Support NeoGAF

[nacimento]

Tribal mentality and a disregard for the "other". He fits well into the history of christian leadership.

 

[jett]

Sounds about right.

 

[Apathy]

They just worship supply side Jesus

Catholics aren't technically Christians. Jesus died so that jews didn't have to pray to a priest anymore, and that anyone could have a relationship with god. This is signified by the curtain before the ark of the covenant ripping at the time of Jesus' death. The Catholics then put up a wall between you and god in the form of priests and the pope, along with other saints(idols), who you must pray to and for to get blessings and forgiveness. Why?

Yup, there you have it folks, catholics aren't Christians. I don't even know where people get this stuff from. Like you need to actively go find misinformation to post something like this.

 

[injurai]

That is a really shitty article. Like astoundingly shitty.

 

[JohnsonUT]

Friends with Greg Boyd and many other pastors. Trust me, there are many pastors and Christians that are pissed with the current state of American nationalism blended with Christianity. My Twitter is filled with pastors and theologians who shred Trump for his misappropriation of the Christian message at every turn.

Same with my facebook and my friends. Yet, not one of them sees the similarity to Cruz in particular:

Deport 11 million people. Full Stop. Bible has a lot to say about immigrants.
"Donald is not going to let people die in the street. Socialism!"
Carpet bomb the middle east.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Considering that in Greek, the word for Deutoronomy is Deuteronómion, I can only assume that whatever the first language of the poster is, takes its translation from that. But you know, universal nature of Christianity and all that.

One doesn't have to be halfway through to see the more insidious qualities of the god of the OT pierce through.

Yeah, but that's not the full story. He told me to say, honestly, that God is good. I can say that.

The 'greatest' commandment states to love thy God and love thy neighbor as yourself. However you view the Christian God, it would be helpful to see a few sides. I'm not arguing that God, as we see him, makes perfect choices. But it's weird to not read the new testament and come to a conclusion. The New testament is literally the whole point of the Bible. It would be like that time I watched Fight club, feel asleep after the fights but before the planning stages and talk about the movie when I missed the twist.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

The point of the general message is to not inflict damage or hurt upon others. The message also isn't to 'help' evil people, it's more that if you keep fighting, more people are going to get hurt. I'm not really sure what you mean by risking others - like if we're gonna assume that a whole Christian family is being harmed, they should all have the same thinking there. If you mean like I'm in control of the fate of of somebody, than I think the idea would be, do whatever the assailant wants so you can end or diffuse the situation. It's the same general thing in both scenarios either way.

If someone was voting for Trump because they saw Mexicans or Muslims as threat to their family, then they would be hurting their family by supporting another candidate who would allow more of those people into their community. Im sure voters of all types look at their kids (for example) and what will be in their best interests, when they decide who they are going to vote for. No one could be expected to endanger their kids to help strangers that they perceive as a potential threat. Its illogical and even the ideals of the bible dont support such an idea (as far as I see).
And yes, I do mean like you are in control of the fate of someone else/have responsibility for them. Doing what the "assailant" wants you to do may only diffuse the situation in the short term. They could then go on to harm others at any time, so I cannot agree with your logic there either, because conceding to evil does not serve the greater good.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Not really unique to America nor a massive revelation. I mean people were more religious on a level it's hard to fathom in Medieval Europe and yet it was not a land of peace and giving to the poor. Society exerts a powerful influence on any religion practiced within it. It's a two-way street of influence and the religion will mold and adapt itself to the people who practice it. For America, there is a patriotic bent to it, the Germanic tribes practiced a warlike Christianity, and early Christians were unsettlingly obsessed with dying for the cause. American Christians believe in God but the belief has manifested in a different way because the time and society are different.

 

[theignoramus]

White = bad, black = good. Ok.

Do you know the first thing about the history of the Black Protestant church or did you just read something you didnt like and post a knee jerk response?
Its just a fact that the Black church doesnt embrace chest beating patriotism or invest in Old testament ideologies the way the White Evangelical church does.

