I do find it interesting how many arguments I'll see online that rely on an idealized version of Christianity to make a point of Christianity, as though Christianity would be pure if people followed the "actual" morals. But like, this is what it is, they're talking about a Christian church in the United States of America and the argument is that if MAGAts followed that Christianity, they'd be following "real" Christianity. Christianity was an engine of colonialism and all of the genocidal violence within it; institutions are what they do, not what they say they want to do.

I think a lot of people don't realize that they're making conservative, revisionist narratives when they want to privilege hypocrisy in their arguments rather than morality.

Obvious point here. If you are saying "mass" and 'Church" and "priest". Then you are in a religion with a central governing body that probably insists you don't beat people down and shoot them.

Not sure he's going to be happy just switching buildings.

Not to mention that the early Christians were nothing like what came several hundred years later.

"Actual christianity."

Bruh, there was no actual christ. Can we please grow up?

The bible is literally unbelievable. It contradicts itself. Which gospel are we supposed to believe? Which version of Jesus? Or do we believe Paul, who claimed Jesus was lord yet altered his teachings?

Define "god" and demonstrate that any god exists. No one has been able to do this, which is why I remain an agnostic atheist. Meanwhile, we have more evidence every day that belief in god causes harm to people, which is why I remain antitheistic.

The god of the christian bible is one of the worst ever conceived. A petty, hateful abuser who demands complete subjugation. People call it "love" when god uses violent slaughter to get his way, such as flooding the entire world. "Don't worry, the good people went to heaven. That's better than being alive." It's a death cult.

As always, anyone can interpret the bible any way, and there is no way to verify which is correct.

So we get catholics like this:

"Despite what some Church leaders in America have indicated, a faithful Catholic can support strong and humane immigration law enforcement — by means such as physical barriers, detention and deportation — without violating the teaching of the Church," the report states.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/exclusive-catholic-bishops-chided-sowing-confusion-deportations-stance

And this:

“Political leaders should stop stirring up resentment against officers who are endeavoring to enforce the laws of the country,” he continued. “And protestors should cease interfering with the work of ICE.”

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/01/19/bishop-barron-says-ice-should-focus-on-serious-criminals-urges-protesters-to-cease-interfering/

This is obviously the strategy of the MAGA crowd and all their allies: Take existing things, make them your own, strip away everything meaningful, humane, productive or entertaining about them, and replace it with inhuman cruelty.

There’s nothing remarkable or new about this; it’s simply proof that, despite all the possibilities available to humanity today, we’re still unable to shed our most primitive instincts. Nothing fundamental has changed just because people carry the knowledge of generations in their pockets: it’s just as archaic as it was hundreds of years ago.

It’s almost remarkable just how incorrigibly obtuse the masses are.

Exactly. Everyone has their own personal interpretation that reflects what they want it to and then they project that onto people they want to call "real" Christians.

People use it to argue opposite points constantly.

If that wasn't possible it wouldn't still be around.

Christianity is a collection of religious philosophies. Not every priests agree on all the details and interpret things differently from one another.

The previous pope and his predecessor could not be further apart in how they interpret the bible.

You are (traditionally) supposed to either ask your local religious authority on how to interpret the bible in context of your community or otherwise study the ancient texts to find your own meaning as an aspiring priest.

I understand their is much zealotism and as always power corrupts (and priests have power)

But to ignore that their are valuable philosophical messages in the ideas of the character that is called christs (fictious or a merge of different philosophers) and that some people are capable of practicing their religion in a beneficial and progressive way is immature.

I absolutely agree that the jaweh character is a petty narcissistic asshole, but thats exactly why i became interested in learning about religion at all. One of the things i quickly caught on is that the Christian god is actually the Jewish god, Christianity is a branch of it specifically around Jesus.

I am not religious nor Christian, i don’t believe anything in the bible describes a real event but Jesus remains a great role model, and quite the social anarchist.

A message of unconditional love, accepting others without judgment and helping those in need, it simply cant be more in contrast with US Nat-C(ristian) hate. That is the contrast what is generally meant with “actual christianity”

KKKristians

But to ignore that their are valuable philosophical messages in the ideas of the character that is called christs (fictious or a merge of different philosophers) and that some people are capable of practicing their religion in a beneficial and progressive way is immature.

You are dangerously wrong. It's a death cult.

Did you know that all of those good things are even better without the foundation of an abusive god? Do you realize that "christ" has a specific meaning, a human sacrifice to save us from a punishment we do not deserve in the first place?

Please use your brain. People are dying.

