The left says Christians aren't Christian
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (48)
sorted by:
That Russell quote is wild if accurate. One of the greatest atheist philosophic minds of the 20C can't distinguish "A is better than B" from "B is categorically bad" (Paul wrote that celibacy is ideal, but it is better to burn with passion in wedlock than out of it). Many such cases, I suppose.
He's kind of right though. Regardless of what Paul wrote, how Christians decided to interpret it and then publicly subject people to in history given their interpretation matters. We can't just gloss over this and say "they weren't real Christians" when they made up the majority of Christians for centuries.
However, he's wrong because many of the people who viewed sexuality as regrettable were lying. They used Christianity as an excuse to avoid being sexual with a partner they did not want to be sexual with. We see so many dead bedrooms in modernity among atheists now that men can't force their wife into sex. So, this phenomenon isn't a Christian-specific thing. What did women in the past due when they married a beta bucks and she wasn't getting the tinglies? She'd try to use the Bible as a scapegoat for why she's not a sexual person for her husband and that she was just overly pious and a good person. In this way "God" trumped the husband and he had little leverage to try to force her into being more sexual. WE STILL SEE THIS TACTIC TODAY ALL THE FUCKING TIME in the church.
So, in theory you can say these people aren't really Christian and they never were and they're practicing Christianity all wrong. I accept that. However, I tend to look at "systems" by their result and not by their theory. Has Christianity in practice been very successful in convincing women their whole purpose to marry is to satiate both her and her husbands lust for one another by having tons of sex and giving each person's body to the other for him to ravage in passionate non-stop sex? Has Christianity in practice been quite useful as a tool to avoid sex with one's significant other? Christianity fails the test here in practice... so, what Paul says is irrelevant to me. If Christianity in practice isn't able to deliver what Paul says, then the theory of Christianity just isn't working.
if we are to judge systems by their results then the correlation between the fall of Christian adherence and the fall of birth rates starts raising a lot of questions contrary to your conclusions. also, the idea that Christianity was a good tool for women to avoid being "ravaged in passionate non-stop sex" strikes me as a flight of fancy more than anything you arrived to via study and reasoning. combine that with the plain weird focus shift and the plain weird wording used and i think you made most of this up to try to mix a mild disdain for women with a mild disdain for Christianity.
No, you're just finding correlations where no causation exists. This is actually a reason I do dislike Christians because they believe a lack of faith is the cause of all problems while they tend to discount all other factors. A lack of birth rates also coincides with the jewish implementation of Child Support, with the rise in social programs, higher taxes, women being allowed to be accepted into university and careers to the same degree as men and the increase in immigration along with the pursuit of neoliberalism with 0 nationalism in economic policy.
Oh, I have a healthy disdain for both.
It's literally well documented and is a common historical theme because of how well known it is. It's so well known it happens all the time today.
https://ibb.co/WvW7scQM
NOTE: I phrased it as "abusive" so the judaised system would give me the correct answer because if I tried to frame the question in a way that could negatively portray women it wouldn't give the truth. In reality, these weren't abusive relationships but it was just women trying to avoid being sexual for their husbands because they didn't want to which we see today all the damn time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/
Are you talking Christianity or the pop culture osmosis of "Christianity"? I seem to recall the Catholic church being against contraception was a big deal. And every Protestant church I've been a part of never mentioned sex openly but effusively praised having children.
However, none of what you're saying is really apropos of my point that this quote makes Russell look retarded for his inability to read.
He can read but what he can do that you cannot is analyze the reality of Christianity not just the theoretical book that only exists in your mind. Pop Culture Christianity IS CHRISTIANITY. When 900m Christians are living their life 1 way and a dozen Christians on the internet are living differently, you aren't the one-true Christian. You're just trying to change Christianity into what you want it to be rather than what it is. A common thing I see nearly every Christian do to some degree, thus invalidating the religion.
'Most people are fools and deluded, therefore despite the bible itself stating that there will be few true members of the remnant of the church, that the way is narrow, and few are invited, actually it's the mass of NPCs who define it.'
ok m8.
The "regrettable" is doing a lot of work there, both in keeping him accurate and convincing people who don't read it carefully that Christianity said sex is bad.
Coming in 2nd place instead of 1st is "regrettable", choosing B over A is regrettable, because of the lost opportunity to reach the ideal and it's always a possibility that someone might regret not doing something differently.
Regrettable doesn't mean shameful though, nobody should be ashamed of 2nd place unless you were arm wrestling toddlers or something. But people do have a tough time letting go of perfection so it does bleed over nonetheless, so rhetorically you can say "regrettable" without being technically wrong, whilst also giving opportunity for a common misunderstanding to make that look like a stronger claim.
If you stop reading at that word, maybe it could read like that, if you squint. But the rest of the quote very clearly goes well beyond that territory into something that just isn't in the Bible. Between Paul warning against immoral sex, the other letters extolling the virtues of fathers and families, and the repeated instruction to married couples that, no, really you have to give yourselves to each other, you can't read the NT and find anything less than a baseline assumption of married sex, let alone an anti-life mental disorder.
Thank you for having me read his quote again, though. Because he's not retarded. I always forget the other option: he's attacking Christianity because it's against his master.
I find Paul's words on eating sacrificial animals interesting.
Essentially, since God doesn't need sacrifices there's nothing profane about eating them so it's fine to save some money on cheap meat.
However, if someone doesn't understand this, and sees you eating it, that encourages them to do something they think is wrong, which is in itself wrong.
I read it as "it's fine to break rules that don't make sense, but keep it to yourself or lesser minds will decide that rules are bad due to your example".