 

[Machina]

It shouldn't surprise anyone that idiots fear death more than anything else. The fear of the unknown is their worst enemy, hence why evangelicals, who flock to religion to starve off this fear of death tend to be some of the most racist people in the world also, let alone America.

 

[Aiustis]

Religion is just a form a tribalism. I wouldn't say they aren't christian, they are just their own brand of christian, most people, christian are no are tribal animals.

This isn't really american specific.

Edit: better put than I can ever say it:

Not really unique to America nor a massive revelation. I mean people were more religious on a level it's hard to fathom in Medieval Europe and yet it was not a land of peace and giving to the poor. Society exerts a powerful influence on any religion practiced within it. It's a two-way street of influence and the religion will mold and adapt itself to the people who practice it. For America, there is a patriotic bent to it, the Germanic tribes practiced a warlike Christianity, and early Christians were unsettlingly obsessed with dying for the cause. American Christians believe in God but the belief has manifested in a different way because the time and society are different.

 

[Air]

That is a really shitty article. Like astoundingly shitty.

What don't you like about it?

If someone was voting for Trump because they saw Mexicans or Muslims as threat to their family, then they would be hurting their family by supporting another candidate who would allow more of those people into their community. Im sure voters of all types look at their kids (for example) and what will be in their best interests, when they decide who they are going to vote for. No one could be expected to endanger their kids to help strangers that they perceive as a potential threat. Its illogical and even the ideals of the bible dont support such an idea (as far as I see).
And yes, I do mean like you are in control of the fate of someone else/have responsibility for them. Doing what the "assailant" wants you to do may only diffuse the situation in the short term. They could then go on to harm others at any time, so I cannot agree with your logic there either, because conceding to evil does not serve the greater good.

Well the point is that it is actually unintuitive. There's the quote, 'it's easier to get a camel through a needle (not the kind of needle we know as today btw) than to get into the kingdom of heaven' or whatever it is. It's not supposed to be easy. If you love your fellow man, why would you hurt them? You don't have to agree with it, but that's different from understanding it, which I don't think you've quite grasped yet from your responses.

 

[JohnsonUT]

If someone was voting for Trump because they saw Mexicans or Muslims as threat to their family, then they would be hurting their family by supporting another candidate who would allow more of those people into their community. Im sure voters of all types look at their kids (for example) and what will be in their best interests, when they decide who they are going to vote for. No one could be expected to endanger their kids to help strangers that they perceive as a potential threat. Its illogical and even the ideals of the bible dont support such an idea (as far as I see).
And yes, I do mean like you are in control of the fate of someone else/have responsibility for them. Doing what the "assailant" wants you to do may only diffuse the situation in the short term. They could then go on to harm others at any time, so I cannot agree with your logic there either, because conceding to evil does not serve the greater good.

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters — yes, and even his own life — he cannot be My disciple."

Christians are asked to put love and obedience to God above their love of their family. Jesus uses the term hate here to emphasize how much more we are asked to love God.

In addition perceived threat does not equate to a real threat. If you neglect Christian duties out of fear, that is a sin.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

What don't you like about it?



Well the point is that it is actually unintuitive. There's the quote, 'it's easier to get a camel through a needle (not the kind of needle we know as today btw) than to get into the kingdom of heaven' or whatever it is. It's not supposed to be easy. If you love your fellow man, why would you hurt them? You don't have to agree with it, but that's different from understanding it, which I don't think you've quite grasped yet from your responses.

It sounds like you have conceded that the Bible doesnt ask an individual to risk the lives of innocents to help either an unknown or dangerous person.
If the bible doesnt request that, then the article shouldnt be asking religious people to support policies they perceive as being dangerous.
Surely loving your fellow man includes protecting them from danger?

EDIT

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters — yes, and even his own life — he cannot be My disciple."

Christians are asked to put love and obedience to God above their love of their family. Jesus uses the term hate here to emphasize how much more we are asked to love God.

In addition perceived threat does not equate to a real threat. If you neglect Christian duties out of fear, that is a sin.

