn’t be any on the grounds that it wasn’t true! It’s a circular argument only supported by it’s conclusion!
Of all the things to disagree with the Bible on, you pick the physical existence of Jesus as the one you most ardently dispute? There’s so much that’s easy for you to argue is implausible in the Bible, but you pick the very existence of some guy going round preaching to a bunch of religious folk that they should be nice to each other?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Jesus might have been a real person? Do you disbelieve in Mohammed’s physical existence, or the Buddha, just because you disbelieve their religious claims? It’s irrational. You disbelieve me; am I therefore non-existent?
It’s so illogical, and you have your eyes so tightly shut to the possibility that something slightly less simple than “it’s all complete nonsense” is true.
Those who will not listen can never learn new things.
Jesus was real.
who wasn’t aware what the consensus of historians was
I absolutely were.
I already said: wikipedia.
You can’t just quote “wikipedia” you have to give the link to the page, so others can see the context. For all I know those quotes could be from a page about things stupid people believe.
You’re behaving like a vaccine skeptic or climate change denier.
No the exact opposite, because they deny the evidence, while I draw my conclusions based on it, or in this case rather the lack of it.
Without evidence there is no reason to believe in the existence of god, and saying that a number of anonymous cultists writing stories about him is proof, is the same as saying a number of Harry Potter books is proof of the existence of Harry Potter.Of all the things to disagree with the Bible on, you pick the physical existence of Jesus as the one you most ardently dispute?
No that would be the existence of god. A belief that is even more insane, because it’s even more crazy to believe in a god without evidence whatsoever.
All the arguments of the existence of god in the bible are based on ignorance, just like you show here.You are making a string of false assumptions here based on ignorance of the actual facts, exactly like you are on the existence of Jesus.
who wasn’t aware what the consensus of historians was
I absolutely were.
This is a silly denial. I was the one who told you. You are the one who claims I’m making it up and are disbelieving in the existence even of a wikipedia article without lifting a finger to check for yourself. And you expect me to believe you’ve given any serious look into this historical question of existence when you didn’t even google?
You can’t just quote “wikipedia” you have to give the link to the page, so others can see the context. For all I know those quotes could be from a page about things stupid people believe.
This also is a silly thing to be skeptical about or debate, when google exists. I knew (from having looked it up in the past) that the consensus of historians was that Jesus was a real historical figure but that the claims about him in the Bible were religious rather than historical. So I googled “Is there evidence that Jesus was a real historical person” or something like that, scrolled past the religious links and clicked on the wikipedia entry which was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
All the arguments of the existence of god in the bible are based on ignorance
I might be wrong, but I’m not so sure there are any arguments about existence in it. I think it’s just a bunch of stories told with that included as an assumption. All the arguments about existence or not are from the philosophers, mostly much much later on. And I think they’re silly too.
Like I said, feel free to doubt the religious claims in the Bible, or any other religious text you have negative feelings about, but it’s silly to disagree with historians about the simple existence of Jesus the man, once you know you’re on the wrong side of that question compared to the experts whose day job it is to examine and more to the point, evaluate historical evidence!
You present yourself as the scientific mind who decides on the basis of evidence, whilst dismissing, with obvious prejudice, those who have examined the evidence. You clearly believe what you believe because it feels right to you, not because you learned anything about it.
I notice that you didn’t answer whether your (presumed) disbelief in Islam caused you to disbelieve in the existence of Mohammed, or your (presumed) rejection of Buddhism caused you to think that the Buddha himself was invented?
This is a silly denial.
Yes because you can read my mind. 🤣🤣🤣
I have known this since the 90’s, where in philosophy at University we debated whether religiosity is a kind of insanity.
You are a fool that base your opinions based on insufficient information and lack of evidence, so no wonder if you are religious.I might be wrong, but I’m not so sure there are any arguments about existence in it.
Again a claim based on ignorance. The Bible claims the 10 commandments are from god, and that god created the world, essentially making the claim that the existence of the world is evidence for god.
