Even christian anarchists?

If you live in the US, you should definitely be invested in US politics. Apathy lets these systems break, and that's how we got where we are today. Get involved in your nation's government and your local government and be a force for good! :)

I agree! We need RCV. If we constitutionally outlaw lobbying and establish RCV, I think this democracy can stand.

Otherwise, I think it will fall before I am out of years, at least to the point of no longer having hope of being restored via efforts from within the system.

I’m really, really not sure how one can rectify following a theocratic authoritarian who claims to have been sent by god to take over the world with anarchy.

Except, of course, by admitting Jesus was a charlatan.

Jesus wasn't really political too much in his teachings, but I vaguely recall him saying something about not having to give anything to the tax man... I am not the kind of person to pull the quote number out from memory.

In what way would it be more suboptimal than having Prime Minister Nigel Farage? (Assuming we don't have a largely ceremonial president like Ireland does.)

You're not wrong and the down votes with out comments proved your point. Boring pick a side shallow people. Who turned this already unfunny comic comment section into a boring serious identity bs proves how joyless and humourless a lot of the community here is.
Have a good weekend

Thank you.... Wait son of a bit...

As an example of someone opposed to Trump? You’re right. Good luck finding a republican today that fits that.

As a republican often cited as “one of the good ones”, though? She’s perfect.

He literally told people to “Give to Caesar what is Ceasar’s”!

It’s literally one of the most famous quotes.

Granted it’s basically a non-answer, but that’s because if he said “pay your taxes” out right… he might have escaped the mob, but his disciples would have left him to die in a ditch. Maybe one full of molten lava all “you were supposed to be the chosen one Anakin!”-style.

And if he said “you don’t have to pay taxes” explicitly, the Roman soldiers watching would have had him executed. (This exchange is found in Mathew 22:15-22)

There’s also a bit about paying temple taxes, in Mat 17:24-27where Peter tells some peeps that jesus pays the taxes, Jesus basically says “the king doesn’t pay taxes, nor his children…” [claiming to be the son of god and saying he shouldn’t have to pay temple taxes…] “… but let’s not annoy the tax man…” (so he tells Peter to go find a fish that owed Jesus some coin.)

And the point still stands. Jesus still said more about taxes, as weak and empty a statement as they were, than he does about one of the mose abominable practices man has devised.

It all boils down to Barry fucking Goldwater. He made a game plan with a swappable villain, started with the southern strategy, where the villain was black people, as things changed the plan stayed the same and just kept switching their villain to appease single issue voters/fucking idiots.

If you can get people to vote for, or more importantly against, one specific thing without considering anything else then everything else you want to do is added to the free space slot.

Edit: This should be conspiratorial nonsense, but luckily Kissinger and Nixon were recording everything the other did, including all of both of their political plannings with Goldwater, and these meetings are very well documented and archived. It was a terrible plan, but a solid one, and it worked and is still working. Everyone telling you not to vote is a part of this very plan, regardless of how aware they may or may not be. We have always lived in a clown country.

I see the confusion. On this side of the Atlantic we had a party switch. The Republicans here want to bring back the monarchy as well as serfdom and colonialism.

In the comic it's a Luke Skywalker level of no

But what if you wanted plastic surgery to look like a quasi-human and needed help paying for it?

Can't understand why they voluntarily look as ridiculous as Mr. and Ms. potato head.

Jesus also said, “The law was made for the man, not the man for the law.”
...
You can always take verses out of context (both literary and historical) and make anything look horrible.

First off, it's amazing that you're pulling out "CoNtExT" on me here while doing exactly that.

^23^One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields, and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. ^24^The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” ^25^And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food, ^26^how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions?” ^27^Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath, ^28^so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
-Mark 2:23-28

Now lets talk about that context.

The first thing here is that they weren't harvesting or gathering. Harvesting is an entire process. With grains, they would use sickles to cut the grasses, stack them into sheaves to let the grass dry out, then take the bundles to the thresher, removing the seeds of grain, and bringing the grains into storage to keep it away from critters and such.

What is not prohibited is what the Disciples were doing. Plucking the heads of wheat and popping them into your mouth. That was not harvesting, except in the most pedantic and modern sense of the word.

Furthermore, most of the Laws have the exceptions for the preservation of life. The Disciples were hungry. Some translate it as 'starving'. And this is the argument Jesus is making here. That it was an act to preserve life, which is in fact permissible.

And right after that, he says, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
... snip...
?You see, if you read the text thoughtfully and take its context into account, it says something quite different. It’s convoluted indeed, but that’s the literary style of the time. You can’t make strong assertions like that without studying the subject a minimum. You can’t read 2000 years old texts like they were written yesterday. Even in translation, they have to be decoded.