Ok. Yes, I can see how people would interpret that line to mean that you are expected to sacrifice everything that you love (your life and others) to do as God says BUT he has not said anywhere in the Bible to risk the well being of other people to help someone who is dangerous. That would need to be explicitly stated for Trump supporters to vote against the interests of those they care about/feel responsible for.
Also, a perceived threat is the same as a real threat to the "perceiver".

 

[DroidDev]

Do you know the first thing about the history of the Black Protestant church or are you did you just read something you didnt like and post a knee jerk response?
Its just a fact that the Black church doesnt embrace chest beating patriotism or invest in Old testament ideologies the way the White Evangelical church does.

"Black Protestants" and "White Evangelicals" are two very broad groups that cannot be characterized in a two-sentence value judgement. You're gonna have to be more specific than that; at least try to get down to the denominational level.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Catholics aren't technically Christians. Jesus died so that jews didn't have to pray to a priest anymore, and that anyone could have a relationship with god. This is signified by the curtain before the ark of the covenant ripping at the time of Jesus' death. The Catholics then put up a wall between you and god in the form of priests and the pope, along with other saints(idols), who you must pray to and for to get blessings and forgiveness. Why?

Quite a few reasons why things are the way they are. The Catholic Church had to evolve in a time when no one could read so they had to people who could read tell you what the Bible said. The Catholic Church had to evolve in a time when many of its converts were formerly adherents to polytheistic religions so instead of the god of the harvest you have one god and the saint of the harvest who can talk to god for you. The Catholic Church had to evolve in a time where it was the only real governing body after the Western Roman Empire fell. Many of its doctrines and practices (also problems) were necessitated by its role as the state on top of its religious responsibilities.

 

[captive]

Yup, there you have it folks, catholics aren't Christians. I don't even know where people get this stuff from. Like you need to actively go find misinformation to post something like this.

i find that because many on gaf are asthiests, or at least they say they are, they don't know a whole lot about Christianity or the Bible even if they think they do.

for that other poster, Catholics were the first Christians, Catholicism was founded directly by the Jesus appointing Peter as the first "pope." Every other branch of Christianity has its roots directly from Catholicism. A basic religious history class should cover this stuff.


Coincidentally i made a post on facebook the other day saying anyone that supports trump is not a Christian. I'm not sure if i have any trump supports on my facebook as friends but whatever. At my birthday party the other day I was surprised to hear my parents saying they didnt like any of the republican candidates. And another republican i know on facebook has been trashing trump and even posted an article saying some republicans will vote for hillary, i was shocked.

 

[Goro Majima]

It's an anecdote but the evangelicals I know either voted for Cruz or Rubio in Texas and Arkansas. The reasoning seems to be a pretty consistent criticism of how crude he is...so it's basically related to that other thread about the article of kids having to leave the room when he talks.

Then again I have no clue what is going on in the rural southeast since that seemed to go for Trump.

 

[Air]

It sounds like you have conceded that the Bible doesnt ask an individual to risk the lives of innocents to help either an unknown or dangerous person.
If the bible doesnt request that, then the article shouldnt be asking religious people to support policies they perceive as being dangerous.
Surely loving your fellow man includes protecting them from danger?

Yes, you want to protect others from danger, but that's a far cry from the racism, isolationism and paranoia that Donald trump's platform is about, don't you think?

Edit: I'm not sure defending Donald trump is the sword you want to fall on here friend.

 

[Apathy]

i find that because many on gaf are asthiests, or at least they say they are, they don't know a whole lot about Christianity or the Bible even if they think they do.

for that other poster, Catholics were the first Christians, Catholicism was founded directly by the Jesus appointing Peter as the first "pope." Every other branch of Christianity has its roots directly from Catholicism. A basic religious history class should cover this stuff.


Coincidentally i made a post on facebook the other day saying anyone that supports trump is not a Christian. I'm not sure if i have any trump supports on my facebook as friends but whatever. At my birthday party the other day I was surprised to hear my parents saying they didnt like any of the republican candidates. And another republican i know on facebook has been trashing trump and even posted an article saying some republicans will vote for hillary, i was shocked.

