Just a note, Jesus wasn't actually purple even though he is depicted here as such.
post
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.
I mean, it should be obvious to Christians today that Jesus repeatedly and consistently made a clear distinction between the "kingdom of heaven" and secular nations. Separation of church and state was absolutely one of the premises the early church worked off of as a teaching of Jesus himself. The idea of a "Christian Nation" is indeed antithetical to the very foundations of Christianity. The early history of Christianity is pretty lost on people today and people are quite unaware of just how drastic the changes in Christianity were in the early 300s, and how gigantic of a deal it was for the Roman state to adopt Christianity at the time.
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.
tβs 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.
Isnβt 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.
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.
I'm sure muslims know how to translate it from arabic back to their native languages
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.
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.
Iβm going with the paradox of tolerance on that.
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.
βDID I FUCKING STUTTER?β
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
I don't see the problem. Love them and stone them, like the law demands. No need to complicate it any further.
Nothing about all of that in the big book. Now wearing both wool and linen, however...


top 50 comments