Sorry. You were lecturing me on context?

You should probably go study the basics. There are multiple legal codes being discussed in the passage. the author of Mark even explains this to you in a parenthetical aside, ya dingus. (Verse 3: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, *thus observing the tradition of the elders,").

Jesus is advocating the written Law of Moses, as written in the Torah. Predominately, in Deuteronomy, but also in Exodus and Leviticus.

The Pharisees were citing the Oral Law, also called the Tradition of the Elders. (they, being the Elders.) the Oral Law fixes a large number of the things that went wrong in the written law. Like, for example, they knew (long before Jesus came around) that around half of women don't actually bleed the first time they have sex; and that using a bloody cloth as evidence of virginity (and the lack of a blood cloth justification for stoning new brides) is simply fucked in the head....

Or that it's normal for children to gripe about their parents, and normal for children to push boundaries as they grow up, and that stoning children for doing so is fucked in the head.

They also added things like "wash your food. and your hands." to it. Mostly it was ritual and not about practical hygiene.

I mean. if you had just read the damn passage you'd know these things. the washing of food and hands as a ritual purity was not part of the torah. it's part of the Oral Law.

So when he says "you're righteousness must exceed the pharisees"... He's saying they don't measure up because they are not following the Law of Moses.

Also, if you actually read Mark 7, you'd also know the answer to this:

I have no idea what you mean when you say that Jesus explicitly “cited a law that directs people to stone kids who talk back.”

Specifically, Jesus says in verses 9 and 10:

^9^Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! ^10^For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’

The first is found in Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
and
Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

What they mean by "honor your mother and father" here includes obedience. (as well as holding reverence and respect).

The second is Exodus 21:17 and Lev 20:9. most christian translations will say "cursed" or "speak ill of" or something to that effect, for example, the NSRVUE:

Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.
and
All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their bloodguilt is upon them.

the word being used in the original Hebrew is 'qalal', which yes, can mean "curse". It also means "to insult:", to "revile" or to "speak with contempt". when they do so, it's less in the sense of a ritual invoking harm on a person, and more speaking evil of them. (which is how Jesus phrased it. funny, huh?)

the JPS, though, as a jewish translation puts it as "insult"

Lev20:9, as the example:

Regarding anyone who insults their father or their mother: they shall be put to death; they have insulted their father and their mother—and the bloodguilt is theirs.

There’s no law in the Old Testament that says that.

lol. so, Jesus literally quotes the damn thing in the passage. still gonna lecture when you don't even know that much?

Yes, selling a daughter is a horrible practice, but it was the norm for much of human history. The Bible wasn’t written in a cultural vacuum. It takes people’s practices as they are and tries to push things in the right direction.

So you're saying an all-powerful god, dictating his eternal and absolute and perfect law to his bronze age idiots couldn't be like "don't do that, that's messed up", but he could say things like "don't wear clothes of blended fabrics," and "Don't eat shellfish or pork"- all of which was far, far more common?

But what you don’t understand is that only a small part of Christianity considers the Bible to be the “inerrant Word of God.” Jesus didn’t,

yes. he. fucking. did. Read your damn book.

^17^“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. ^18^For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. ^19^Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ^20^For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Earlier you said:

Here, Matthew is actually doing the opposite of what you think. When he writes, “Whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,”

lets summarize the meaning of the words on the page, shall we?

• "I didn't come to abolish the law of the prophets"
• "I didn't come to abolish [the law] but fulfill [the prophets]"
• "the law is eternal"
• "whoever breaks it will be the least"
• "you need to be more righteous than those asshats who don't even follow the law."

and you're lecturing me on context? about twisting verses? You're saying the exact opposite of what any honest person would read in that passage.

Now lets have some fun. the 'new covenant" comes from Jeremiah 31:31-37.

it says that god will create a new covenant because they broke the old one. And that god will do some magic binding rituals to ensure that this new covenant cannot be broken.

So if Jesus did what he said he came to do (fulfill the prophets)... we literally would be incapable of breaking the written Law of Moses. Further, if Jesus was Messiah, then we'd not be having this conversation, The Kingdom of Israel would lead the entire world, Rome would have fallen at the hands of Jesus, and all the Israelites would have been gathered back home and there would be peace because no one would be physically able to deny god.

Literally none of that happened. The very nature of the world as it exists today demonstrates the bullshit. So yeah. you actually did say one accurate thing:

He disobeys the law more than once and asks his disciples to do the same. Then, after Jesus’s death, Peter is instructed to disobey the law even more.