I'm an atheist, I knew this did just from school and family (my parents are Catholic). Being an atheist doesn't make people ignorant of facts. Many many atheist know more about religion (or at least more about many different religions) than those who are only part of their own simply because to be able to properly discuss and refute different aspects of religion. We don't even know if the person who posted that comment us even religious or not, so please don't believe atheist are the ones that post ignorant things about religion.

 

[Bedameister]

Yeah what is pictured is 'just' the St Peter, not the entire city.

Vatican City is not that much bigger than what is seen here in this picture. Many buildings seen in this picture don't even belong to vatican city.

 

[Slayven]

KKK was a christian organization


But they regularly blew up and burned churches..

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Why would the Christian God allow this?

 

[theignoramus]

"Black Protestants" and "White Evangelicals" are two very broad groups that cannot be characterized in a two-sentence value judgement. You're gonna have to be more specific than that; at least try to get down to the denominational level.

White evangelical Protestants are unique among religious Americans in their affirmation of American exceptionalism. More than eight in ten (83%) white evangelical Protestants agree that God has granted the country a special role in human history. Seven in ten non-white Protestants (73%) and Catholics (70%) and a majority (56%) of white mainline Protestants also believe in a divinely chosen role for the U.S.

http://publicreligion.org/research/2015/06/survey-americans-believe-protests-make-country-better-support-decreases-dramatically-protesters-identified-black/#.VuLNNPkrLHk

 

[Wickerbasket]

Again, those quotes say nothing about risking the well being of (other) good people to help an evil person. Only about risking oneself to help another.

You cant expect people to not protect those they care about, yet this article seems to expect religious Jesus followers to do just that.

How about the quote below? Jesus telling people to abandon their families or they aren't his followers.

Many people were traveling with Jesus. He said to them, 26 “If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life! 27 Whoever will not carry the cross that is given to them when they follow me cannot be my follower.

Luke 14:25-27

I'm starting to doubt you've read much of Jesus's teachings.

You should read the parable of the good Samaritan.

 

[lem0n]

Well, yeah. It's way too inconvenient to do it any other way.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

Yes, you want to protect others from danger, but that's a far cry from the racism, isolationism and paranoia that Donald trump's platform is about, don't you think?

Edit: I'm not sure defending Donald trump is the sword you want to fall on here friend.

I just edited my last post, after the other guy gave me a new Bible quote about a perceived threat being a real threat to those who perceive it.
Im also defending peoples right to make up their own minds without being lectured to by some article trying to religiously blackmail them. Im not an American, a religious person or a Trump guy, I just think what the article is attempting to do is wrong.
I dont think you can argue with my logic, so you are resorting to threats. That makes for a poor discussion.

How about the quote below? Jesus telling people to abandon their families or they aren't his followers.

Luke 14:25-27

I'm starting to doubt you've read much of Jesus's teachings.

You should read the parable of the good Samaritan.

Well, I know little of specific Bible quotes. I got dragged to church when I was a kid and that is as religious as I ever got.
The problem with the latest quote you gave is the same as the other, in that neither Jesus or God ask the individual to sacrifice the well being of others to help a stranger.
God or Jesus want me to strangle my family to truly follow them? ok. Done. Now where do they ask me to put others at risk to help another individual? It doesnt say that anywhere, does it? God/Jesus only say risk yourself to help another individual. And that seems logical to me, because an individual has no moral right to risk the life of someone else without their consent.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Really?

Seems like they left quite the hole.

Pretty sure that's not in the bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonine_City


The walled part is past the current Vatican City borders but it was built by a Pope in the 800s because of Muslim invaders sacking St. Peter's. The Papal Palace in Avignon is like an actual fortress though.

 

[gutter_trash]

You guys going on on bible quotes are completely missing the mark

US's main religion is not Christianity, it's nationalist-patriotism

 

[Air]

I just edited my last post, after the other guy gave me a new Bible quote about a perceived threat being a real threat to those who perceive it.
Im also defending peoples right to make up their own minds without being lectured to by some article trying to religiously blackmail them. Im not an American, a religious person or a Trump guy, I just think what the article is attempting to do is wrong.
I dont think you can argue with my logic, so you are resorting to threats. That makes for a poor discussion.

