You can’t be a Charlie Kirk and vote. I mean it’s so complicated. You have to do a little checkmark on a ballot, and fold it? What is he, a rocket scientist?
Be like Charlie Kirk. Be unable to vote, but proficient in glue sniffing.
Note that most protestants adhere to Sola fides and Sola Scriptura, which means Kirk and other minister can only offer their stinky opinion. Your relationship to God is between you and Them, and how you personally read the bible (e.g. which passages take priority, which are literal, which are out of date.)
If you’re Catholic, then you’re bolden to the Pope, the CDF (the Inquisition) and your hierarchy of clergy. But then most Catholics I know are laid back and will chow down steak on Friday and use contraceptives as it suits them. I’m not fully cognizant of how they do it without cognitive dissonance.
Anyhow, this means it’s fully possible to be Christian and athiest, though most are still closeted about their atheism.
Personally, I’m a naturalist, but my process of getting here involved coming to terms with insignificance of a magnitude that was overwhelming. But the process gave me an awareness of some of the difficulties others might have confronting the stark truth of the matter, so Camus’ notion of philosophical suicide can be very attractive.
That said, it’s better for someone to own their faith, and to go into it willingly and informed, rather than it serving as a device by which ministries and apologists use it to turn them into a cash cow or instant soldier. But the foundational doctrine of Protestantism was intended to steer the faithful back to defining truth for themselves (since the Church was glad to squeeze them for toil and coin and send them on crusades. The individual can’t blame God or scripture or even their own ministry for justifying hate through faith.
The devil didn’t make you do it: It’s still on you.
CORRECT! TRUE Christians ONLY vote REPUBLICAN! And ONLY TRUE Jewie people vote REPUBLICAN! And ONLY TRUE Any Religion without Brown people or Gay people vote REPUBLICAN! And even the Gay Religions ONLY vote Republican!
Economically, I would say closer to communist. However, he was also bigoted, vindictive and believed in eternal torture, and also hated divorce. So I wouldn’t call him all that radically left-wing either.
Not to mention he probably had more in common with televangelist faith healers. I wouldn’t be too bothered if someone insisted he was actually loaded; or was at least living the high life.
The eternal torture thing was added in later when the second advent failed to materialize. The divine justice thing is more a platonic ideal than one of Jesus.
Most early Christians were universalist but didn’t acknowledge an afterlife. That stuff materialized 200+ CE.
I’m pretty sure the gospel translations we have today are include some significant edits, with all the others derived from Mark. What I don’t know is if mentions of Hell or Hellfire as an afterlife torture program are from the first century as I am not a biblical scholar. The common feared fate was gehenna, the garbage dumpsite where refuse was burned, including the bodies of the poor, outcasts and criminals.
I wrote a blog cataloguing Hell in 2016. I’ve been told Limbo was never a part of it though George Carlin was taught about Limbo when he was in parochial school, so there’s a lot of misinformation and changing opinions within ecclesiastic scholarship.
But I also don’t know if there was a definite period in which spiritual interpretations were added in. The scholarly consensus is that the apostles expected the world to end within their lifetime, and Jesus would return to collect them all and sort everyone out. They would not need to die to see their eternal life, which was literal.
But that didn’t happen. In fact, Christian history teems with apocalyptic disappointments.
He was bigoted against the Caananite woman in Matthew 15.
He was vindictive against the fig tree that did not bear fruit out of season in Mark 11.
He condemns all non believers to eternal torture in John 3:18 specifically.
So no. He was not a socialist liberal. And the fact that you have to be told this by an atheist Jew says something about the propaganda you’ve been fed.
So many people who say abortion is murder also say it’s acceptable for rape and incest.
They are not consistent on that most of the time even though a fetus is a fetus. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they aren’t, but you can see from there that they’re hypocritical.
Vast majority of these people who say abortion is murder support the death penalty without a blink of the eye, even and especially in cases where there is serious doubts if the accused is the perpetrator of the crime.
Which is ironic since, in Catholicism (at least), people are apparently born with sin, and also everyone can be forgiven. Just shows you how much they really care about what their religion says. They prefer the beliefs that make the world seem a lot more simple than it really is
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect an a-posteriori claim from a falsifying counterexample by covertly modifying the initial claim. Rather than admitting error or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, the claim is modified into an a-priori claim in order to definitionally exclude the undesirable counterexample. The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, etc.
Of course not. Religion is a control scheme, if you’re not being controlled (by them) than you’re not a member of whichever religion they’re appealing to in order to control you.
Add comment