Jesus remains a great role model, and quite the social anarchist.

He did not invent his teachings. The golden rule predates him. He preached one way and lived another, he was a hypocrite. He was a delusional narcissist who got a lot of people killed for his bullshit.

Did he do some good? Sure. But there's more poison in there than you realize. You can do so much better, please find a role model who doesn't use baseless claims to manipulate people.

A message of unconditional love

Are you kidding? It's as conditional as it gets, you must submit completely to him or he'll punish you. That is not love.

accepting others without judgment

He was constantly judging people. At this point, I'm wondering whether you have read the bible.

and helping those in need

When he felt like it.

it simply cant be more in contrast with US Nat-C(ristian) hate.

It's exactly the same. "Submit or die."

That is the contrast what is generally meant with “actual christianity”

There is a difference between following Jesus and following christ. Both are harmful, but at least Jesus was (probably) real. There is no actual christ, there are no actual christians.

Please never make the mistake of defending a death cult again.

I always just call christianity a fandom and the bible "a sci-fi" novel. I'm somewhat convinced that "religions" are just fandoms from thousands of years ago. In 2000 years I would not be surprised to see "Jedi" as a top "religion" (it's already nearly 1% of all brits in the uk).

I mean, sure, but what I'm cautioning against is prescribing any normative definition or configuration of Christianity, as it then implies an idealized version is real, and therefore that the problem is that people aren't following the religion the "right" way, not that there is something systemic that influences how the religion functions in society.

There were baptists in central Europe that allowed women to serve as pastors as early as the early modern period, which is markedly different than what Baptism is like in the US today. During the Second Great Awakening of the early nineteenth century, there were Christian denominations that practiced polyamory and collective property ownership. These were developments that coincided with Christianity as an institution of settler-colonialism and EuroAmerican imperialism, and they were certainly not accepted by larger or more formal denominations at the time; still wouldn't be today. It should also go without saying that they wouldn't reflect the churches in the period you're referring to even if just because they emerged in relation to what came afterward.

It is important to deny ownership of moral values by the institutions that configure and disseminate them for this exact same reason. Even though they serve a purpose within the system they exist in, they meet a need of the people who subscribe to them, and normativity is what stifles their ability to wrestle that utility away from these institutions.

I think a lot of people don't realize that they're making conservative, revisionist narratives when they want to privilege hypocrisy in their arguments rather than morality.

Too many words past saliency. You attribute more than the source problem is.

"Institutions are what they do, not what they say they want to do."

Is the correctly angled form of a pattern of thinking that starts within the individual, and it often looks like:

"Judge me by my intentions, not my actions"

It takes a certain requisite amount of empathy and critical thinking to flip 'intention' and 'actions' into their proper paths using the self awareness route.

The only meaningful shortcut is the existence of a well patterned role-model(s) in that individual's life.

Both are in short supply nowadays, leading not to self awareness correction, but to expanding the conceit outwards. "If the Christians were like...If the Senators were like...if Capitalism was like...".

A simple trap, and one of the most effective ones in holding us back as a collective.

Oh sure, I think my point was more that they've cherry-picked what "version" they want to idealize.

Christianity marked a shift in how humanity thought of itself. The earth, nature, and all the animals were made for men, by the one true God, to use and take as they pleased. This line of thinking led to colonialism, slavery, and even capitalism and the patriarchy.

I'm not sure if you meant to use "salient" here (as in you're using the word incorrectly), but I definitely wasn't trying make my writing that.

I'm also not sure about what else is said here either. Plenty of people behave immorally despite having role models; and I'd hardly say good people are in short supply despite how doomers insist the world is right now. I'd also caution against resorting to individualist explanations for this as well, and I was trying to discourage that by emphasizing the relationality between individuals and systems.

This is also by no means nothing even remotely new, but the specific form of normativity that people engage with this from did indeed emerge from modern European colonialism, and therefore Christianized notions of moral purity. But by, "nowadays" I reckon you're not positioning this as a centuries-long development.

And then, "holding us back," itself casts a normative construction of how things ought to be, which is exactly what I've cautioned against. I'd hardly imagine your understanding of a collective addresses decolonialism in a way that doesn't subordinate groups or values that are "holding us back," from some idealized, "proper" state that thing should be in by now.

I'm going to have to see a big ol'source for that one. You're saying that's a Christian thing exclusively, and not found in any of the cultural or religious influences on Christianity? How could you even begin to draw that line? Even more, you're saying that, despite roughly fifteen hundred years of change, that was a core value that existed in the exact same way from the beginning of Christianity to European colonialism? Not even translations effected something so fundamental? Why would Christian patriarchy do this, but not Greek or Roman or Iranian? Why was it absent in Judaism but present here?