Lmao. Dude I am not making threats. What the article is trying to point out is that if you're supporting trump and his platform, than there's definitely an odd thing going on there because a lot of his platform is opposed to Christian values. It's quite literally 'I like your Christ, but I don't know about your Christians'. Of course anybody can identify themselves as whatever they want, but there's a point where cognitive dissonance occurs and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask, is what you claim to be really what you believe?

You guys going on on bible quotes are completely missing the mark

US's main religion is not Christianity, it's nationalist-patriotism

Yes, this I can agree with, but I do think those religious values bleed into it to reinforce those nationalist-patriotist beliefs. It's when they do that you can kind of see the dissonance at play where someone says they're a Christian, but support bombing wherever in the Middle East because terrorists or whatever.

 

[params7]

You guys going on on bible quotes are completely missing the mark

US's main religion is not Christianity, it's nationalist-patriotism

I don't know why people are pretending as if the two things are mutually exclusive, including the author of the shitty article in the OP. People can be both patriotic and religious.

 

[DroidDev]

http://publicreligion.org/research/2015/06/survey-americans-believe-protests-make-country-better-support-decreases-dramatically-protesters-identified-black/#.VuLNNPkrLHk

Thanks for the data; I see where you're coming from now. I'll be reading more into this, as this sort of stuff interests me.

 

[SeanC]

In the past, I've always saw and believed that a republican needed to emphasize their Faith and belief in God. I haven't seen anyone really ask Trump those types of questions or his supporters say "He's a good Christian." I don't know if the guy believes or not, but to those that support him that doesn't matter. He just "Rah rah" American and "Hate Islam" and they're cool with it.

So yeah, I totally get that if you go up on a stage and say great things about how great you are and how great and America is without any great substance, you'll be the bestest hugest guy on the stage with the hugest penis

 

[gutter_trash]

I don't know why people are pretending as if the two things are mutually exclusive, including the author of the shitty article in the OP. People can be both patriotic and religious.

you forgot the most important key word: nationalism

 

[Fuchsdh]

I've always found the attempt to source America's religiosity and its social mores to the Pilgrims and the Puritan spirit to be pretty dubious, with all deference to Tocqueville. It ignores that New England was not some monolithic entity that dominated the other colonies, and that America's been shaped far more by later immigration waves and the beliefs of the founders, who were traditional churchgoers or deists by and large, not splinter Protestants.

The article in the OP reads like the guy played through Bioshock Infinite and found it revelatory (although Donald Trump makes a good Comstock.)

 

[Crimson_Fate]

I don't know why people are pretending as if the two things are mutually exclusive, including the author of the shitty article in the OP. People can be both patriotic and religious.

Your going to see much more of this. It is finally sinking in that Trump is likely to be president. The fear is real.

 

[BeesEight]

Can be? Dude, we got people getting stoned to death for picking up wood on the Sabbat. We got whole nations being slaughtered just because they're in the way of the Isrealites. I mean, WHAT THE FUCK? Especially how women can believe in the Christian God is beyond me. They must not be aware how bad their gender is being treated in the Bible.

The standard modern Christian reply will be that you have to ignore everything in the Old Testament (except what's politically convenient since the whole discrimination of homosexuality comes from there) and the last bits of the New Testament (because Revelations is also hilariously counter to the whole "God is good" narrative).

But, I mean, picking and choosing has been the main complaint of the faith since forever. Read all the stuff about charity and aiding the poor and sick. Then recall the conditions of Christian nations during the medieval age and the opulence of the Vatican. Or then there's the whole Crusades. How about the Catholic treatment of Mennonites? The list goes on and on.

The article's argument is pretty moot since there's never been a time when the author's conception of God was ever truly held.

 

[Carcetti]

Didn't even read the whole article, but everyone should know the stereotypical US way of life is not compatible with Jesus.

1. Jesus doesn't like riches. You should give all your money away.
2. Jesus doesn't apprrove of violence even in self defence. The other cheek, yeah?
3. Jesus hangs out with sinners, whores, whoever. Doesn't judge, doesn't throw the first stone.