Being a blasphemer and false prophet is contrary to the Law of Moses. I get that's not how you meant it. but it is true all the same. Jesus didn't fulfill a single messianic prophecy.

At this stage I'm pretty certain that hooligan communist whatever they are would actually be an improvement.

hear me out, 5% of votes for a third party (which almost happened for Ross Perot in the 90s) would guarantee a national platform for that party. also, i don't care for excuses, you do you.

i think you are confused, the DNC suports AIPAC, the individual voters dont support israel in general, at leas tmost of them. REPUBLICANS are far more repulsively as a person though.

shes a republican through and through, she just had to trick the boomers in maine enough to say shes not like these other republicans.

you wouldnt date someone in another country that is also apolitical. you cant really be apolitical in any country to be honest, apolitical means you are just ignorant and likely a conservative.

i never seen those relationship ends well, one is super religious christian, and one is not . the one that is religious wants conversion from the other one. or if you have different religions , which is just as complicated, if not more. it make sense is one is maybe agnostic/ or aethiest though, there is potential for converting to that religion.

When did republics become hated around here?

You speak about basics, and you explain something written by Matthew using something Mark wrote? My citation was a part of a succession of citations to show what the general vibe of the Bible was, not a way to explain the details of a particular text, which is absurd. And the you ignore that I showed that Deuteronomy 21:18-21 doesn't speak about kids? You know adult children exist too? This law was written when fathers could kill their children freely until they were married; this law imposes an exterior party, a social control on that practice, and is an other example of what I said (and that you dutifully ignored, you love to ignore what contradicts your hatred, don't you?): the law was not written in a vacuum, but pushes things in the right direction. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is an explanation of Exodus 21:17, as it was written later. The fact what we find this law horrible is just the proof that this law worked! And then you invent laws? Gleaning is totally forbidden during the Sabbat, even to pick up a fallen fruit and eating it is forbidden! You're intellectually dishonest and insulting, I love to discuss these things with people disagreeing with me, but I have no time to loose with disrespectful people. You're blocked.

Yes, I agree with you on the last part. I'm happily married with someone who doesn't believe, and I couldn't live with the idea that she could be damned just for that.

I’ll use an actual biblical example. Moses didn’t exist, and the Exodus was not a historical event. I think the people who wrote these texts knew that to some extent. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many inconsistencies. They weren’t stupid; they knew what a contradiction was.

But I don’t care. How would the fate of a people 3000 years ago change my life today? It wouldn’t. But the story is a lesson, a lesson that can change my life today. I believe that people were inspired by God to convey a message. They did so in their own language and cultural framework, using the rhetorical tools available to them: myth. That message can be summed up in a few words: God wants God’s people to be free, and God walks with us when we try to free ourselves. I’m not a slave in Egypt, but I’m not always free. I can be a slave to my anger, my passions, or a habit, and God helps me in my struggle for freedom. When I read the story of the Exodus, I look for what it can teach me about freedom today.

How do I know the Bible is truer than, say, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, or the IKEA catalogue? The truth is, I don’t. I do think, not just believe, but philosophically think that something beyond the world, which we might call “God” as an approximation, exists. Or, to be more precise, I think its existence is more probable than its nonexistence. I don’t know that it exists; it just makes more sense to me.

As for the rest, yes, those are beliefs, not certainties. I can live with that. Uncertainty is part of life! If we acted only when we knew something for sure, we’d do nothing. A lot of people like to lie to themselves, pretending that we can know whether God exists, that our political ideology is the best one, or what is right and wrong. Sometimes we can know these things. For example, I know that my political ideology is better than fascism; I have no uncertainty about that. But in most cases, we can’t be certain. I could stop at “a God probably exists” while continuing my life as if not, but I choose to thrive in uncertainty rather than fight it, and that leaves me freer to explore and open myself to other traditions and schools of thought.

I said that most Christians (by far) believe people can be saved without believing, while a minority believe that salvation is impossible without the correct belief. I believe something else. I belong to another minority, probably the smallest one: I believe there is more than one legitimate spiritual path. The Catholic Church still teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church; it’s just that some people are members of the Church without knowing it. I believe the Church is one path among others, and simply the one that fits me today. The Bible helps me, the liberal Christian tradition nourishes me, and the community shelters me.

God is unknowable by definition. We’re talking about a being that exists outside time and space, so our words can’t legitimately claim to describe it. When we describe things, words that seem to contradict one another may both be true. It’s like two people describing the same mountain: someone on its northern face might describe it as a different mountain from the one described by someone on its southern face, even though they’re both describing the same mountain.