Even beyond that, you just subscribed to a normative construction of humanity and morality by asserting that capitalism emerged through this religion, and not that specific property relations and systems of power influenced how both are understood within our culture over time. For example, domination and objectification of the living world are certainly elements in this, but it's difficult to argue Christianity is why that's so and not that that was so, and Christianity exists as it does as a result of that.

Edit: I'm also just going to add that, though I'm sure this wasn't intentional, this also ends up carrying deeply colonial and white supremacist notions of superiority by attributing that much gravity to the one religion that EuroAmerican imperialists happened to subscribe to. They got to have the religion that was so foundational, so world-changing that it marked a break in the entirety of human self-perception? I get were saying capitalism is bad, but exceptionalizing it in this way reproduces narratives that white supremacists find favourable.

But that's also like, the point. The practice of scripture is about having a shared tool to make sense of things as it is the faith that that tool is indeed the right one to do so. Everyone uses it for their own ends.

Yes, I'm saying "cherry-picking" suggests there are bad and good cherries, when it's just cherries.

Well, it's arguable that some of these religious "cherries" are worse than others, but I don't find any of them to be crisp and delicious.

I'm not sure if you meant to use "salient" here, but I definitely wasn't trying make my writing that.

No, I meant 'saliency'. The sentence called for the noun form, not the adjective base.

I just clearly failed to explain what it was that I found salient and it's not as self-evident in the light of your message as I hoped. Alas.

I'm also not sure...state that thing should be in by now.

I appreciate the reiteration, but you're still perpendicular parallel (Edit: Geometry is hard) to the point I was trying to make.

Which does not contradict yours, but seeks to expose the individualist core from which the sentiments you are focusing on one abstraction layer above stem from.

I was not focusing on individualist anything.

And then, "holding us back," itself casts a normative...

Oh. This is my dear friend, 'semantics' and its effects on perception, isn't it? That's what's going on here.

I have neither time, nor will for this particularly loathsome recurring motif, as of the time of this writing.

It does not matter if my point did not carry across, ultimately. Your message is still fine and if more people followed it, they'd arrive closer to what I was trying and failed to communicate anyways, so by all means, carry on.

Wow, the ego on this guy. I was trying to be gracious with the first comment and really tried to read it with good intent, but I'm not going take this one seriously.

For this who come across this and are confused as to why this person is incorrect (both in their point and how they're arguing it) feel free to ask, as there are common distortions found here.

Microsoft invented that.

Yes, exactly, it is arguable, which why I'm saying that you can't say there's actually "good" or "bad" cherries.

Check out "postructuralism" and scholars like Derrida or Foucault. The role that language plays in our constructions and effects on things forces us to interrogate the reality of how we understand this thing to be "good" or "bad," as it is itself subject to the systems of power we are subject to. So, it's very hard not to reproduce the values we're trying to challenge when we don't address how those values are constructed.

Yes, we all know white supremacy is bad, but if it is only bad because it hurts people, then many people think that it only exists at the level of individual actions, like calling someone a slur, and not at a systemic level like how laws and knowledge are oriented around fundamentally devaluing certain groups of people; or why it is those groups of people in the first place besides "hating what's different." White supremacy does hurt people, and that is bad, but our understanding of how it does that changes how we understand what is needed to end it.

I think a lot of you have a hard time understanding why religions do harm, and are a bit too prideful about knowing that they do often cause harm.

It isn't a "gimmick," and it is also deeply settler-colonial to suggest whatever form of knowledge production you subscribe to happens to be the "right," one. Many cultures that didnt invent the bigotry we hate also practiced scripture, and devaluing that as a "gimmick" is not only racist, but irresponsible. If being "rational" was insulated from the context that "rationality" existed in, the white men would have fixed themselves in their salons when they thought they were too good for it all. Big surprise:

He did not invent his teachings
Did he do some good? Sure
He was constantly judging people.

You suddenly forget that none of it is (probably) real? It’s a legend character. Like robin hood.

It very much depends on which book you read by which author. Just like any other philosophical book

You could write a book about how robin hood was a nasty thief, but thats not really what the idea is about.

I'm wondering whether you have read the bible.

At least 5 that i remember that were distinct interpretations. Only one that was actually good though but really like, one of the best books on moral philosophy i have ever read. And all those things you are so sure are a part of if weren’t in it.