All these are the opposite of fundie Christians. It's like they never read the Bible in their life.

 

[jmdajr]

It's an anecdote but the evangelicals I know either voted for Cruz or Rubio in Texas and Arkansas. The reasoning seems to be a pretty consistent criticism of how crude he is...so it's basically related to that other thread about the article of kids having to leave the room when he talks.

Then again I have no clue what is going on in the rural southeast since that seemed to go for Trump.

The dude won border counties in Texas! wtf????

Then again the border is almost 99% democrat. So although he won....maybe it was like 10 votes per county.

 

[TheOctodad]

Same with my facebook and my friends. Yet, not one of them sees the similarity to Cruz in particular:

Deport 11 million people. Full Stop. Bible has a lot to say about immigrants.
"Donald is not going to let people die in the street. Socialism!"
Carpet bomb the middle east.

That's insane. I should rephrase. Most of the friends/pastors I know are equally blasting Cruz/Rubio, etc. Really any politician. They haven't let Hilary off the hook for some of her choices either.

At the end of the day, politics and Christianity should never be in bed together. Greg Boyd's Myth of a Christian Nation really is a good read.

 

[jmdajr]

Didn't even read the whole article, but everyone should know the stereotypical US way of life is not compatible with Jesus.

1. Jesus doesn't like riches. You should give all your money away.
2. Jesus doesn't apprrove of violence even in self defence. The other cheek, yeah?
3. Jesus hangs out with sinners, whores, whoever. Doesn't judge, doesn't throw the first stone.

All these are the opposite of fundie Christians. It's like they never read the Bible in their life.

Spoiler

I don't get it

 

[TheOctodad]

Didn't even read the whole article, but everyone should know the stereotypical US way of life is not compatible with Jesus.

1. Jesus doesn't like riches. You should give all your money away.
2. Jesus doesn't apprrove of violence even in self defence. The other cheek, yeah?
3. Jesus hangs out with sinners, whores, whoever. Doesn't judge, doesn't throw the first stone.

All these are the opposite of fundie Christians. It's like they never read the Bible in their life.

I agree with the spirit of what you say here and I'd far rather people take this stance than what they currently do. But point 1 and 2 are an oversimplification.

1. Jesus tells one person to give all their money away and has harsh things to say about people who are wealthy who don't use their position to help others. It's not a blanket statement that everyone "Should give all of their money away." Hell, Jesus' ministry was bankrolled by some wealthy supporters.

2. Jesus seems to be supporting a non-violent position - which is different than a pacifist stance. Walter Wink has some great research on this, but to summarize: His "turning the other cheek" and other guidelines in His sermon on the mount are cultural ways of active, but non-violent resistance. They were intended to expose the injustices of the oppressor without resorting to violence.

 

[Khaz]

The article states something somewhat obvious, but it's quite well articulated. Americanism is not Christianity any more, it's a fourth religion of the book. Considering how Many revere the constitution and its amendments as much as or more than the Ten Commandments, how (white) Americans are better than anyone else, almost like a chosen people, I wonder how long it would take for the President of the USA to become a religious leader if Republicans and their values became a constant majority in the country. Praise the Potus and his nine Justices and follow their words, as only Them can interpret correctly the word of God as written in the Constitution.

 

[Toa TAK]

Article isn't wrong, though, I'm pretty sure we all knew it to begin with.

Well techinically, the catholics are wrong according to the new testament. So no one who calls themself a Christian gives a shit what they think.

I didn't knew Martin Luther had a GAF account.

I'm willing to bet the average black american knows as much if not more about the Bible than the average republican.

What does that have to do with Martin Luther?

The most influential black American.

Made this thread.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Can be? Dude, we got people getting stoned to death for picking up wood on the Sabbat. We got whole nations being slaughtered just because they're in the way of the Isrealites. I mean, WHAT THE FUCK? Especially how women can believe in the Christian God is beyond me. They must not be aware how bad their gender is being treated in the Bible.

