For all their "christianity", republicans in the US are pretty hypocritical.

Jesus actually teached that everybody deserves to get fed and housed. That everybody deserves healthcare. That people should care for other people in their community. That is essentially the core principles of socialism.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 105 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Religion isn’t about actually helping people. It’s used to control the masses with shame, guilt and the threat of eternal damnation. It’s used to abuse and fleece the weak and the poor.

People holding onto “that’s not what Jesus would do” are just in denial about the cult they participate in.

Jesus is just a tool used to dupe rubes. If you need a fictional character to tell you to act like a decent human being then you’re not a good person.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Harsh but true.

    But a little besides the point OP is trying to make - which is about Jesus' teachings themselves, not the cult that grew up around it - as far as we can deduce what Jesus actually did and said of course. Which isn't much but enough to come to a similar conclusion as OP claims.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    IMO it made sense in the times when enforcing the law was harder to do. But a lot of time has passed since then, religions (as in whole communities, priests and followers) somehow made it their point to not change much

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    "Enforcing the law" a.k.a. "opressing people"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not necessarily. Punishing theft or manslaughter is not oppression. And it makes sense to have systemic safeguards against those

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not being able to cook and eat humans make some people feel oppressed, too, and it's still the law. I think cultural context also matters. Jesus, if he existed as a singular person, was certainly ahead of his time, and imo, when he said he came to fulfill the law (old testament) rather than abolish it, that meant it was completed, thus over. It was time for a new law. Plus I've also done a lot of reading at early Jewish writings.com, earlychristianwritings.cim, the Ethiopian Bible in English, my Jewish learning.com, Jewish encyclopedia, etc, so there are a lot of mistranslation, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I would argue that the verse where he said I am here to fulfill the old testament is more proving that christians should follow the old testament. There is not much in bible canon to suggest the old testament was vetod by Jesus, I would say there's more than enough evidence in bible canon that old testament rules still apply to all christians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Almost everything Jesus taught was in contradiction to the ot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Religion isn’t about actually helping people. It’s used to control the masses with shame, guilt and the threat of eternal damnation. It’s used to abuse and fleece the weak and the poor.

    There are a lot of different religions and beliefs in the world, right? Christianity and similar religions are not the only ones that exist, and many religions originated from ancient human primitive tribes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You can’t call every christian a rube and then make such a simplistic accusation about organized religion. Yes there are (major) flaws with organized religion, but surely you realize your statement is at best hyperbole and at worst moronic

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Dawg I ain’t saying organized religion is innocent. But it is false to claim that the sole purpose of religion is to control the masses. Your original comment was also just wrong like bruh, how can you claim that a figure like Jesus (the guy flipping tables in the marketplace, preaching ab how the poor are the most holy, saving the lepers, etc) was actually an evil psychopath who had a long game where he was going to fleece the poor of their wealth and threaten people with eternal damnation so they would follow him. That’s just some braindead conspiracy shit where you’re afraid everyone is out to get you. Grow up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Whatever jesus the human did in the past is irrelevant. He is used as an icon to control people by those who built an organized cult around him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If you need a fictional character to tell you to act like a decent human being then you’re not a good person.

    What happens when you need a real person to tell you to act like a "decent human being" like every human in existence today? Are we all by nature "evil" because we require third parties to dictate what "good" is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Nobody needs third parties to dictate what good is, it's embedded in our genes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is incorrect. You likely have learned little on your own, especially true regarding behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm not arguing against that, but there definitely is a moral compass embedded in our genes. We've evolved to work and live in a society. Otherwise we would be extinct. You may be taught things that "feel" wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You appear to have never raised children. Being empathetic and kind to children is key so they can learn what empathy and kindness is; without the demonstration (and for many children, the reinforcement) children's instinct are to resort to violence to get their way. Infants start out in the world copying the perspective of their parents, which is It is so critical to be expressively empathetic with infants so they can learn the appropriate mapping of experiences with feelings.

