Thousands of Southern Baptists overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to advance a formal ban on women pastors in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, sending a clear message that men alone should preach to these conservative evangelical congregations.
That’s some very wild and original claims, lol. I know you don’t want to, but I recommend you actually read the Bible before participating in these things. Just the Abrahamic religions in general, it’d be good to brush up on the basics.
If you want to be all grumpy at a teligion, speak out against those that weaponise religions, because that’s actually what’s happening here and has happened all the time through human history. You don’t need to make stuff up and try to link a religion to facism; one that was all about showing kindness and forgiveness to the fucking Romans, no less—who coincidentally did what with religions?
Did what? I’m curious what you think the obvious answer is here.
Without wading into the core tiff you guys are having, I do need to push my proverbial glasses up my nose and point out that the Romans were pagans - polytheists. From what I’ve seen they were pretty tolerant of other gods being worshipped, which is why there was a temple, and the Sanhedrin, and the Pharisees, and so on and so forth, in occupied Jerusalem.
So I think the answer to your rhetorical question above is that the Roman’s famously absorbed or accepted other religions, as long as they didn’t disturb the peace and as long as they weren’t in direct conflict with their laws - which I think Judaism and most early sects of Christianity mostly were - in part because they were intolerant of other gods.
To the degree that there was persecution, it seems like it was mostly linked to Jews or Christians in other cities who refused to make sacrifices to the local gods. If the harvest wasn’t great one season, the locals might start to blame those weirdos who only want one god for some reason, and who offended their local gods. So even this was almost more about disturbing the peace then theology.
Even then, they were often offered amnesty if they would change their minds. They just had to stop doing the thing that was pissing off the locals and their gods.
Obviously Nero Neroed all over the Christians later on but there are good reasons for thinking that was all about framing them for the Great Fire of Rome, which he supposedly started himself so that he could build his Golden House.
Anyway, carry on with whatever this is.
Nah, that’s good points and all true.
My remark was more toward societal use and punishment of religions which varied hugely and was literally opposite of true or reputationally true depending on the Caesar.
Like, Christ was ultimately killed because the Romans were being so chill, “I don’t get it, but if it means that much to you, let’s kill the guy.” Though, Christianity’s own gospel establishes itself on that whole “Go the extra mile” peg aligned to that era’s oppression.
So really, what I said was just broad and kind of valueless since we know what the Romans were like in that period.
And as for what that is; wasn’t ever sure. It seemed like a whole lot of regurgitated doctrine that was unfortunately very easily triggered and presented in a gigantic everything salad. I think it’s still going, but it really depends on fatigue levels. My only investment was around the misrepresentation and not the details, since these are all recorded and widely known. It’s never nice to see history weaponised and cherry picked, but in there lies some irony.
I think at this point it’s just a typical “The devil’s advocate is the devil” scenario. Faceless target dummy and all.
only if your level of understanding comes from Sunday school classes that don’t actually go into anything uncomfortable. If you read the scholarship… it’s not that uncommon.
First off, recognize that Jesus wasn’t “christian”, he was an aramaic jew. You can read about what (modern) jews say here, for example.
Of particular note is that the messiah is going to gather the exiles, restore mosiac law, bring reward to the righteous, restore the line of david (because they’re a direct heir to david,) and rebuild jerusalem and the temple there.
that link also has the list of all the passages that are deemed to be messianic prophecy at the bottom. These are the prophecies that the coming messiash is supposed to fulfill. I don’t think christian Sunday School teachers (or priests, or pastors, or even the pope himself) is going to admit to you that Jesus did not fulfill any of them, in the context as originally given. Which is why, for example, the authors of mathew go to Isaiah 7:14 and insist there’s a virgin there. (‘parthenos’ originally was just a young woman. it only later came to mean, specifically, a virgin woman. the orgiinal hebrew was “a pregnant young woman” and the only purpose of that was an indication of time for the rest of the prophecy to be fulfilled.)
If you don’t want to follow those links (it goes to sefaria, which uses the JPS english translation)… Here are the relevant prophecies in Isaiah, Jerimiah, Ezekiel 38:18, Hosea 3, Micah 4, Zephaniah 3, Zechariah 14, Daniel 10.
Jeremiah 30:18 pretty much sums up what I’m saying here:
it’s in the middle of a prophecy about restoring Israel from exile, so definitely read the full context there.
