Nex Benedict died one day after a fight in a school bathroom. Their mother Sue Benedict tells Bevan Hurley that the gender fluid teenager endured more than a year of abuse simply for being who they were
This isn’t “Christianity”. And that’s not to defend the religion, but it is just one head of this Hydra, not the core of the problem. People in power are using hate and fear in whatever medium they can to consolidate and increase that power, casualties be damned.
I was responding to a comment from someone else, and not from you…
But there’s a reason why the tool is always religion
If it’s always religion then it can’t be anything else, right? So that person was indirectly stating that’s the only tool, and I was pointing out that there’s multiple ways of manipulating others, besides religion.
Because people are just their books, and have no free will of their own.
Very well. In that case I want a citation. How did you determine the “right” way and why is everyone else wrong?
You point to me in the New Testament where Jesus himself advocates violence and harm, and then we can have a conversation.
I already did this in this thread. Come on some level of effort on your point. He does it repeatedly! He talks about how he will be the future king and his enemies will be butchered then sent to hell. He makes a woman beg at his feet while calling herself a racial slur before he helps her kid. He rebukes a man with leprosy for having leprosy. He tells people to give up all means of support and their own families just to follow him.
Very well. In that case I want a citation. How did you determine the “right” way and why is everyone else wrong?
You’re being intellectually dishonest to suggest that I’m saying everyone else is wrong, as the point I’m trying to make is not that at all, that you can’t judge a whole people based on what their religion is, as people have free will and follow there religion to their modern worldview, and see what are you with me not just what ancient text stated verbaten.
As far as how I determine what the right way is, I do it via The Golden Rule. Do onto to others, as you would have others do unto you. Basically, what Jesus taught at a summary level. Be kind of others, don’t harm them help where you can, etc.
And for the record, I’m not a Christian, just in case you think you’re arguing against one.
I would love to have a Christian scholar review what you’re saying, especially the quotes that you’re stating are coming from Jesus, for factuality.
As far as how I determine what the right way is, I do it via The Golden Rule. Do onto to others, as you would have others do unto you.
And the classic justification is torturing/murdering people was needed to save their souls which is what you would want.
Basically, what Jesus taught at a summary level. Be kind of others, don’t harm them help where you can, etc.
He didn’t teach that. He didn’t exist. The idea predates the Bible by over five centuries in India, via trade routes and scholar migration it entered into that part of the world. It seems to have entered into Judaism about 50 or so BCE where it was attributed to Rabbi Hillel who has some superficial resemblance to the Jesus of Matthew.
And for the record, I’m not a Christian, just in case you think you’re arguing against one.
Very well. Would you mind commiting blasphemy against the Holy Ghost for me? A non-christian should have no problem with the unforgivable sin of Christianity.
I would love to have a Christian scholar review what you’re saying, especially the quotes that you’re stating are coming from Jesus, for factuality.
The Bible is freely available online. Do your own work.
This is exactly Christianity. Their book tells them to act this way and their shamans have been screaming for this conduct for twenty centuries. Every single Christian I have dealt with is about one bad day away from doing this and why shouldn’t they? The have skydaddy telling them that they will be forgiven for everything and that it is a good thing to oppress the LGBT.
Again, I’m not defending the religion, just saying that blaming one thing here is missing the mountain of other contributing factors. If we erased christianity and every other religion you want gone from the world, the hate and fear would still be there, as would the people manipulating that to benefit themselves.
Great metaphor, actually, since cancer is most often caused or exacerbated by something else. But you’re still missing my point by a mile. Keeping going after the symptom rather than the sickness, I guess. I’m sure that’ll solve everything.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful to those who you are replying to, but are you sure those are even regular people you’re talking to, and not bots?
Either they’re very fanatical and can’t see outside of their box, or they’re being intellectually dishonest in how they respond to you, seeming to miss your point that’s being expressed very well and straightforward.
Eh, I don’t think so. People (understandably) hyper-focus on religion, and Christianity in particular, and the terrible things done under them, and it can be hard to get them to view the larger scope of the situation.
This is exactly Christianity. Their book tells them to act this way and their shamans have been screaming for this conduct for twenty centuries.
Granted, I missed Jesus’s sermon on the hill, but I’m sure I would have heard something about him okaying bullying and killing good people just because they’re different.
Christian fundamentalists don’t have nothing in common with Jesus. They are fake christians. Jesus preached tolerance so many times. They fucking don’t get it that they ignore him completely.
Christian fundamentalists don’t have nothing in common with Jesus. They are fake christians. Jesus preached tolerance so many times. They fucking don’t get it that they ignore him completely.