I notice that you didn’t answer whether your (presumed) disbelief in Islam caused you to disbelieve in the existence of Mohammed,
There is very little logic rationale for this, since the two situations are very very different, Mohammed is an actual historic figure with lots of evidence. The god however is the same, and no matter how many new books are written about Harry Potter does not make it a reason to believe he exist without evidence. The same goes for god.
Ehhh I’d doubt it. Your average Christian isn’t violent and/or greedy. It’s just the ones that are make the news as it generates clicks. As someone who is actually a Christian, I see non-christians bring up strawmen of things they have seen in the media which I have never seen in real life.
It’s also worth realising Christianity is the most populous religion in the world- so things that happened were more likely to be perpetuated by self-proclaimed “Christian” leaders manipulating scripture purely for their own benefit. Things would arguably be worse if another religion had this amount of followers and influence.
I’m legitimately glad that your personal experience of Christianity has been a net positive for you.
I was raised in a very standard First Assembly of God church until I was 12 and then my parents pivoted back to Catholicism. The experiences I had growing up in an evangelical paradigm were horrifying, especially in hindsight. I’m still unpacking the religious trauma in therapy today, nearly three decades after walking away.
So, based on my personal experience, the day to day Christians are precisely the greedy and violent ones that fucked me up, abused me relentlessly, and destroyed my sense of self-worth, not the blowhards on the news. Many of us are walking wounded from the divisive, hate-based, soul-crushing doctrines we were raised in under the guise of Christian love.
It could even be a cultural thing- a lot of the hurt I hear comes from the USA. A lot of UK ex Christians (if they even identify as that) were just culturally Christian and were just bored by Church
Also, I am sorry that you went through that.
Christianity has been the cause for wars.
Even “moderate” Christians are deluded, and can get the idea from their priest that they need “therapy” for their LGBT child.
And can argue that morality comes from god, which is insane since god doesn’t exist.
Being deluded makes Christians irrational, and prone to aggression when they feel their convictions are not accepted.
The problem with that is that obviously all the superstitious parts and the bigotry of Christianity does not deserve acceptance and much less respect.So when Christianity meets evidence based reason, Christians are absolutely prone to be aggressive.
We have seen this through hundreds of years, where scientists were punished by Christians for proving actual facts, or even just suggesting them. Again obviously a scientific theory does not deserve punishment whether right or wrong.The same is true today, where the basis for the major opposition to abortion in western democracies is Christianity.
Even sometimes demanding the banning of abortion in situations where continuing the pregnancy will mean the death of both the mother and the fetus! Only religious beliefs can make people so irrational and evil for no benefit to themselves.
AND these people even believe they are doing the right thing, because they are deluded. Being deluded is inherently dangerous, not only to the person who is deluded, but also to people around them, and society as a whole.manipulating scripture
Which is easy both because the people believing it are delusional and easily fooled, and because scripture is so full of self contradictions, that you can pick a side.
But lets just remember that scripture not only allow slavery, it actually condones it.
And the recommended action if a women is suspected to have been unfaithful to her husband, is to poison her to prove her guilt or innocence, if she dies it is considered proof that she was unfaithful.The bible is not medieval, because that would be way more modern, it is not barbarian, because it would be way more civilized.
The bible is a bronze age superstitious attempt to explain reality, and with zero understanding the only explanation they could come up with was of course superstitious, and in this case based on an “almighty” god. And in the exact same manner they tried to make rules and define morality, but with very little understanding of anything, except of course the understanding common in the bronze age.This is the guide Christians choose to follow, and don’t try to gas light me into thinking that doesn’t have negative consequences.
Christianity has been the cause for wars.
Rarely. Usually it’s politics. But yeah, a war happening around the biggest ideology in the world is probably a natural outcome.
And can argue that morality comes from god, which is insane since god doesn’t exist.
Basically just the reddit argument “theists are insane, therefore I’m right”. This isn’t an argument against Christianity
scientists were punished by Christians for proving actual facts, or even just suggesting them. Again obviously a scientific theory does not deserve punishment whether right or wrong.
