What I find even more reprehensible than the sentiment “Without the threat of consequences, why should I be decent?” is that their own fucking book holds the answer to their goddamn question (not an expletive here, their god should and probably would damn them for it):
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 7:12
The first half of this is a principle independent of religion, a fundamental social contract, the most critical idea underpinning any functioning society: Expect your behaviour to be reciprocated, and act accordingly. If you want others to help you if you need it, help people (if you can). If you want others to be kind to you, be kind to others. If you’re gonna be a prick, expect others to be just as prickly to you.
If all that keeps you from murdering people is the threat of eternal damnation, you forget that your own scripture says “If you kill people, expect that others may kill you in turn.”
Bonus: the biblical Jesus was known to hate hypocrites that pick out one piece of scripture to follow and ignore another and pharisees that carefully interpret and follow the letter of the law to find loopholes and ignore the heart of it. Those people lawyering their way around the otherwise unmistakable passages about generosity and giving away your wealth? Believe it or not, straight to hell.
More disgusting than the sentiment mentioned at the start is the hypocrisy of selectively applying it, the inconsistency in their own beliefs, the hollow facade of devotion while spitting on the principles they perjure to obey.
Signed, an apostate whose faith was shattered by fallacy of preaching love while children suffer and threatening hell while blasphemers thrive.
It absolutely confounds me how Christianity has become a stereotypically right-wing thing when in the context of the time Jesus’s actions are mostly that of a radical progressive who amassed such a following that the power structures of the time had him killed.
Like how in the hell can you run around hating homosexuals and immigrants when you account for the company Jesus kept in the context of the time? Only if you completely fucking ignore it.
My wife’s grandfather was a pastor, and a saying that has passed through her family is “On the day of judgment, there’s going to be a lot of Christians facing a very unhappy surprise”.
Signed, former apostate who has found his way back to being an incredibly frustrated Christian.
On the day of judgment, there’s going to be a lot of Christians facing a very unhappy surprise
I mean, even that is biblical. The passage in the Apocalypse about “What you did to the least of my brothers, you did to me” features a group of people claiming to be faithful being turned away just as they turned away the needy: “I don’t know you, go away”.
Which means we’re back on the topic of reading one part but ignoring another. How can you vote to slash social security nets, then go to church and look at that cross, the symbol of the ultimate sacrifice and of a man that said “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go two, and if they demand your shirt, give them the coat too”, with anything but shame and disgust at yourself?
In the Acts 5:1-10, there’s a story of a couple that sold an acre and gave part of the money to their parish. They lied and said it had been the full amount to exaggerate the weight of their contribution. As per the response, they wouldn’t have to give anything, but pretending it was the full amount was a deceit deserving of keeling over dead.
Yet televangelists pretend to do God’s work, enriching themselves beyond measure. Guess that threat of punishment only works if you actually believe it.
What I find even more reprehensible than the sentiment “Without the threat of consequences, why should I be decent?” is that their own fucking book holds the answer to their goddamn question (not an expletive here, their god should and probably would damn them for it):
The first half of this is a principle independent of religion, a fundamental social contract, the most critical idea underpinning any functioning society: Expect your behaviour to be reciprocated, and act accordingly. If you want others to help you if you need it, help people (if you can). If you want others to be kind to you, be kind to others. If you’re gonna be a prick, expect others to be just as prickly to you.
If all that keeps you from murdering people is the threat of eternal damnation, you forget that your own scripture says “If you kill people, expect that others may kill you in turn.”
Bonus: the biblical Jesus was known to hate hypocrites that pick out one piece of scripture to follow and ignore another and pharisees that carefully interpret and follow the letter of the law to find loopholes and ignore the heart of it. Those people lawyering their way around the otherwise unmistakable passages about generosity and giving away your wealth? Believe it or not, straight to hell.
More disgusting than the sentiment mentioned at the start is the hypocrisy of selectively applying it, the inconsistency in their own beliefs, the hollow facade of devotion while spitting on the principles they perjure to obey.
Signed, an apostate whose faith was shattered by fallacy of preaching love while children suffer and threatening hell while blasphemers thrive.
It absolutely confounds me how Christianity has become a stereotypically right-wing thing when in the context of the time Jesus’s actions are mostly that of a radical progressive who amassed such a following that the power structures of the time had him killed.
Like how in the hell can you run around hating homosexuals and immigrants when you account for the company Jesus kept in the context of the time? Only if you completely fucking ignore it.
My wife’s grandfather was a pastor, and a saying that has passed through her family is “On the day of judgment, there’s going to be a lot of Christians facing a very unhappy surprise”.
Signed, former apostate who has found his way back to being an incredibly frustrated Christian.
I mean, even that is biblical. The passage in the Apocalypse about “What you did to the least of my brothers, you did to me” features a group of people claiming to be faithful being turned away just as they turned away the needy: “I don’t know you, go away”.
Which means we’re back on the topic of reading one part but ignoring another. How can you vote to slash social security nets, then go to church and look at that cross, the symbol of the ultimate sacrifice and of a man that said “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go two, and if they demand your shirt, give them the coat too”, with anything but shame and disgust at yourself?
In the Acts 5:1-10, there’s a story of a couple that sold an acre and gave part of the money to their parish. They lied and said it had been the full amount to exaggerate the weight of their contribution. As per the response, they wouldn’t have to give anything, but pretending it was the full amount was a deceit deserving of keeling over dead.
Yet televangelists pretend to do God’s work, enriching themselves beyond measure. Guess that threat of punishment only works if you actually believe it.