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. That when everyone says Christians are bad there’s actually two types of Christians, the Jesus type, and the modern Christians who use the name but don’t act like how Jesus would want them to.
You know I do find it kind of weird to bring up the no true scotsman fallacy in this shit, when the real point of that fallacy is just kind of to get people to be conscious that their mental definitions don’t actually exist in reality, and they have to work from a formal definition, right? But I think, without getting into the specifics of like, that guy’s biblical interpretation, it’s pretty obvious that they have a definition of “christian” that doesn’t line up with the others.
You might, instead of bringing up the scotsman fallacy, have better luck in hitting them with what the scotsman fallacy hearkens to, and asking them for a clear definition that you might then be able to push back on with counterexample.
Basically, I am accusing you of the fallacy fallacy.
Jesus didn’t exist. The fictional person in the Gospels preached a doctrine that his was the only way to salvation and all other ways lead to hell. That one does not have the right to basic sexuality, property, and what they say.
That is not any form of tolerance I have ever heard of. One the rejects freedom of religion, expression, sexual preferences, and possessions. What possible tolerance could there be in a world where a shaman can order you to only worship him, to hand over all your stuff, to love only whom he approves of, and only say what he wants you to say?
Ballsy of you to say that. I’d like to know what proof you have of that.
Honestly not saying that you’re wrong, but it’s really tired of people who say things with such certainty when they’re just pulling it out of one of their orifices.
The fictional person in the Gospels preached a doctrine that his was the only way to salvation and all other ways lead to hell. That one does not have the right to basic sexuality, property, and what they say.
Chiming in here to say that generally you need proof of positive claims in a debate, rather than proof of negative claims. Claiming dragons are real requires evidence, claiming that they are not real, well, I mean, first you’d have to establish a definition of what dragons are, but mostly, it wouldn’t require evidence to claim they’re not real, because proving such a thing would be a feat an order of magnitude greater than proving they exist.
Chiming in here to say that generally you need proof of positive claims in a debate, rather than proof of negative claims.
I’m not asking him to prove a negative, I’m asking him to prove his firm assertion that Jesus did not exist.
My understanding is there’s no conclusive evidence either way, so when somebody states either one of the extremes, that he absolutely existed, or he absolutely did not exist, I want to know where their proof is coming from that allows him to say such a thing with such certainty, because I know the evidence is inconclusive (at least at the last time I took a look into it).
In any case, have fun with your debate.
I’ve actually blocked him at this point, so there won’t be any further debate. My first block on Lemmy actually, I try very hard never to do that.
Ballsy of you to say that. I’d like to know what proof you have of that.
Sure. Total lack of contemporary evidence, lack of all relics from his life, the inability of anyone to keep basic biographical details about his life straight, clear and obvious plagiarism from texts in wide circulation at the time, lack of a dynasty, and easier explanations for the scarce data that we have.
You could write Paul’s letters completely from just being told 2 things about Jesus and being familiar with Jewish and Greek writings. You could write the entire gospel of Mark with the letters and again some familiarity with the writings of the time. Matthew adds almost nothing. Luke-Acts just adds stuff about Paul.
Want the Euchrist? Guess what eating your god was a common mystery cult practice. Want a dead leader? All over Judaism start with the Maccabees. Want the last supper? Common fiction trope at the time. Want the Tomb? Again already in fiction. Feeding the multitudes and healing the sick? Easy, Elijiah.
That one does not have the right to basic sexuality, property, and what they say.
Being serious? All that stuff about giving up your property to charity, ripping your eye out instead of looking with lust, condemning people for not saying that he was lord?
Being serious? All that stuff about giving up your property to charity, ripping your eye out instead of looking with lust, condemning people for not saying that he was lord?
Yeah, I really am, honestly.
As I mentioned to you somewhere, I’m not a Christian.
So if you actually got proof that Jesus is a bastard please do so. Be specific about it and don’t just say something without any connotation about who’s saying it or where it’s cited from. Because from all the quotes you’ve been making I literally can’t touch tell which one of those are from Jesus.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
Whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire
The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
He is now the judge of a sinful world, and on His head is the crown of the sole ruler of earth. On His robe, dipped in blood, and on His thigh is written, “King of kings and Lord of lords,” and no one alive doesn’t tremble at the sight of Him.
You know, I’ve been noticing more and more that lemmy has a bunch of people who just fuckin hate religion straight up, edgy 2010’s reddit atheism style. I don’t necessarily disagree with a lot of their criticisms, but it has gotten kind of annoying seeing people attribute these clearly complex and incentive driven behaviors to something so broad, so old, and so vague.