If I’m wrong, if there is no God, or if I’m irredeemably ignorant of the One True Religion™, it’s not a big deal. My faith has helped me live a better, fuller, and freer life. Who cares if an effective medicine turns out to be a placebo? And if I’m wrong and only people who believe a precise set of doctrines are saved, then I don’t want to be saved by such an assholish God. So everything works out for the best. (Though that idea makes no sense to me.)

You're mixing things up, maybe because I'm not clear or maybe consciously. It's probably the first. I hope.

What most Christians believe is that one can be saved without believing, and I proved that citing official Catholic texts. Maybe these texts aren't true to the Bible, but that is of no consequence, they're still a proof that most Christians believe what I said. The first question was not “can non-Christian be saved?” it was “do Christians believe that non-Christian can be saved?” and these are two different things.

Now, about the Bible, I did not contradict myself. Let's take an other text: The Capital by Marx and Engels. It's not a simple text: to understand it wholly, you must have a strong economical, philosophical and historical culture. It needs time, efforts, and this text is still debated today, as there are different legitimate interpretations. But even without them, you can read it and some things will be clear, for example that capitalism should be fought. A text can be difficult on its parts and clear on the whole on a few subjects.

It's the case with the Bible. That the Law is not eternal is very clear, so if you see a text that says the contrary it should either be dismissed as a text contradicting the whole message, or interpreted to find the actual message.

not knowingly at least

Not confused and I wasn't born yesterday. Yes DNC voters now are moderately anti Israel. But for the last 7 decades they were not. I'm old enough to remember their consistent full-chested support for Israeli apartheid decade after decade after decade through intifadas and land seizures and expulsions and multiple bloody invasions of Gaza.

I’m fine with anyone who is fine with anyone who is fine with anyone.

That's the way :-)

I'm a very practicing Christian, my wife is nothing. I presume you could call her agnostic. She just doesn't care. Religion was never a problem between us, I don't try to convert her, and neither does she. Politics is more of a divide as she's more conservative than me (she's not conservative, but she mainly informs herself with traditional medias… God the anti-trans disinformation is strong there!). But we work things out by respecting each others and viewing our differences as a strength. For example, we have children, I speak about my faith, she speaks about her lack of faith, and this way our children will have the chance to choose.

Join us in the real world, unfettered by impossible to prove, supernatural hierarchies.

It's quite a weight off the shoulders.

I see the world in more ways than you could ever imagine, and that began as soon as I left behind the shackles of religion and stopped putting faith in things that have never been (literally cannot be) proved.

You refuse to put faith in things that cannot be proved? Sad if true. But it's probably not.

So, lemme ask you this.

When the Bible says “Jesus said…” is it reasonably accurate?

Cuz, let’s be honest here. You have nothing else that comes close to a record of what Jesus actually taught, so if you throw the bible out, you’re throwing out baby Jesus with it.

(We don’t even have any record of his mere existence outside the Bible, not that we’d expect to.)

Or do you expect us to believe you’re more reliable than Muhhamed, or Joseph Smith or any of the billions of people who believe in something else entirely?

By the way, you know Jesus was one of those Fundies, right?

Since they described him as "young," there is a third possibility: sheltered and brainwashed and hasn't yet encountered enough of the real world to see through the lies that have been drilled into his head since before his earliest memories were formed.

It's an important distinction, because if you treat people in that category the same way you treat people who are knowingly and willfully fascist, then you're just going to mash their "confirmation bias" button and send them harder to the right.

I'd say if he's in his early twenties, there's a good chance it has more to do with "ignorance" rather than "malice." And ignorance, unlike malice, is redeemable. But he's not going to open his eyes if you're throwing sand in them.

And now let me ask you this…

How much of the Bible is false? How much of it could be false for you to not worship the god described in it?

To most christians, the whole point of the Old Testament is to point to, and explain the New Testament, right? When the OT says stuff happened, it doesn’t really matter that it didn’t actually happen. It matters that people believed it happened.

After all, if you don’t believe in the fall of man, or that god picked a chosen people and gave them the first covenant, you can hardly believe the second one, can you?

If you don’t believe god came and spoke through the prophets and promised the messiah, you can hardly believe Jesus is that promised Messiah.

And to be clear the only historical record we have of Jesus is in the Christian Bible. And that Christian Bible says Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law of Moses, and that it is in force until the Earth passes away.

It doesn’t matter if the exodus happened or not, the Torah does in fact exist. (And the Torah is the law he’s talking about.) and so, with Jesus explicitly saying that, he’s also tacitly condoning slavery and all the other awful shit in the Torah.

If you are a Christian, then you worship a monster.

