Cross posted from https://eldritch.cafe/@Jeanneadebats/114184886084246220
Evangelicals Are Now Rejecting ‘Liberal’ Teachings of Jesus
“Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching’turn the other cheek’[and] to have someone come up after to say, ‘Where did you get those liberal talking points?’” Moore said.
“When the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ’ … The response would be, 'Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,” he added. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
And people dont understand why I say the orange clown is an Antichrist and may be the Antichrist.
The doomed by a perfect circle is very disturbing accurate.
Ehh, isn’t the antichrist supposed to be a nearly impossibly attractive person, in charisma and looks? A lot of people either hate him or are entirely indifferent and the reasons don’t seem to be religiously motivated.
I just settle with him being a douchebag.
This is still what baffles me. We aren’t losing our country to a charismatic, two faced mastermind. We’re losing our country to a fucking obvious loser. He’s literally so bad it’s hard to parody him since even the parodies are tame in comparison to what he actually does. It’s ridiculous
As others have said, that part’s more modern. But also, look at what’s going on, a lot of people hate him, but he has some sort of charisma to draw so many people to lockstep with him.
And one of the big things in revalations about the antichrist is that a lot of Christians will follow him because their faith is tainted and corrupted
isn’t the antichrist supposed to be a nearly impossibly attractive person
Premillennial dispensationalism/rapture theology is a group creative writing exercise with little relevance to the text. The prophecies in Daniel refer to the Greek king Antiochus, which is clear when one reads chapters and not verses (unfortunately uncommon in your typical Protestant church…) Revelation is referring to emperor Nero.
Really, it’s more that folks like Hal Lindsey popularized the concept by traumatizing children in church basements that’s given it the culture cachet.
Yeah I’m not a Christian, and I know many Christians hate the “reasonable hope for salvation of righteous nonbelievers” thing, but I’ll say this, I’ve got a strong suspicion that if I’m wrong about the veracity of Christianity then Jesus will still prefer my behavior to the maga christians’
Prosperity gospel has been shitting on the red text of Christ for decades now.
Jesus hated wealth inequality. The only group he said would never enter heaven were the wealthy (“easier to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven”, in other words, it isn’t possible for the rich to enter heaven). Jesus also violently flipped tables and whipped the wealthy to drive them out of temples.
So conservative “Christians” abandoned the teachings of Christ many decades ago.
Not just the wealthy, but people who were using the temple as a place of business (and likely ripping people off on interest)
The actual story of the money changers is worse than most people know.
See, as part of their religious observance, the ancient Hebrews made a pilgrimage to the Temple. This was a mandatory part of their faith, much like the Hajj is for modern Muslims.
Those who were too poor to bring their own sacrifice could buy one at the Temple, but the Temple didn’t take the coin of the realm (the Roman coins), they only accepted Shekels.
So, the Money Changers. They set up in the Temple itself and were fleecing pilgrims of all their money.
In comes Jesus, who flipped tables and broke out the whip, and less than a week later he was crucified.
And this is the only part of the bible that I believe is 100% historically accurate. A peace loving Rabbi threw a fit over the Money Changers and was crucified for it.
Yeah, it was the moneychangers and the stall keepers that tolerated them.
It was a religious duty to contribute money for the upkeep of the temple. So people would come from out of town and try to hand over their cash and the priests would say “we can’t accept foreign coinage… go talk to that dude over there with the heavy pockets, he’ll help you”. And the moneychanger would convert their currency, but not without keeping a fat percentage for himself.
The lesson (as I read it) is that setting yourself up as a gatekeeper and forcing people to pay you in order to do the right thing is an especially odious behaviour, even if it’s legal.
The gospels were probably not written until many decades after his death.
easier to pass through the eye of a needle
Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle…
Some bootlickers go through ridiculous contortions to avoid the plain sense of this analogy: “The Eye of the Needle was a gate in Jerusalem!” (That excuse was a late medieval fabrication by an indulgence-selling cleric craving donations from aristocrats-- there’s no such gate and never was, and if there was one, the saying would make no sense).
Jesus didn’t talk about wealth inequality in that way, as far as wealth being bad. His point was that the wealthy tend to think they have it all and are in need of nothing. Mostly that the richer you are, the more you love money than God.
He wasn’t just flipping tables and whipping wealthy people. They were at the temple making money off of selling animals to sacrifice for sins. They had made a business of selling indulgences basically, that was the issue.
