There are some angels in this place
The white people lynching black people are ALL christians. All of the KKK are christians, that’s a christian only organization. MAGA is christian. Yes, real christians. German nazis were christians. Italian nazis were catholic. It’s not new.
Stop supporting religion. All of it. Immediately. Religion is the cause of all of this hate, and always will be.
Fuck fictional angels and the people that lie to children about them.
you can be right about religion’s connection to right-wing politics and bigotry, but referring to someone as an angel because they do something wonderful doesn’t even imply you believe angels exist or that you are religious at all (let alone devout or dedicated to religion). This makes your reaction feel out of place given the context, both in how extreme it is, and in how it responds to a casual reference to someone being an angel as if they had just sworn loyalty to the Bible.
An entirely different person called him an angel. Maybe check usernames before typing out a whole ass paragraph?
hm? I’m confused … how would checking usernames change anything?
EDIT: just to make it explicit:
/u/ganksy.worldrefers to Kaepernick as an “angel” for donating for an independent autopsy of a Black man found hanging from a tree. It is clear from context gansky did not mean a literal religious meaning of “angel”, but meant it in the generic way people mean someone is kind or good (like how “angelic” might mean beautiful, sweet, etc.) - it loses the theological meaning and is being applied in a secular way.Then
/u/DreamAccountant.world(display name:Cosmoooooooo) responds to that use of “angel” with righteous anger about the connection between religion and bigotry, implying that describing someone as an “angel” for doing good is tantamount to “supporting religion” and thus supporting bigotry.I respond to
/u/DreamAccountant.worldexplaining how this seems like an overreaction, and that it doesn’t seem reasonable to think someone referring to a nice person as an “angel” is any kind of endorsement of religion, let alone religious bigotry.What I don’t see is where I responded to the wrong person … what am I missing here?
It’s a bit of a stretch to assume that just because someone calls a good person an “angel” that the person is religious.
Religion is the cause of all of this hate
Absolutely not. Religion is a pretext for the violence that people with power already want to commit. Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for domination of others.
and always will be.
I’m not even remotely religious or even open to religion, but there are decent religious people out there. Frankly, some Christians are comrades, much more so than some atheists. Here’s an example:
And for a less radical example, see Liberation Theology.
Tribalism kills
I wouldn’t call them real Christians if they don’t follow the teachings of Jesus, they’re Christians in Name Only (CINOs). Jesus calls on people to do good works and have faith. These people think they are justified to do whatever they want in life and then pat themselves on the back saying “it’s all good!” when they’re knocking on death’s door.
They’re patently ignoring the teachings of the Jesus, they’re not even reading their Bibles. They think what they do here on earth doesn’t matter at all, but what Jesus talks about is the exact opposite.
Things like loving your enemy as you love yourself, feeding the hungry, giving clothes to those without, shelter to those who need it, showing forgiveness to those who wrong you, and knowing that you are loved.
Edit: If you disagree I would appreciate a dialogue on the subject.
Edit: If you disagree I would appreciate a dialogue on the subject.
Labeling someone clearly identifying as christian as “not true
scotsmanchristian” seems like purity gatekeeping, you are basically calling them heretics. This is real christianity too and a story as old as christianity itself.Is it though? They’re not following the very teachings of Jesus. I would call them something else entirely if they don’t follow the teachings of Jesus. Maybe some form of Bibliogians, but not Christians.
Why not? They do follow some of the shittier parts of old testament which Jesus explicitly ordered to keep, not their fault the religion is loose and contradictionary enough so basically everything can be justified by it. Not to mention tons of historical edits. Also 90% of christianity for ages was more or less as they are and looking at the European colonialism and white supremacy they follow it is the legacy of christianity too.
Jesus said he was not there to cast away the old laws, meaning the 10 Commandments, but he was telling them it was okay to leave behind the ritual purity laws that the early Israelites had committed themselves to following.
I would say that many bad people have tried to justify their bad actions in the name of their faith or religion, but I do not think that it makes the actions of those individuals something that is okay.
Some early Christians were eager to add a few extra parts to the Bible for instance that justified the patriarchy in the church. They attributed a few sections as being directly from Paul, but they were written by some of the other early Christians instead but attributed to Paul to give them weight.
The issue is that so many people do not follow Jesus’ example whatsoever. They look at Jesus, see what Jesus did was great, but then do not seek to emulate Jesus or his teachings.
meaning the 10 Commandments
See, you are already interpreting it in your way. It’s all up to interpretation.
Some early Christians were eager to add a few extra parts to the Bible
Understatement of the last two millenia, ever hear about council of Chalcedon and all others? And it was only the tip of the iceberg. And even after all that what remins is still a total mess so you have like thousands of churches, sects and whatever else. Every christian is not true christian in the eyes of some other christians. What makes you authority?
The issue is that so many people do not follow Jesus’ example whatsoever. They look at Jesus, see what Jesus did was great, but then do not seek to emulate Jesus or his teachings.
As i said that would exclude like at least 90% of christians both now and historically.
Do you know about Cynefin? Would you disagree if I say that religion is a complex Cynefin system and therefore can’t be entirely predictable? Would you say Lutheranism and the Theology of Liberation are equally as problematic as the KKK and Nazis?
Would you say Lutheranism and the Theology of Liberation are equally as problematic as the KKK and Nazis?
Not as bad, but for example Sweden is and Prussia was lutheran, it’s also religion of majority of Germany so majority of nazis were also lutheran, Bismarck and his kulturkampf too. Liberation thology is also better than mainstream catholicism but it’s still toothless class collaboration ideology that deradicalizes people, a kind of religious socialdemocracy.
Boss