It seems pretty obvious to me personally that conservatives have kind of given up on contesting civil rights and gay rights as a means to differentiate themselves from the other neoliberals, since those issues remain pretty deeply unpopular to contest, and are moving to this as sort of the next thing in their playbook, the next highest profile minority that they can easily lambast on nightly news. All while they try to roll back those other issues through every possible angle they might be able to work in local, state, and federal government.
That’s even a pretty big oversimplification of the issue, and the different forces involved, right, like it’s not really tied into why or how specifically they’re doing that, right, but it’s really stupid to even have that surface level understanding, and still bump up against people insisting that it’s more singularly some other driving, evil force. As though you couldn’t, were you to analyze christianity, split such a thing up into another whole litany of forces, another whole network of relations, causes and effects.
It says right in the Bible that being LGBT is a sin worthy of being sent to hell and that Jesus wants his enemies killed. Do you need me to quote chapter and verse?
Hey you know what? I fully admit I am an angry atheist. That means I say mean little things sometimes. You know what I don’t do? I don’t beat a trans kid to death inside a school bathroom, I don’t commit war crimes, and I dont descrate cultural sites.
You really want to both sides this? You really want to compare a few mean little comments to beating a child to death?
The same Christianity that wiped out the pagan faiths of Europe via mass murder, led a series of bloody wars into the “Holy” Land, plunged the former empire into the dark ages, burned books and people, repeatedly murdered each other over doctrine and any minority they could grab, built instruments of torture to go after supposed heretics, and not content with the horrors they subjected parts of the Middle East and all of Europe to went forward and introduced their rot to the rest of the world.
That Christianity. The burning at the stake, stabbing homosexuals with fire pokers, the genocidal against the Jews, the rape and pillage of Arab lands, the Christianity that imprisoned and tortured any free thinker. The same one that even today is quickly working to “deal” with the Muslims and the trans.
And why shouldn’t it be exactly like that? The whole thing is modeled after one of the most repulsive characters in all of fiction.
The same Christianity that wiped out the pagan faiths of Europe via mass murder, led a series of bloody wars into the “Holy” Land, plunged the former empire into the dark ages, burned books and people, repeatedly murdered each other over doctrine and any minority they could grab, built instruments of torture to go after supposed heretics, and not content with the horrors they subjected parts of the Middle East and all of Europe to went forward and introduced their rot to the rest of the world.
You keep being intellectually dishonest. The Crusades and the other things you described were not done by Jesus, they were done by other men centuries later.
There’s a clear disembarkation in philosophy between what Jesus spoke of and taught, and what regular people throughout the ages interpreted what he said as, for their own personal benefits.
There’s a clear disembarkation in philosophy between what Jesus spoke of and taught, and what regular people throughout the ages interpreted what he said as, for their own personal benefits.
Nothing in the Bible doesn’t align with the crusades
Another person murdered by Christianity.
This isn’t “Christianity”. And that’s not to defend the religion, but it is just one head of this Hydra, not the core of the problem. People in power are using hate and fear in whatever medium they can to consolidate and increase that power, casualties be damned.
They all just happen to be religious by coincidence.
Religion is the tool, not the motive.
There are those that practice their faith the way it should be practiced, without causing harm to others.
And then there are others who want power, and will use the tool to manipulate others, to get that power.
But there’s a reason why the tool is always religion
You’d be foolish to think that that is the only tool available for people to manipulate others with.
No one is saying that it is.
I was responding to a comment from someone else, and not from you…
If it’s always religion then it can’t be anything else, right? So that person was indirectly stating that’s the only tool, and I was pointing out that there’s multiple ways of manipulating others, besides religion.
Tell me the Bible passage that says that.
Because people are just their books, and have no free will of their own.
You point to me in the New Testament where Jesus himself advocates violence and harm to innocents, and then we can have a conversation.
Very well. In that case I want a citation. How did you determine the “right” way and why is everyone else wrong?
I already did this in this thread. Come on some level of effort on your point. He does it repeatedly! He talks about how he will be the future king and his enemies will be butchered then sent to hell. He makes a woman beg at his feet while calling herself a racial slur before he helps her kid. He rebukes a man with leprosy for having leprosy. He tells people to give up all means of support and their own families just to follow him.
You’re being intellectually dishonest to suggest that I’m saying everyone else is wrong, as the point I’m trying to make is not that at all, that you can’t judge a whole people based on what their religion is, as people have free will and follow there religion to their modern worldview, and see what are you with me not just what ancient text stated verbaten.
As far as how I determine what the right way is, I do it via The Golden Rule. Do onto to others, as you would have others do unto you. Basically, what Jesus taught at a summary level. Be kind of others, don’t harm them help where you can, etc.