    Children don’t just pick up these values from their parents, but from everyone around them; and in a social group where everyone balances their values against everyone else, norms and traditions form, and now there is an informal religion; and where norms and traditions transcend generations of those practicing, social structures are inevitably built to reinforce the norms into future generations, and now there is a formalized religion.

    Any social structure can be corrupted by power. To say religion is inherently amoral because it is corrupt is put on intellectual blindfolds to how social values and norms are shared

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    We may be speaking of different things. Let me ask you something: do you think the warm feeling you get when you help someone or share a moment of achievement with another person is taught by society?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There definitely is no evidence to support an inherent "moral compass" in humans or any other animal because there is no evidence to support genetic memory which would be required to pass information without teaching it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The obvious response to this is "companions in guilt". It's a meta ethics argument that essentially points out that moral reasoning is no different than other types of reasoning. There is no need for "genetic memory", when like logic it's simply a consequence of how human minds are structured.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Genes are a type of memory. Instincts aren't taught.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Define instincts and provide an example of them being inherent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The entire life of a turtle...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Did you know that the mother communicates to her eggs before leaving the beach? They also have a very complex verbal and non verbal way of communicating which begins even before they hatch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Even assuming you're correct, which I very highly doubt as you have provided no source for your claim that contradicts the overwhelming majority of information you can find online, are you going to tell me flies also communicate with their eggs? Does it continue all the way down to amoebas?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Even assuming you’re correct, which I very highly doubt as you have provided no source for your claim that contradicts the overwhelming majority of information you can find online, are you going to tell me flies also communicate with their eggs? Does it continue all the way down to amoebas?

    Search "Turtles speak to eggs" if you want to see an overwhelming amount of information that supports the studies done on Turtle communication. Not only do the mothers speak to their babies in the eggs, the baby turtles speak to each other before they hatch.

    No, because we are talking about Turtles and what studies know about Turtles. I am unsure what we know about how flies communicate, or how amoebas communicate beyond chemical reactions, but that has nothing to do with the facts about Turtles.

    Nobody needs third parties to dictate what good is, it’s embedded in our genes.

    Feel free to source your bullshit before asking for a source from someone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    We're not talking about turtles but about instincts, that's why I said "assuming you're correct" because even if you are, you're not disproving the existence of instincts, which is pretty much scientific common knowledge. The specific example is not that important for the argument, which you conveniently avoided.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    We’re not talking about turtles but about instincts, that’s why I said “assuming you’re correct” because even if you are, you’re not disproving the existence of instincts, which is pretty much scientific common knowledge. The specific example is not that important for the argument, which you conveniently avoided.

    I asked you to provide an example of inherent instincts, you said Turtles, I demonstrated why you were wrong.

    The onus is on you to prove your original hypothesis:

    Nobody needs third parties to dictate what good is, it’s embedded in our genes.

    I am not avoiding your argument, I am explicitly telling you it is bullshit. This is bullshit and not backed by anything real.

    Feel free to source something or jog on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Sigh...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

    There you go, sources and all. It's very illuminating.

    My argument is that there is a basic moral code embedded in our genes via instincts. For example the ability to feel compassion and empathy - these are instinctual.

    https://online.uwa.edu/news/empathy-in-animals/ (just an example)

    Now, what exactly is "good" is a philosophical question without an objective answer. But to assume our entire behavior and everything makes a person "good" is learned is pretty disingenuous, at least under the definitions of good I've most commonly come across.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    My argument is that there is a basic moral code embedded in our genes via instincts. For example the ability to feel compassion and empathy - these are instinctual.

    A wiki does not an argument make, and your argument fails to explain why compassion and empathy are not universal in our species and a learned behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You're not arguing in good faith - the wiki was the source for the existence of instincts you asked for. Also, Wikipedia is a very good resource actually, what difference would it make to you if I just copied the sources referenced in the article?

    I didn't get your second part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)