The Christian god is incompatible with a god of the gaps. Afterall, a god of the gaps is not involved in human affairs where the Christian god most certainly is.

Where my syndicalist-hooliganism at?

Yeah I don't like the monarchy but I suspect I'd like a British presidency even less. If it were up to me I'd abolish the hereditary principle but to avoid the genuine constitutional shitshow I'd simply keep the throne empty rather than abolishing it, have Parliament elect a regent from among itself periodically. A regent unlike a president holds no power in their own right, they hold it on behalf of someone else. This would keep egos in check and help prevent an overly powerful executive I think. If anything it'd be Parliament putting a much-needed brake on Downing Street.

Also historically it'd be the final culmination of the 800 year British project to subordinate monarchical authority to constitutional authority. It's keeping the current constitutional notion of the 'crown in parliament' while admitting the reality no living human can actually embody it.

What happens to the royal perogative powers for example? We could accidentally 'good chaps theory of government' into a very overpowered executive like the Americans have in my view, the increasing presidentialisation of the PM role and centralisation of power in Number 10 is already a long term concern of mine.

Also there's lots of weird technical factors around the issue , like what happens to the Crown Estate? Does it lapse to the Windsor family or to the president? Presumably we'd want to nationalise it directly by Act of Parliament but that's a can of worms in itself.

rofl I'd have to be religious to project this, you numpty.

I grew up in a church. I've heard many people express their beliefs. You know nothing of what you accuse.

OK guy. Yes you know me, evidently.

And no, projecting does not mean that. I meant you think you're better than them.

But thanks for playing.

I proved that citing official Catholic texts.

You didn't prove anything. Depending on what statistic you're looking at, Catholics aren't even a majority of Christians, but even if they are, do you honestly think all Catholics follow the "official Catholic texts"? Catholicism is famously one of the more contentious Christian sects, and always has groups that disagree with the Pope and their leadership.

That the Law is not eternal is very clear

Again, it isn't, or else this entire thread wouldn't be happening, and the constant arguments among biblical scholars about that very verse wouldn't be happening.

if you see a text that says the contrary it should either be dismissed as a text contradicting the whole message, or interpreted to find the actual message.

Lol. In other words, "have blind faith"?

If that's your argument, you aren't making it in good faith, and I have no interest in continuing further.

You didn't prove anything.

Yes, Catholics can be “contentious,” but the text I cited wasn’t an encyclical. Not all texts carry the same authority: teachings affirmed by a council are binding on all Catholics. There are exceptions, of course, but even the most traditionalist Catholics try to interpret these texts in ways that allow non-Catholics to be saved under very exceptional circumstances. They can’t reject the teachings outright without being considered heretical. If we include mainline and liberal Protestants, that clearly makes a majority.

the constant arguments among biblical scholars

Find me one non-fundamentalist biblical scholar who holds this position. I’ll wait, since this isn’t up for debate. Scholars debate when, how, and why particular laws changed, and what those developments mean, not the existence of these changes. If you don’t approach the Bible as the inerrant word of God (a view rejected by most Christians, even in the very fundamentalist-friendly United States) it’s clear that the Old Testament laws consciously contradict one another: they respond to one another. So the laws can't be eternal, as within the Pentateuch itself they aren't!

In other words, "have blind faith"?

I didn't said that at all, you're distorting what I'm saying. Why is it so hard to have honest exchange of view on this subject on Lemmy?

I'll give an other example from The Capital. That's what Marx wrote in the chapter 15 of the volume III:

Development of the productive forces of social labour is the historical task and justification of capital.

Here, Marx is praising capitalism, because it develops the productive forces. If I used this quote to say that The Capital is pro-capitalism, or not clearly anti-capitalist, you'd say that I understood nothing or was arguing in bad faith. And you'd be right accusing me of that, as The Capital is anti-capitalist at its core. Of course, that don't work with less clear subjects.

I just ask you to give the Bible the same treatment as any other book.

I like to believe in true things. Call me crazy.

We have developed this thing called "the scientific method" that allows us to understand things without the need for "faith."

And it's likely the reason that you didn't die as an infant.

Only provable things can be true?

When we're talking about extraordinary claims, then they require extraordinary evidence.

Or in this case, literally any evidence whatsoever.

Take it a step further. If I'm going to base my morals and entire lifestyle on said extraordinary claims, then yes I'm going to need proof.

So you'll never marry? A marriage change your life more than religion change most religious people's life. And there's no way to proof that your fiancé(e) loves you. There are signs, words, but they could all be lies.

And you know… it's not because you're a religious person that you should “base [your] morals and entire lifestyle” on it.