And for the record, I’m not a Christian, just in case you think you’re arguing against one.
I would love to have a Christian scholar review what you’re saying, especially the quotes that you’re stating are coming from Jesus, for factuality.
And the classic justification is torturing/murdering people was needed to save their souls which is what you would want.
He didn’t teach that. He didn’t exist. The idea predates the Bible by over five centuries in India, via trade routes and scholar migration it entered into that part of the world. It seems to have entered into Judaism about 50 or so BCE where it was attributed to Rabbi Hillel who has some superficial resemblance to the Jesus of Matthew.
Very well. Would you mind commiting blasphemy against the Holy Ghost for me? A non-christian should have no problem with the unforgivable sin of Christianity.
The Bible is freely available online. Do your own work.
Where did I say it wasn’t part of the problem? I said the exact opposite, in fact.
This is exactly Christianity. Their book tells them to act this way and their shamans have been screaming for this conduct for twenty centuries. Every single Christian I have dealt with is about one bad day away from doing this and why shouldn’t they? The have skydaddy telling them that they will be forgiven for everything and that it is a good thing to oppress the LGBT.
Again, I’m not defending the religion, just saying that blaming one thing here is missing the mountain of other contributing factors. If we erased christianity and every other religion you want gone from the world, the hate and fear would still be there, as would the people manipulating that to benefit themselves.
If cancer were cured tomorrow people would still die eventually, but I would rather live in a world without cancer than one with it.
Great metaphor, actually, since cancer is most often caused or exacerbated by something else. But you’re still missing my point by a mile. Keeping going after the symptom rather than the sickness, I guess. I’m sure that’ll solve everything.
I got your point. You refuse to address the issue and instead want us all to wander around in circles finding “deeper” reasons.
Swing and a miss again.
Nope.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful to those who you are replying to, but are you sure those are even regular people you’re talking to, and not bots?
Either they’re very fanatical and can’t see outside of their box, or they’re being intellectually dishonest in how they respond to you, seeming to miss your point that’s being expressed very well and straightforward.
Eh, I don’t think so. People (understandably) hyper-focus on religion, and Christianity in particular, and the terrible things done under them, and it can be hard to get them to view the larger scope of the situation.
Fair enough, but they seem to be overly obtuse about it, to a fault.
Nope human. Got meat organs and everything. I love how the only defense of religion is to personally attack the guy calling out what it does
Granted, I missed Jesus’s sermon on the hill, but I’m sure I would have heard something about him okaying bullying and killing good people just because they’re different.
Christian fundamentalists don’t have nothing in common with Jesus. They are fake christians. Jesus preached tolerance so many times. They fucking don’t get it that they ignore him completely.
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. That when everyone says Christians are bad there’s actually two types of Christians, the Jesus type, and the modern Christians who use the name but don’t act like how Jesus would want them to.
Do the Jesus types live in Scotland with the True Scots?
You know I do find it kind of weird to bring up the no true scotsman fallacy in this shit, when the real point of that fallacy is just kind of to get people to be conscious that their mental definitions don’t actually exist in reality, and they have to work from a formal definition, right? But I think, without getting into the specifics of like, that guy’s biblical interpretation, it’s pretty obvious that they have a definition of “christian” that doesn’t line up with the others.
You might, instead of bringing up the scotsman fallacy, have better luck in hitting them with what the scotsman fallacy hearkens to, and asking them for a clear definition that you might then be able to push back on with counterexample.
Basically, I am accusing you of the fallacy fallacy.
Jesus didn’t exist. The fictional person in the Gospels preached a doctrine that his was the only way to salvation and all other ways lead to hell. That one does not have the right to basic sexuality, property, and what they say.
That is not any form of tolerance I have ever heard of. One the rejects freedom of religion, expression, sexual preferences, and possessions. What possible tolerance could there be in a world where a shaman can order you to only worship him, to hand over all your stuff, to love only whom he approves of, and only say what he wants you to say?
Ballsy of you to say that. I’d like to know what proof you have of that.
Honestly not saying that you’re wrong, but it’s really tired of people who say things with such certainty when they’re just pulling it out of one of their orifices.
[Citation Required.]
Chiming in here to say that generally you need proof of positive claims in a debate, rather than proof of negative claims. Claiming dragons are real requires evidence, claiming that they are not real, well, I mean, first you’d have to establish a definition of what dragons are, but mostly, it wouldn’t require evidence to claim they’re not real, because proving such a thing would be a feat an order of magnitude greater than proving they exist.
In any case, have fun with your debate.
Well aware but thanks. I gave my evidence.
I’m not asking him to prove a negative, I’m asking him to prove his firm assertion that Jesus did not exist.