Extremely rare, Christians basically invented the scientific method. Modern science exists because there was a belief in a lawgiver, so those laws can be studied.
The same is true today, where the basis for the major opposition to abortion in western democracies is Christianity.
That’s because many people believe that foetus are valuable human lives. It’s not exclusive to Christians, although Christians by default would think that because they actually have a moral understanding. And due to demographics, then yeah, they’d be the most noticeable force.
Even sometimes demanding the banning of abortion in situations where continuing the pregnancy will mean the death of both the mother and the fetus! Only religious beliefs can make people so irrational and evil for no benefit to themselves.
Thanks for at least saying “sometimes”. I’ve never heard this to be the case. Worth mentioning that this scenario itself is also extremely rare, to the point of single digits on national levels per year.
AND these people even believe they are doing the right thing, because they are deluded. Being deluded is inherently dangerous, not only to the person who is deluded, but also to people around them, and society as a whole. Which is easy both because the people believing it are delusional and easily fooled, and because scripture is so full of self contradictions, that you can pick a side.
This isn’t even an argument against Christianity. It’s not rational or reasonable at all.
But lets just remember that scripture not only allow slavery, it actually condones it.
And the recommended action if a women is suspected to have been unfaithful to her husband, is to poison her to prove her guilt or innocence, if she dies it is considered proof that she was unfaithful.
Nice bit of equipment there. How much did that cost you?
The bible is not medieval, because that would be way more modern, it is not barbarian, because it would be way more civilized.
Basically all of our morals in the west is based off of it. So not really.
The bible is a bronze age superstitious attempt to explain reality, and with zero understanding the only explanation they could come up with was of course superstitious, and in this case based on an “almighty” god. And in the exact same manner they tried to make rules and define morality, but with very little understanding of anything, except of course the understanding common in the bronze age.
Again, this isn’t really an argument. Something being old doesn’t mean it loses credibility. It’s like saying Julius Caesar didn’t exist because the evidence for him is from the Iron age…
Worth mentioning Jesus was from the Iron age, not the bronze age.
This is the guide Christians choose to follow, and don’t try to gas light me into thinking that doesn’t have negative consequences.
It would if we read the Bible the same way you seem to read it… With this
Thanks for at least saying “sometimes”. I’ve never heard this to be the case
You are either extremely uninformed or dishonest.
This has positively been the case in USA, Ireland, Poland, that I know of for sure.
I’m blocking you for your annoying graphics that don’t do anything. And for being either dishonest or insanely stupid.The Irish constitution in the past explicitly allowed abortion in the case of a mother’s health being at risk
As an ex-muslim i can confidently say quran does not tell us to love one another, it tells us to love our muslim brothers and rape, kill, torture everyone else.
I am just grateful most muslims are delusional people who have never read a single word of their book (in their native language) and live a life nowhere as close to that is depicted in the book. There is a reason why jihadism etc. is more popular in Arabic speaking countries, because they actually understand the thing they are reading.
And the Kama Sutra is incredibly sexually violent, if I’m remembering correctly.
tbf the bible says to kill anyone who gets a haircut or wears clothing from mixed material
I’ve read the Kama Sutra. There’s a chapter in there telling you to karate chop your woman in the head. At the end of the chapter, it mentions that some women have died from said move. I don’t think it’s really the be all and end all of good sex. There’s also a chapter on seducing your neighbor’s child bride.
counterpoint trojan war
also that one fence made out of penises that they keep trying to enter in the olympics
Contrariwise, you are also commanded to love racists, homophobes, transphobes, and authoritarians. You can certainly try to convince them away from those stances, but you are still supposed to be kind, even generous, to the persons.
Unconditional love can be heartbeatingly hard.
I’m going with the paradox of tolerance on that.