Women were actually some of early Christianity's most important supporters. There are many women martyrs and in a number of significant conversions it was the wife of the ruler who converted, then pushed her husband towards Christianity. After that if the ruler converts then the ruled were generally considered part of the religion even if their beliefs weren't fully compatible with the religion in practice. One of the best examples is the conversion of Clovis but there are others.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Didn't even read the whole article, but everyone should know the stereotypical US way of life is not compatible with Jesus.

1. Jesus doesn't like riches. You should give all your money away.
2. Jesus doesn't apprrove of violence even in self defence. The other cheek, yeah?
3. Jesus hangs out with sinners, whores, whoever. Doesn't judge, doesn't throw the first stone.

All these are the opposite of fundie Christians. It's like they never read the Bible in their life.

I don't think you quite understood his point

 

[JohnsonUT]

I just edited my last post, after the other guy gave me a new Bible quote about a perceived threat being a real threat to those who perceive it.
Im also defending peoples right to make up their own minds without being lectured to by some article trying to religiously blackmail them. Im not an American, a religious person or a Trump guy, I just think what the article is attempting to do is wrong.
I dont think you can argue with my logic, so you are resorting to threats. That makes for a poor discussion.



Well, I know little of specific Bible quotes. I got dragged to church when I was a kid and that is as religious as I ever got.
The problem with the latest quote you gave is the same as the other, in that neither Jesus or God ask the individual to sacrifice the well being of others to help a stranger.
God or Jesus want me to strangle my family to truly follow them? ok. Done. Now where do they ask me to put others at risk to help another individual? It doesnt say that anywhere, does it? God/Jesus only say risk yourself to help another individual. And that seems logical to me, because an individual has no moral right to risk the life of someone else without their consent.

But even me risking my life to help someone is inherently risking my child's life. If I were to die, my child would be raised without a father. That would definitely hurt my child's well being. Financially, developmentally, emotionally. My child might be physically safe, but his well being has been hurt.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

That is the first thing I actually thought about when reading the article.

That's because it applies.

 

[TheOctodad]

The standard modern Christian reply will be that you have to ignore everything in the Old Testament (except what's politically convenient since the whole discrimination of homosexuality comes from there) and the last bits of the New Testament (because Revelations is also hilariously counter to the whole "God is good" narrative).

But, I mean, picking and choosing has been the main complaint of the faith since forever. Read all the stuff about charity and aiding the poor and sick. Then recall the conditions of Christian nations during the medieval age and the opulence of the Vatican. Or then there's the whole Crusades. How about the Catholic treatment of Mennonites? The list goes on and on.

The article's argument is pretty moot since there's never been a time when the author's conception of God was ever truly held.

This statement is both completely untrue and true. I would argue that this position has been held by many Christians since the time of Jesus. Many people argue for a Christ centric reading of the Bible, arguing that you start with modeling your life after Jesus' life and everything else is subject to that filter.

However, ever since Christianity became adopted as the main religion, it has been utilized as a destructive tool of oppression and justification for violence. People in power will always utilize methods, religion, technology, etc. to justify their nationalistic and egocentric desires. Christianity, whenever used to dominate and overpower, is rotten to the core. A mere shell of what the idea of "following the footsteps of Christ" was.

In other words, if a Christian seeks power and dominance, they are immediately "anti-Christ" in the most literal sense of the word. Despite what they claim to adhere to.

 

[jmdajr]

The article states something somewhat obvious, but it's quite well articulated. Americanism is not Christianity any more, it's a fourth religion of the book. Considering how Many revere the constitution and its amendments as much as or more than the Ten Commandments, how (white) Americans are better than anyone else, almost like a chosen people, I wonder how long it would take for the President of the USA to become a religious leader if Republicans and their values became a constant majority in the country. Praise the Potus and his nine Justices and follow their words, as only Them can interpret correctly the word of God as written in the Constitution.

The Constitution is the Bible! And Don't ever change or adapt!
No. 2 is here forever.

edit: Then Again considering The Constitution is the real deal to the people, they sure don't understand no.1 very well.