Vatican 2 is fake and gay!
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
So we're resorting to the No true Scotsman argument. Considering that the Bible needs to interpreted and isn't actually a manual like the Quran I'm not going to accept that argument.
Sure, you can call it atheistic secularism. But you are again resorting to the No true Scotsman argument. I judge people, organizations, religions and ideologies based on what they are. Not on what they are supposed to be on paper.
And what tool did they use? Christianity. Jesus was the Jewish messiah for the Jews. Paul was a Jew. The first Christians were all Jews. Everything about Christianity is Jewish. That's why you use the term Judaeo-Christian values.
There are no interpretations required, there are literal rules outlined in the Ten Commandments.
Shema makes it clear along with the Devarim.
These are all reiterated by Jesus in First Corinthians 6:9. There are no uncertain terms about who is and who is not, according to God.
If you aren't aligning with God's Tenets, then no, you are not actually upholding that system.
What you're talking about is what Jesus explicitly warned people about in Matthew chapter 7 verse 15, which specifically addresses the misapplication of the Old Law by people who would lure anti-theists into making the exact argument you have proposed.
Then we are in agreement.
As stated, anyone can call themselves anything, but according to your own standard, it's not what they say they are but what they do that defines them... right?
Unless you actually believe transgender individuals who are born male can be female just because they say they "feel like a woman" that particular day?
If your answer is no, then you'd be engaging in the double standards I mentioned earlier.
'Thou shall not kill'
So if no interpretation is required what exactly does that mean? If I take it literally it means I'm not even allowed to kill an insect.
Yes. Which is why I don't judge Christianity based solely on the Bible or parts thereof but mainly on how Christianity has acted as an organized religion during its history.
For example I don't take any issue with the Amish. They simply want to live their lives as they believe is the correct way. They don't try to convert me. They don't have any political ambitions. They live peacefully with their neighbors.
On the other hand I do take issues with people like Nick Fuentes who scream 'Christ is king' and are ardent Christian supremacists. Same as I take issue with the Muslim or Jewish equivalent of him.
My family, my people, my blood will always be the top priority for me. You can switch religion. You can switch political ideologies. You cannot switch blood.
Christianity cares only about spreading Christianity. It does not care for blood. Except maybe for Jewish blood as Jews are the chosen people of God. Or were depending on how you interpret the Bible.
Deuteronomy and Leviticus literally outline what that means -- it's related to humans. In fact, there are multiple examples given, including Deuteronomy 19, which doesn't need interpretation since it's rightly outlined:
Jesus even reiterates that he came to reinforce the Old Law in Matthew chapter 5, verse 17, which states "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Which is a perfectly reasonable and valid reason to take issue with such individuals. God called on the anointed to spread the word, but did not call on them to distort the word -- that goes back to my previous comments about the prophets in the Old Testament (i.e., Isiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel) forewarning of people who would distort the word for their own gain (which we see happening frequently in the world of corporate organised religion, and funnily enough, ties into the OP's original post).
You're not wrong in predicating your perspective based on the failings of organised religion, which operates more as a corporate/financial/social control mechanisms rather than its intended purpose.
The whole point of it was originally about saving souls -- this is from Jesus' own mouth and actions: he came to deliver salvation for the lost, the chosen, and the gentiles. This is literally outlined in John chapter 3 and verses 15 and 16, which clearly defines the entire purpose of Christ's visit to Earth and the establishment of Christendom, stating....
"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
What you've described is what the Bible warns about in Revelations, regarding the false teachings and prophets used to deceive the masses to get people to feel about monotheism and more specifically Judaeo-Christian values exactly how a lot of people feel about it today:
https://pastorunlikely.com/33-chilling-bible-verses-on-false-teachers/
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/christ-centered-exposition/revelation/the-false-prophet.html
There shouldn't need to be any interpretations, since all of the core fundamentals are already outlined in the Old Testament and reiterated by Jesus himself in the New Testament.
Anything that needed further discernment is between the individual and the Holy Spirit.
People purposely misinterpreting scripture to control pliable minds is why organised religion is the way it is today, and how we have "prosperity" teachers like Joel Olsteen or grifters like Kenneth Copeland or whatever newage pop-cultural trend is currently invading the minds of those who seek but are too weak to exercise sound judgment and proper discernment.
But your umbrage with organised religion are not unfounded; and funnily enough, actually coincides with what the Bible warns us about.
What is 'innocent blood'? And to which three cities should I flee to if I accidentally kill someone?
The reason given doesn't matter. Christianity wants to dominate the minds and souls of humanity. It is a monotheistic religion that does not tolerate 'pagans' (i.e. anything non-Abrahamic) and cares not for the race/blood of its followers. In that regard it is identical to Islam.
Following Christianity inevitably means forsaking your own blood. Which is why we are in our current predicament. You can blame secularism all you want for it but Christianity dominated Europe and most of the world for a very long time. So either this happened by design (which I believe) or Christianity failed utterly and completely. Saying it wasn't true Christianity before is like saying true Communism has never been tried before.
Like I said I don't take any issues with believers who simply want to live their lives according to their religious scripture as long as they don't have (religious) political ambitions. Muslims pretending to be tolerant and peaceful as long as they are a tiny minority and going for complete dominance once they reach a certain population threshold is the best example for the dangers of politically ambitious religions.
Organized religions seek power. Power inevitably attracts corruption. That's the general reality of human existence. That's why the reality of politics isn't any different. Organized religions are inherently political.
And that's why organized monotheistic religions that claim to be the absolute authority of truth are so dangerous. That's also the reason why the 'Trust the science!' crowd is so incredibly dangerous. Because they are members of an organized monotheistic religion which claims to be the absolute authority of truth too. The only difference is their religion is without any spirituality.