Yeah. I still think we owe the intolerant subsistence, but because of the Paradox of Tolerance, I think intolerance could be grounds for denial of political power–any of the 4 boxes (soap, ballot, jury, ammo)–at least for the duration of the intolerance. (But also, there should be some method to “rehabilitate” a person’s access to political power after they are no longer intolerant.)
I also think it might be difficult to adjudicate “intolerance” in some cases, but in the most necessary of cases it is quite clear.
don't click if you don't want a little theology. i am just going to shotgun fire off some bullshit.
okay, so: former christian clergy and current head of a pagan cult (i worship the god of convergent evolution, blasphemy, gluttony, and atheism) current membership 4, 5 when my mormon mother is humoring me and comes to the crab shack for lunch. my current job is church musician because the instrument [not gonna say which. ask and i’ll say yes] i play is very very expensive, i can’t afford one (i literally only have ever met one individual who owns one) and churches tend to own them. i can trade my services for an hour a week of practice time and two songs performance time a month unless i can figure out a way to move at least 2500 miles to ply my musical trade for real. or someone wants to give me 76 grand for an instrument.
christianity’s commandment to love people does not conflict with the paradox of tolerance. you’re not just commanded to love your neighbors, you’re commanded to love your enemies.
there’s a lot of cultural bullshit in the turn the other cheek and etc shit in the parables jesus teaches. like, slapping someone on the right cheek was a small insult, but slapping them on the left cheek was a big one. so turning the other cheek doesn’t just mean give them another chance to hurt you, it’s teaching the christians of that time that if someone is insulting you by slapping you in the face, a very culturally specific insult, give them the other cheek and invite them to make it a bigger insult. be like “hey i know i’m a christian and all. show everyone around here how big and tough you are picking on me”. i try to think about it. i’ve tried it. Deescalation through escalation.like Giles Corey.
Good thing I’m not beholden to that religion, then!
Compassionate love does not require kindness and generosity in the way you mean those words. It does not require making yourself vulnerable to danger, it does not require giving material or emotional support. You should still be able to recognize and respond to the humanity in a flawed person.
I believe if you are following the words of Jesus, then yes, it does require kindness and generosity, with their standard meanings. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” – Jesus
I agree that it doesn’t require sacrificing your safety.
deleted by creator
While Jesus is an authority and primary source on a number of things, He is neither of those things for compassionate love. I think in this decontextualized instance, “thy neighour” actually has a specific meaning that is being stripped, possibly referring to the other tribes of Israel, such as in his parable about the good Samaritan that people commonly misunderstand. I wouldn’t be willing to draw much from it without a much deeper reading.
I’m not making a dogmatic argument, I’m making a much more grounded claim about psychology and spirituality. Compassionate love is a real thing that we know stuff about.
“I tell you, love your enemies” – Jesus https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A43-48&version=NIV
I’m engaging in the thread, the leader of which is a meme featuring Jesus, so it is more relevant what Jesus said than “claims about psychology and spirituality”.
I was raised Baptist, but I no longer adhere to it dogmatically.
deleted by creator
Jesus doesn’t offer a realistic model of compassionate love. Christians aren’t really supposed to emulate Jesus. I know that’s the schtick, but it’s not the reality. Jesus exists to give Christians opportunities for moral self-licensing and self-stereotyping, which is the moral candy alternative to actually being a good person. He performs miracles and displays superhuman feats of equanimity (when he’s not cursing figs) not because we are supposed to actually emulate him, which would be impossible, he’s fucking GOD in a fake mustache, but because we are supposed to psychologically transfer his good qualities to ourselves by our association with him. That’s why Jesus stops at telling you what to do, and is silent about how to do it. He knows you’re not really going to do it.
Compassionate love is hard. It’s not just a matter of deciding to do it, you have to know how, and you have to practice. Other religions and creeds that preach and teach you how to practice compassionate love don’t do so for abstract moral reasons. Compassionate love serves the person who practices it.
Christianity offers people a way to feel like a good person without having to do anything, and Jesus doesn’t have very much of meaning to say about compassionate love.
I can assure more than half of them are redeemable.