Or, there’s promises of protection as found in Ezekiel 38:17-23:
verse 18 is considered the messianic prophecy, but I’ve included the others fro more context. immediately prior, god is saying that he’s going to CAUSE Gog to invade. he’s saying he’ll put hook sin their mouth and drag them to war (verse 4,) that he’ll put evil thoughts into their minds (verse 10,)
or there’s Micah 4:11-13
Or there’s Zecharia 14:9
that’s a military campaign, yo. I would call that global domination. Though they only knew about a relatively small corner of the world. it goes on in 12-19
?16Then all who survive of the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Festival of Booths. 17If any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain upon them. 18And if the family of Egypt do not go up and present themselves, there will be no rain for them; there will be the plague that the Lord inflicts on the nations that do not go up to keep the Festival of Booths. 19Such shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to keep the Festival of Booths.
This is what Jesus was claiming here was here to do when he claimed to be messiah (John 4:25-26,, Mathew 16:15-17, 26:63-64)
Christians love to turn it into something else entirely, but that’s a straight up lie. In Mat 5:17-20, these messianic prophecies are what Jesus is “fulfilling” (as well as the broader covenant with Moses and abraham.)
and while the authors of mathew and luke are wrong every time they say Jesus fulfilled some messianic prophecy- half aren’t even prophecies- the reason they went to all that effort showing what prophecies Jesus fulfilled was to demonstrate that jesus was the messiah. Like the story of Jesus riding on a donkey to fulfill Zechariah 9:9, but jesus was never a king in jerulsalem and just riding a donkey isn’t fulfillment of that.
As for the eternal torture… C’mon. Jesus practically got off on all that torture.
whose the one making shit up?
I imagine Hitler said some nice things from time to time. he was still an awful fucking human. Most people are just people. No one is all-evil or all-good. So what’s your point? that the bible contradicts itself? this is known.
What I do know is that the words of Jesus in the NT contain some absolutely horrific shit and absolutely would- and should- be equated as “fascism” in modern parlance. I mean, in the words of jesus himself, as recorded in the NT: “Don’t be scared of the guy who can kill you… be scared of ME as I claim to be the guy who can kill you AND TORTURE YOU FOR FUCKING ETERNITY!”
Yeah. that totally sounds like a pacifist.
Which brings us back to reading the bible, no? Like. Seriously. there’s parts that are like “Don’t be an ass”, there’s parts that are trying to not be assholish, but would be so today, and then there’s parts that are total assholery. I’m not ignoring the parts that are “don’t be an ass” but I’m also not ignoring the assholery, or the parts where they try to not be assholes but we’d say they are. (like those bits about not beating your slaves to death. yeah. Like. it’s okay to beat your slaves as long as they don’t die that day.)
Jesus was absolutely teaching the Torah and the written law of moses, as stated in mat 5:17-20. not that christians seem to understand that. the implication here is that Jesus was totally on board with all the horrific shit in the “old” testament. including slavery, and it being permissible to beat your slaves to an inch of their lives, so long as they don’t day in a day or two.
Most of what you’re posting isn’t fact-checking, it’s traditional interpretation vs another, on a position of truth, just like a Sunday school teacher acts themselves.
You’ve done little much more than kind of point out some distinctions of why the Christian ideology came to exist while neglecting the foundational ones. Yes, obviously there’s contention of Christ meeting messianic criteria which is literally the whole fucking thing of Abrahamic religions being a plural. But then at the same time you keep referencing the Bible but no other literature whether Judaic, Islamic, or even Mesopotamian/Babylonian laws that suspiciously made their way over amongst other things.
Despite this, you seem to have picked full affirmation based on what the Torah asserts, despite being one of the main splits of Christianity. Completely glossing over how the entire function of Christian law in the NT is deeply covered by Paul—kind of the main guy that defined it all in detail, kicking off the ideology that would be established nearly three centuries later… Through the power of junk mail to different Mediterranean cities and societies, of all methods. Seriously, I don’t know how modern Thessaloniki somehow managed to be cooler than other Greek cities despite being an epicentre.
And then, out of no where, fast-forward to fascism? lol
I don’t think a 1st century apocalyptic preacher or even a 120-year old Nile baby is what Benito had in mind when establishing a political ideology of state rule over all other entities, including religions.
You’ve certainly got a position and I do not think it’s scholarly nor without personal religious influence.
You don’t get to claim that a book is the word of god with binding commandments and then say that the book is incomplete and subject to interpretation.
Which book?
I can’t tell if you’re being rhetorical. There’s many books like this…
Isn’t that a clue that they’re all bullshit and shouldn’t be heeded?
