Where's the lie ?

18 hours ago by sous-merde to c/catholicism

My answer is that christians weren't in control of the government, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
However, the immediate counter-argument will point out that power corrupts, even the Church was at some time in its 20 centuries-long history corrupted by the powerful/wealthy, who couldn't care less about meekness, poverty, ...
Now they don't even have a territory left, nor schools or any kind of power. Christian families aren't even allowed to teach their children outside government schools in France. State workers aren't allowed to wear visible religious signs. Etc...

No need to develop, it's just the same usual opposition between a "liberation theology" and a "prosperity gospel", between a focus on the obviousness/message/urgency/future and a focus on the faith/identity/tradition/past.
The far-right clearly does not care about helping those outside our tribe/group, such as ethnic/religious minorities, the poor, foreigners, homeless, marginalized/vulnerable, ... If we had been polytheists for the last thousands of years, then they wouldn't be the kind of people to convert to christianism. They'd laugh at the past importance of a "gentle man", only idealists&losers aren't machiavelians they say, what's one more lie if Hell doesn't exist.
They're in my group though, like non-humans, i still believe as i did back then that it's a matter of finding the right words, of listening to their answers, ...
One day they will be forced to confront better alternatives to the present, the kind in which the whole benefits instead of them, and i will see them unable to spin the arguments in their favor. I live for that day, and i will help in making it happen, one day.

Anyway, nothing new, just one more useless post telling things that everyone agrees with, and without receiving a counter-argument since i'm posting in an echo chamber. It's pointless but whatever

Diplomjodler3 15 points 17 hours ago

All of this is true but using religion as a pretext for imperialist aggression is an idea that is a old as religion itself.

save

path: 0 26285137, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 0

SnoopSqueak 12 points 16 hours ago

The abrahamic faiths are death cults.

Can we please denormalize deadly delusion?

save

path: 0 26286131, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 4

geneva_convenience 2 points 6 hours ago

Western society is less religious than ever, yet it's more murderous than ever. Obama wasn't bombing countries because of religion but "self-defense" the favorite Casus Beli for any imperialist force.

Blaming religions for Capitalist imperialism is a Liberal cop-out to not have to face the root cause.

save

path: 0 26286131 26291876, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 3

dropdrip 0 points 22 minutes ago

Your reply doesn't really make sense.

Abrahamic faiths are death cults. That's an independent and true statement.

Technology has increased capacity to murder at scale--that's independent of an empire's 'religiosity'. Your post suggests that if the Western empire was more devote to a religion it would be less murderous. I don't think that makes any sense at all, especially when the most angry and confused in Western politics come directly from the Churches.

save

path: 0 26286131 26291876 26295272, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 2

elixir_fan 1 point 11 minutes ago

No, their point isn't that religion makes you less murderous, but that whether you're religious or not plays less into how much murder you commit, compared to factors grounded in material reality, such as the mode of production, the competition for resources, geopolitics, etc.

The Japanese fascists didn't go around enslaving, genociding and so on because of religion, and they were certainly not Abrahamic. And you also had slavery in Europe way before Christians showed up, but you'd be a fool if you blamed Roman and Greek slavery on their polytheism.

Religion is an important factor when analyzing a society, for sure, but it's not the main driver of history, it never was, it never will be, and there's a good chance it will simply wither away under socialism, assuming the government isn't wildly reactionary against religious people and so on.

save

path: 0 26286131 26291876 26295272 26295463, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

dropdrip 1 point 4 minutes ago

None of this makes sense. There's one message that state's abrahmic religions are death cults. That's true. The reply isn't even a tangent, but responds to something that isn't even in the message.

save

path: 0 26286131 26291876 26295272 26295463 26295590, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

DeathsEmbrace 4 points 17 hours ago

Well the problem comes from the fact they want that God to be white.