Only money lenders (we totally didn’t secretly mean Jews)
“DID I FUCKING STUTTER?”
“That’s it. Get my whip. And a table.”
deleted by creator
brown and communist arent sins gay and trans are yet all of us are sinners thus gay and trans people shouldnt be hated their sin should
“I don’t hate you, I just hate what you are”
Christians truly don’t hear themselves when they talk
deleted by creator
do not identify with your sin
There’s nothing wrong with being gay or trans. Absolutely nothing. Christians are bad people if they believe that, you should stop identifying with that.
Don’t worry, I don’t hate you, I just hate your christianity. Love the person, hate the religion.
but what if they voted for Trump?
.
this comment is bait, if you got baited please tell me I’m a piece of shit or something
BlueMAGA would vote to release Barabas because he’s not a Trump Supporter
Or left handed!
Nothing about all of that in the big book. Now wearing both wool and linen, however…
or if they use AI or they Like a phobic tweet
A fine point if the people hating on those claimed devotion to Jesus and his teachings, or are you ignoring the whole point of the comic?
The comic is just one example of the general phenomenon of preaching “Love one another” and then doing it selectively.
Me:“what if they’re a hateful loser like him?”
Nail it.
Idolatry is a major sin because it is what can lead to a child being chained under a bed and horrifically abused. I’ll explain.
An idolatorer is someone who will give any sacrifice to the golden bull to earn status but will kick dirt in the face of a beggar on the street if no one important is looking. They are the most good at looking good and get good at lying, when really they can be pure evil, and over generations of true dharma descending into degenerate dharma (which are Mahayana Buddhist terms, but Christ has his dharma, for instance), and this is where you get someone who can keep up appearances but is causing grave harm to others that may be dependent on them.
Good thing a messiah is a repurposed pariah, for it is only the most lost who have returned who can be the brightest light in the darkest darkness to someone going through the same thing. We don’t engineer our society around THE prophecy, but prophecy; those things that are guaranteed to happen in society, like unloved children.
Moses was abandoned. Jesus’s step-dad was a skilled carpenter who was not good enough to get his own wife so he registered for a used one, suggesting something wrong in the narcissism department, as having had one, I can tell you that our fathers are our models for God. God to me is always telling me I’m not good enough. Why I drink so much (as Jesus did in his teen years), and also why I write so much, to perpetually improve myself, and this is what I can do now:
2:00
My brothers and sisters, love all beings
I speak of unconditional love for all life
For this is t way of true queens n kings
To live the life of creating others’ strife
Shall return that intention back to you!
Karma is real n the world is an illusion
Dharma of Christ: the trinity most true
Server, Client, Internet Dodecahedron!
2:05
Five minutes. I did that in five minutes. Jesus was a DAMN fine carpenter, but he was even better as saying nothing.
Nothing:
When the lord spoke to me in the ways the winds breeze to the left as the right wants whenever ice storm reigns below all chords of man! This is why we don’t do what plays tricks dubiously whether we want it or not. Maybe we learn how as if before what will come won’t be. Happen to take a chance to dance in France? Baby don’t hurt me. Don’t hurt me, no core in the afterworld.
But WAY more skillful, and way more useful to undercover cops, because what Jesus did was reveal who the idoltarers were in the community who attacked a clearly mentally disabled man; the Roman with a spear lost out on a promotion, and the good people learned they could do stuff like that to find out who the bad ones amongst them were!
But Jesus wasn’t disabled; he was just skilled enough at wordsmithing and intune with his highest self to be able to speak and say nothing. And I don’t know the passage number, but there’s one encounter where Jesus does this, and I saw a church do a skit about it, how it was the authority that Jesus spoke with that made people listen to him. Even when he poetically said absolutely fucking nothing, people still were in awe.
Ah, yes. Discrimination against communists… a huge problem in our society, worthy of being mentioned next to homophobia.
Or you could keep your political views away from things that aren’t a choice, like sexual orientation, gender and race.