If it worked that way, we’d be ignoring sciences too. Unfortunately the only way is through good old-fashioned critical thought, which is difficult when “spread the word” is baked in.
Citing any religious text as though it holds value is reserved only for fools. There is a reality that doesn’t change regardless of whether religious texts align to it or not, which makes their contents historically interesting but ultimately weightless, worthless.
Edit: my line of questioning was too harsh. But gosh I really don’t even get what you’re trying to imply about intellectual reasoning.
Can you expand on this? That’s a pretty unhinged thing to say. Do you believe that there is One Godly Scientist that writes all Scientific Texts? Is The Scientific Man Who Writes All Scientific Texts in the room with us right now?
“BUT BUT PAUL SAID!”
Paul disagrees with Jesus. so if you follow Jesus, then Paul is a heretic. Mathew 5:17-20 makes that exceptionally clear- the law of moses as written is to be in force until the earth itself passes away.
I’ve not mentioned Paul because he’s fucking irrelevant to what JESUS says. But of course you want to dodge to that. Not that it particularly makes things better. Paul was the kind of ass who sent a ran-away slave back to his owner so that the owner could give him back to Paul as a servant. Paul doesn’t overturn slavery either- and indeed tells slaves to obey their masters. He tells women to obey their husbands and be silent in church. None of this is particularly new or revalatory.
“But they were disciples!”
All a disciple was, is a follower. The women of influence in the bible were largely (rich) people with houses that the early church met at. and while bringing religious affairs into homes like that did give women more access and influence, “WOMEN BE SILENT” is Paul’s instruciton. Details suck, amirite?
the definition of fascism:
Mussolini wasn’t the first authoritarian autocrat to exist. Jesus himself says that:
3.2) Is a king of the line of david.
3.3) that would defeat all of Israel’s enemies
3.4) and institute mosiac law on a global scale
3…5) through military force.
Yeah. Seems pretty fascist to me. Most societies back then were pretty fascist and that sometimes gets glossed over. Particularly when people today want to justify following some dude’s iron age fundamentalist yearnings for bronze age legal codes… details, amirite?
I’m curious as to why I should consider the teachings of Mohamed when talking about the teachings of Jesus?
Explain that to me. Should I also go to the Buddha, as well? Hell. why don’t we go to the shamanism found in central America? or maybe the Sentinel Islanders, who I’m sure have some thoughts…
Nice distraction. As for not including judaic literature… I have been indirectly this entire time. If you don’t like the NSRVUE translation of that literature, would you prefer the JPS? you can find it at Sefaria.org. Given that the topic is Christianity, though, I’d just as soon not put in that work. You’re welcome to cite that if you think you’ll find something relevant.
You’re definitely a former Christian. Maybe Jewish Either way you were a suburban warrior and that “training” disallows you from being subjective.
Or I’m completely wrong and you just somehow naturally landed in your pile of bullshit lol.
I encourage more reading.
Your concept of Fascism is almost insulting to the concept of rationales. You can link whatever Googled output you want, but it won’t change the fact that the guy literally invented it, wrote books and essays about it, and absolutely none of it has anything to do with what you’re talking about. It is as fallacious as cclaiming the ocean is the sky because it too is blue.
I’m incablemof being subjective?
What does that even mean?
Did you mean “objective”?- ie, that I can’t look at things without my personal bias?
Cuz I’d agree with that I can’t be objective- and yes, I’m considering it all from my personal subjective understanding.
As for “Mussolini invented fascism” … that’s a bit naive. Actually, that’s very naive. Yeah he named what we fascism today. He started the first National Fascist Party in Italy, too.
his fascism was a blend of nationalism, populism and extreme authoritarianism.
Now let’s consider that blend in the context of Jesus.
Claiming to be the messiah- a king of the line of David, who would defeat military enemies of Israel and liberate the oppressed Israelites and institute the theocratic monarchy, and lead that theocratic monarchy to control the entire world- means he’s very fucking nationalist.
He claims all authority comes from god. And that be is god, and that disobedience leads to death and eternal torture… he’s extremely fucking authoritarian.
His views of liberating the oppressed and uplifting the destitute; against the uncaring, immoral elite (Pharisees) who led the Jewish people away from the Law, and caused god to be angry with them and who allowed the Roman’s to oppress them in punishment.
So yeah. The term applies, even if it’s uncomfortable to admit, even if it’s anachronistic, does that change that the two have very similar commonalities?