There was also one where Jesus detested Jaweh and ridiculed his followers for worshipping a monster. But it’s a very unusual interpretation that the church doesn’t like talking about.

you must submit completely to him or he'll punish

Thats god, not Jesus. We very much agree the character of god is ridiculously bad.

Please never make the mistake of defending a death cult again.

I am not i am just countering your unreasonable bias.

I understand that in all likelihood your experience with religious folk is zealots, cause your examples of why Christianity is bad is very much what zealots want.

Its not your fault you havent had the chance of talking with good and kind religious people who do exists all over but may not even express they are religious to anyone at all.

I am not such person but i do know such people.

If you have an open mind and find yourself in a respectful conversation with a half decent priest they have no problem admitting that the bible is not to be taken literally.

I've read Foucault, and you've made a compelling argument. But I don't get what you're trying to say in this last comment.

Put it this way.

There are religious zealots who cause a lot of harm and express a lot of hate.

With your attitude, those will fight and argue with you, affirming your bias.

There are good natured religious folk who don’t pressure others and just savour a personal spirituality.

With your attitude, they simply won’t tell you anything about it, you just assume they’re atheist.

The most religious Christian person in my direct family is my mother in law. She does not go to church cause she believes them to be corrupt. She does not wear any symbols. I only know because my partner who is strictly atheist told me so and that she prays every night for the wellbeing of her family.

The livonian crusade brought serfdom god and good morals to my people, I'm sure they were happy!

Nah seriously, we still had tribes with pretty loose organization some thousand years ago. Then 800 years ago some lovely people decided the pagans needed God and of course that meant God's order: feudalism.

Yes, ego. Absolutely no other possible interpretation. My deepest apologies for wasting your graciousness, I am so undeserving of it, and you illustrate your point oh so well here...

[For those who come across this and are confused about this exchange: Do take the other commenter's original message to heart, and see the rest of his interactions for a demonstration of 'intent' vs 'action' for a glimpse of mine.]

I think you think that I am failing to think. I also think you are mistaken.

https://sceneonradio.org/s5-e1-in-the-beginning/

This podcast is where I first heard the argument. Coming out of Duke University, it's very well researched. You'd have to listen to seasons 5 and 6 to get the whole story. They cover nuances that my blanket statement doesn't.

Leviticus 19:33 and many others say the exact same thing.

Leviticus 19:33 commands, "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.

There is an idealized definition and configuration of Christianity, its Jesus Fucking Christ. Do you act like him and what he taught (or at least try your best to)? Christian. Do you do literally the opposite of what he did and taught? Not Christian. It not hard.

If anyone followed "The Bible" to the letter, they'd be imprisoned to protect the community anywhere on Earth. Most who speak of "real Christianity" have no clue what they're talking about.

"Actual Christianity" says render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, it's not "anti-ICE" in any way, shape, or form.

... and depending on how you want to interpret it, it's very easy to defend what ICE is doing (tower of Babel, curse of Ham, and so on) and segregation in general.

(yes, it does say love they neighbor, but remember, you can love someone even as you stone them to death for astrology)

So you think you have a better chance of fighting religion as a whole than to get people to follow an idealized version of Christianity, the one that they advertise as when they want to be seen as a force for good.

They're starting to setup digital fences around churches to target ads to gullible imbiciles.

and depending on how you want to interpret it, it's very easy to defend what ICE is doing

And also extremely easy to condemn it

Da fuq?

It's like accepting your fellow man and providing charity is against Christianity

It’s a legend character. Like robin hood.

You're the one defending him. Whether he's real or not does not affect my criticisms of his character. It's also worth noting that people do think he is real, and kill and die in his name.

It very much depends on which book you read by which author. Just like any other philosophical book

You're not addressing my points.

You could write a book about how robin hood was a nasty thief, but thats not really what the idea is about.

But there is no one story about Jesus. The gospels disagree with each other. The common thread is that he's a delusional, narcissistic hypocrite who got people killed with his bad ideas.

one of the best books on moral philosophy i have ever read

Holy fucking shit. There are fictional stories with better morals than the bible.

And all those things you are so sure are a part of if weren’t in it.

In one out of five, and you think that makes the character good? What version are you describing?

Stop ignoring the glaring flaws, the foundation of superstition and abuse.

it’s a very unusual interpretation that the church doesn’t like talking about.

Then why bring it up? We're talking specificity about christ, the human sacrifice, as described in conflicting ways in the bible.

Thats god, not Jesus.

In the bible, Jesus is god.

John 10:

I and the Father are one.