My understanding is there’s no conclusive evidence either way, so when somebody states either one of the extremes, that he absolutely existed, or he absolutely did not exist, I want to know where their proof is coming from that allows him to say such a thing with such certainty, because I know the evidence is inconclusive (at least at the last time I took a look into it).
I’ve actually blocked him at this point, so there won’t be any further debate. My first block on Lemmy actually, I try very hard never to do that.
Sure. Total lack of contemporary evidence, lack of all relics from his life, the inability of anyone to keep basic biographical details about his life straight, clear and obvious plagiarism from texts in wide circulation at the time, lack of a dynasty, and easier explanations for the scarce data that we have.
You could write Paul’s letters completely from just being told 2 things about Jesus and being familiar with Jewish and Greek writings. You could write the entire gospel of Mark with the letters and again some familiarity with the writings of the time. Matthew adds almost nothing. Luke-Acts just adds stuff about Paul.
Want the Euchrist? Guess what eating your god was a common mystery cult practice. Want a dead leader? All over Judaism start with the Maccabees. Want the last supper? Common fiction trope at the time. Want the Tomb? Again already in fiction. Feeding the multitudes and healing the sick? Easy, Elijiah.
Being serious? All that stuff about giving up your property to charity, ripping your eye out instead of looking with lust, condemning people for not saying that he was lord?
Yeah, I really am, honestly.
As I mentioned to you somewhere, I’m not a Christian.
So if you actually got proof that Jesus is a bastard please do so. Be specific about it and don’t just say something without any connotation about who’s saying it or where it’s cited from. Because from all the quotes you’ve been making I literally can’t touch tell which one of those are from Jesus.
You know, I’ve been noticing more and more that lemmy has a bunch of people who just fuckin hate religion straight up, edgy 2010’s reddit atheism style. I don’t necessarily disagree with a lot of their criticisms, but it has gotten kind of annoying seeing people attribute these clearly complex and incentive driven behaviors to something so broad, so old, and so vague.
It seems pretty obvious to me personally that conservatives have kind of given up on contesting civil rights and gay rights as a means to differentiate themselves from the other neoliberals, since those issues remain pretty deeply unpopular to contest, and are moving to this as sort of the next thing in their playbook, the next highest profile minority that they can easily lambast on nightly news. All while they try to roll back those other issues through every possible angle they might be able to work in local, state, and federal government.
That’s even a pretty big oversimplification of the issue, and the different forces involved, right, like it’s not really tied into why or how specifically they’re doing that, right, but it’s really stupid to even have that surface level understanding, and still bump up against people insisting that it’s more singularly some other driving, evil force. As though you couldn’t, were you to analyze christianity, split such a thing up into another whole litany of forces, another whole network of relations, causes and effects.
It says right in the Bible that being LGBT is a sin worthy of being sent to hell and that Jesus wants his enemies killed. Do you need me to quote chapter and verse?
Hey you know what? I fully admit I am an angry atheist. That means I say mean little things sometimes. You know what I don’t do? I don’t beat a trans kid to death inside a school bathroom, I don’t commit war crimes, and I dont descrate cultural sites.
You really want to both sides this? You really want to compare a few mean little comments to beating a child to death?
that’s a pretty nice bait
Beautiful sermon, bless.
@ech @afraid_of_zombies TBF it kinda is Christianity tho.
Which Christianity? Jesus’, or today’s modern-day Evangelical?
The same Christianity that wiped out the pagan faiths of Europe via mass murder, led a series of bloody wars into the “Holy” Land, plunged the former empire into the dark ages, burned books and people, repeatedly murdered each other over doctrine and any minority they could grab, built instruments of torture to go after supposed heretics, and not content with the horrors they subjected parts of the Middle East and all of Europe to went forward and introduced their rot to the rest of the world.
That Christianity. The burning at the stake, stabbing homosexuals with fire pokers, the genocidal against the Jews, the rape and pillage of Arab lands, the Christianity that imprisoned and tortured any free thinker. The same one that even today is quickly working to “deal” with the Muslims and the trans.
And why shouldn’t it be exactly like that? The whole thing is modeled after one of the most repulsive characters in all of fiction.
I’m talking about individuals. You’re talking about institutions. An institution is not made of 100% of individuals that all think exactly the same.
Pat Robertson is an individual. Want to talk about him?
You keep being intellectually dishonest. The Crusades and the other things you described were not done by Jesus, they were done by other men centuries later.
There’s a clear disembarkation in philosophy between what Jesus spoke of and taught, and what regular people throughout the ages interpreted what he said as, for their own personal benefits.
Nothing in the Bible doesn’t align with the crusades