And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Mark 10:17-22
I guess we’re going to get more denominational splits based on if Jesus’ teachings about loving others is Biblically accurate. Yet another reason why he isn’t coming back.
Same flawed logic the Russian Orthodox Church used to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Republicans would be very upset with you using the bible against them, if they had ever read the bible to know what it said.
The usual response is “you only know a few cherry picked quotes, and would burst into flames if you actually read the whole thing” blah blah blah.
**But if God intended that the Negro race should be Segregated in Africa then why did He curse the children of Ham and decree that they should be the servants, or slaves, ot the other races?’’
God did not. Canaan was the only one specifically cursed to be a ‘‘servant of servants’’ (Genesis 9:20-27). Even if we admit the possibility that all his descendants were included in the curse (the best Bible scholars disagree on this point). we must still remember that Canaan was only one of the four sons of Ham and therefore he fathered only a MINORITY of the black race. And as I said before, even that servile minority were to live in a different part of the country from the Hebrews (Genesis 10:19).
It cannot be positively proven from the Scriptures that the Negroes were cursed to be black because of Nimrod’s rebellion or because of Ham’s sexual laxity at the time of his father Noah’s drunkenness. But there are some verses that seem to leave that implication. For example in Jeremiah 13:23 we read, ‘*Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.’’ Here the black Skin of the Negro is obviously a symbol of evil. This verse also shows that God meant for that skin to STAY BLACK and not be blended into a Thousand shades of mulatto.
The notion that the Negroes of this country have INHERITED the “‘deep Sunburn’’ that their forefathers are said to have suffered in Africa is ridiculous. Sunburns are not inherited, no matter how deeply they penetrate, not even by the first generation, not to mention the tenth or twelfth generation.
If we are to reject the curse of Ham and the rebellious leadership of Nimrod as explanations of why God made the‘Negro black then there is only one other possible explanation to be found anywhere in the Bible or out of it: THE GOOD LORD WAS SO ANXIOUS FOR THE HAMITES TO BE SEPARATED AND SEG- REGATED PEOPLE THAT HE MADE THEM RADICALLY DIFFERENT IN THEIR APPEARANCE FROM THE PEOPLE OF ALL OTHER RACES. He made their skin color different for for the same reason that He made their language different and for the same reason that He assigned them a different habitation… At least we would be much kinder and more charitable to our colored friends if we gave that explanation.
The southern Bible doesn’t read like yours and mine does, they made some notes in the margins.
“I hate you guys, kill yourself” said Jesus probably during daylight saving time because he didn’t sleep enough.
I hear he also dropped the n word a couple times on Twitter but he was taking Ambien so it wasn’t his fault.
Apparently started from a hate ministry in 2021… Dude named James White on Twitter.
"When you start with man as image-bearing creature of God, you can understand why sympathy is good, but empathy is sinful.
Do not surrender our mind to the sinful emotional responses of others."
Yeah, I came across some article he wrote. He basically said if he hates someone, they deserve it because god says so, and if anyone disagrees with him, they are making it about “them” and not Jesus.
He evidently (understandably) got blowback on Twitter back in the day, and wrote some word vomit that sums up to “No no, you don’t understand, what I said is not as bad as you think it is (it’s sooooo much worse)”
I think his point is that humans are meaningless little things made just to be in the image of “God” and should “get over themselves” since it’s all about God and not at all about humanity.
Seemingly, that somehow doesn’t apply to having him shut up and stop making it about himself.
Every time I see that I’m so skeeved out. Like I understand needing to close your heart’s empathy to deceivers. It’s something I’ve had to do with abusers who play on pity. But this is language that you use to prepare people to do evil
Notably, I don’t think folks would consider Christian teaching would not explicitly declare that you should hate (that part is usually just implied).
Generally what they say is that while you shouldn’t just yield and let “bad” people walk all over you and society, you shouldn’t “hate” them either.
This isn’t really new though, it’s just saying the quite part out loud. always-has-been.gif.
Neoliberalism is the cause of the decay and paved the way for fascism. If you let large conglomerates own everything including news media and social media and then sell access to spew vile hate speech and disinformation to people, the current result is to be expected. It’s actually kind of refreshing that they actually come out and say it.
These people also don’t believe in equality, they believe inequality of humans is fundamentally morally correct. Neoliberals believe in inequality based on class/wealth, fascists believe in inequality based on identity like race or gender.
The true sin is ignorance and neglect.