John 14:

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.

Isaih 9:

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Phillipians 2:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

I can acknowledge that some versions might lean more or less toward Jesus being god, and that the concept of the trinity was basically a retcon to avoid the heresy of worshipping multiple gods, but we can also acknowledge that many people believe Jesus is god. The south baptist churches I was forced to go to certainly preached that Jesus is god.

In your version, is Jesus still the son of god? Does he still have good things to say about him? Because that is still highly problematic, even if he's not claiming to be god himself.

We very much agree the character of god is ridiculously bad.

I'm glad for that, at least. It genuinely scares me when you say you think the bible is a worthwhile guide to morality.

I am not i am just countering your unreasonable bias.

It's not unreasonable. People all over the world are voting against all of our best interests because bible says so. It's a death cult. Does Jesus die on the cross in your version? Is that a good thing? Does your version include heaven? Belief in a happy afterlife devalues our real lives.

your examples of why Christianity is bad is very much what zealots want.

This is why I asked if you've read the bible. You don't seem to understand what it contains or how many people believe it.

Its not your fault you havent had the chance of talking with good and kind religious people who do exists all over but may not even express they are religious to anyone at all.

Good and kind people don't make shit up. Intellectually honest people don't accept claims without sufficient evidence.

If you have an open mind and find yourself in a respectful conversation with a half decent priest they have no problem admitting that the bible is not to be taken literally.

That doesn't help. And I think you would be surprised. A) decent people do not spend their lives telling deadly lies. B) MANY priests insist the bible is true and contains no contradictions, because it says so. C) what do we learn metaphorically from passages where god is handing down commands and laws about owning slaves and catering to rapists?

I am curious about your version of the bible. It sounds like a complete anomaly and not at all what people think of when they think of bibles, Jesus, or christ.

Christianity is a death cult and your tolerance of it could get people killed. This is why I care so much.

There are religious zealots who cause a lot of harm and express a lot of hate.

As commanded by the bible. And we can't hold them accountable because people like you already gave them permission to lie.

With your attitude, those will fight and argue with you, affirming your bias.

My attitude is irrelevant. An honest person has their mind changed with sufficient evidence. Follow the logic.

Besides, it's not just people I talk to. There are many atheist shows where believers call in to discuss their beliefs. I've heard them justify slavery, genocide, rape, and more using the bible, using commonly repeated christian bullshit.

There are good natured religious folk who don’t pressure others and just savour a personal spirituality.

Beliefs drive our actions. Superstition is deadly.

With your attitude, they simply won’t tell you anything about it, you just assume they’re atheist.

Wrong. I have my own channel, OpenAtheist, where I have spoken with hindu and sikh people about what we each believe and why. Admittedly, I try to take a less confrontational tone there than here. But you're stupidly defending a literal death cult in an atheism community. You should knock that shit off if you value anyone's life.

The most religious Christian person in my direct family is my mother in law. She does not go to church cause she believes them to be corrupt. She does not wear any symbols. I only know because my partner who is strictly atheist told me so and that she prays every night for the wellbeing of her family.

But she worships and prays to a violent abuser for mercy from his own cruelty? It's psycho shit. She needs help.

Please stop pretending these baseless beliefs aren't deadly. Real human beings are suffering and dying every day because some selfish idiots won't stop lying, and you're enabling them.

The Bible and Jesus have some good lessons in it (some archaic lessons too)

But fuck whatever America's version of Christianity is is mean spirited and cruel and intolerant. Jesus would be disappointed to put it mildly.

Colonialism and capitalism absolutely.

I'd argue patriarchy and slavery already existed with other justifications though Christianity was used to entrench them further.

Well the transatlantic slave trade specifically and its extent. The argument, by otherering Africans, in their depictions of them, they then fell under the purview of Christianity's dominion over everything. And the patriarchy, influenced by Christianity, helped solidify it in western culture.

Guess its all just mega churches and scams left for them.

It's a death cult, in which some of its foundational tenets include torture, human sacrifice, cannibalism, vampirism, and zombies, AND their logo is literally their founder in agony on an ancient torture device.

Plenty of the rural red state churches and strip mall wanna-be fire and brimstone pastors left.

Megas get all the press. But plenty of them just play to the crowd and are just as happy to go hard in the paint for a Hillary or Newsom or Obama as a Bush or Trump.

Hell, some of the most deranged criticisms of Trump (he's the antichrist, he's possessed by a devil, he's a skin walker / lizard person / hologram / secret Communist) came from Cruz/DeSantis allies during the primaries.