save

path: 0 26284961, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 2

Pierre121000 1 point 17 hours ago

We're all guilty of excluding people from other groups :

for most people it's ideological(, e.g., our national bourgeoisie may feel closer to the comprador bourgeoisie of other countries), which is i.m.o. the main cause of modern wars(, which aim to erase islamism(, or at least the anti-zionist ones, for now), communism, indigenism, and whatever really different ideology survived colonization) ;
for our kings/presidents it was/is about the nation : we talked about the french/german/.. "race" for decades before WW2 ; communism was/is internationalist/humanist by opposition to the nationalisms ; it was the main cause of wars in the past(, which aimed to expand their national territories), as well as for (neo-)colonialism ;
for some it's about religions(, e.g. the surviving palestinians are treated inhumanely by jewish israelis, under unconvincing pretexts and more deeply a lack of compensation/responsability on our part for a situation we(sterners) created/maintain) ; it was not the main cause of wars in the past, i.m.h.o., except for the Crusades and internal schisms ;
...

In any case, the point is that, to me, we should be absolutely good to others(, all others, caveat), not in name but in deeds, right now, that's far from new, everyone makes mistakes.
But it's not a "debate" on Lemmy that will change anything, however good it may be. Internet will produce better things than Wikipedia and social medias, it will force the discussion, it's not over as long as they don't censor our Internet.

save

path: 0 26284961 26285435, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

story 0 points 2 hours ago

my buddy says he's blue, and very tall

save

path: 0 26284961 26293763, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

NathanRanch 2 points 8 hours ago

Tribes with religion usually made it further than ones that didn't. Only evolution could have created it. It's a framework we unintentionally weave ourselves into that makes the collective us a little more cohesive. The details don't matter a bit, so long as people buy it. Talk about oooh, my religion is a LITTLE less violent than yours, kill yourself heathen! And it's like, you're both willing fools, why can't you just agree it's made up and pretend together under the same god if it's so damn important. Religions make bones with each other because it helps religion as a whole move forward. It's alive in it's own way completely in our heads. I think that's beautiful and terrifying to try and recon with. You couldn't kill religion in a way that matters if you tried.

By arguing one over the other, or one as inferior in belief, you're missing the point. It's all made up so people can be used in a way that makes them comfortable with it for the sake of the whole. It's a power structure that can be used against others, but that's not unique to religion in any way. It's a red herring, and betrays any wisdom you might be trying to convey.

save

path: 0 26290509, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

Pierre121000 0 points 6 hours ago

(It's always much more than just that, but )If you're grateful for the existence of everything, then express it.

save

path: 0 26290509 26291474, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

Juice 1 point 2 hours ago

Slop PFP?

save

path: 0 26294088, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Doomsider 1 point 16 hours ago

A lie indicates the author is deliberately trying to decieve. I think the author is presenting a one-sided critical analysis of Christianity and is somewhat accurate in spirit at least.

To start off saying they built a civilization with the idea God is on their side defines a lot of cultures outside even abrahamic religions. I think it is a point, but perhaps not a very strong one considering most civilizations have operated similarly.

When he says not a foreign God I would have to disagree. Christianity was very much a foreign God that was introduced by the sword to my ancestors. I think this is a minor hang up on my part though because I have always looked at Christianity as a religion from the Middle East.

He makes a point that the older gods in the abrahamic faith were brutal and if the Americans (I am guessing here) were to worship them they would at least be honest considering how much destruction they cause. This is an interesting thought experiment and seems to have some merit at face value.

He correctly highlights some of Jesus's core tenets and ask the common question, if you believe in this man then why the abuse, violence, discrimination, war, etc. I think you can ask this question of any country though so while correct it doesn't seem to be a problem with just America.

He creates some interesting mental imagery saying putting Jesus on aircraft carriers. The US is definitely guilty of the Jesus Warrior mentality that has existed for a very long time. He goes on to highlight the US intertwining its Christian beliefs with its violent actions. This is very valid criticism. I know I always cringe when God is brought up in the context of the military.

His coup de grace is that the US military is fundamentally opposed to the message of Jesus. This is valid criticism, but it doesn't really hit hard on a Christian Fundamentalist just like bringing up passages in the Koran advocating peace doesn't hit hard on a Islamic Fundamentalist.

So back to the question. I don't feel the author is trying to lie. There are a lot of ways of viewing these things. Their viewpoints have some good reasoning behind them but may not be strictly historically or factually correct by every assessment.

save

path: 0 26285662, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0