They were Protestants and hated Catholics. Still doesn’t make sense.
I mean I hate everything about catholicism too. I mean I hate all religions, but catholicism specifically. But I don’t burn their symbols. I just avoid any circumstance I would have to be exposed to of it.
But yeah, still doesn’t make sense to burn a symbol you share with the people you hate. This is just their silent screams of self hatred. Not loud enough to drown out the “everything besides white people” hatred, but still somehow present. I guess they can’t even like themselves. Too busy hating.
Gotta get that hate-love ratio under control.
Without a doubt
Yes. Yes they are. Also, I think a “radical Christian” would be the opposite of the KKK.
I guess I’m a radical Christian then.
I believe Jesus taught tolerance and love, so I try to treat others with tolerance and love. And not fake love like “thoughts and prayers,” but real love, which comes with action.
John Brown was a radical Christian, and he’s okay in my book.
Truly an American hero.
Pretty telling that he’s not mentioned in history books. I didn’t learn anything about him until well into adulthood.
I grew up in Appalachia and he was covered a bit in our school history books, more than just mentioned.
It’s always funny when I hear this, currently teaching ELA in Florida of all places. So, we all heard of the cuts to education, stop teaching certain bits of history (please fill me in on the correct term, I currently remember trump or Desantis’ buzzwords about not teaching slaves being enslaved and them being “indentured” and “learning valuable skills!” the cunt.)
Anyway, our current section for this lesson plan is on Harriet Tubman, underground railroad, teaching the kids how to get characterization from the text and follow context clues, stuff like that. John Brown is mentioned, and in my counties’ plans is a side lesson on John Brown, what he did, which works better for me since I should be teaching history regardless. I’m telling these kids all about him, what he believes in, and how raiding that armory is what caused the federal government to come crashing down on him, all the crazy radical badass things this man did.
Now, as I’m teaching these things, in the back of my head I’m thinking “This is surprising… Isn’t this supposed to be forbidden knowledge right know? What got cut?” Anyway, sorry for the walk of text. Slightly drunk, figured it fit here.
Edit: Forgot to mention, I am in a VERY fucking red part of Florida. Lifted white trucks, truck nuts, punisher stickers over blue line American flags, the fuckin works. You guys should see bike week, you’d swear it was the second coming of the führer.
He might’ve been mentioned once in a class but we definitely didn’t learn much of anything. Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation was of course covered a dozen times. Granted this was decades ago in the 90s.
For context, I’m in the Midwest and had an 8th grade history teacher/football coach tell us black people had an extra bone in their leg and it made them good at sports. That guy (a beloved teacher) was elected to the school board about 5 years ago. They’re definitely out there and they definitely have some backwards views.
I don’t know much about it but I assume it would be any texts white washing history. As an example I grew up in the south and learned about John Brown and Harriet Tubman with basically facts that can be regurgitated. Nothing diving into the day-to-day hardships and anything sounding too sympathetic.
The rationale for the civil war was white washed to “state’s rights” and specifically “slavery wasn’t the major cause”. For 'what" state’s rights obviously due to economic ones because the north was purposely attempting to keep the south down.
Another example was that slaves had a better life as slaves and many came back! The ‘silent racism’ of the North was even worse than the South’s violent racism because in the South they could live (in slavery) while on the North they will be destitute and invisible.
The point being, if it’s attempting to redo that, then it is the overall message and subtext of the curriculum.
Same. The dude should have a statue in DC and probably a holiday.
Naa, one in Harper’s Ferry. Near where the armory was (is?)
I feel like “tolerance” is the wrong word here. If you instead strive for “compassion” you’d be closer to the mark.
When I think of tolerance, I think of how Jesus dealt with sinners. He didn’t go around pointing out others’ mistakes, instead he helped any who came to him. He even asked his father to forgive the people that killed him, saying they didn’t know what they were doing.
To me, tolerance doesn’t mean ignoring people who live differently, it means quite the opposite: look past the sin and love people for the rest of who they are. Getting into compassion, that also means championing causes that you disagree with, but that help your sinner friends and don’t hurt you.
For example, I fully support legalizing the following:
- gay marriage - I’ll even include polyamorous marriage (assuming consent)
- drugs - any restrictions should merely protect those who don’t use it (e.g. BAC limits for driving)
- prostitution
- gambling
I’m morally opposed to each of those, but that only applies to my own actions, and others choosing to do those doesn’t hurt me. If someone else makes a different decision, that’s not my business and I’ll continue loving them for who they are. Banning those things causes harm, and legalizing them makes people happy without hurting me, so why should I oppose?
Likewise, a homeless person addicted to drugs isn’t any less deserving of love than my local religious leader. Jesus gave two commandments:
- Love God
- Love neighbor as yourself
He didn’t say, “love saints more than sinners,” in fact he said we shouldn’t judge others at all. So if I love my religious leader and not the homeless person, I need to repent. And I show that love through action (i.e. compassion), otherwise it’s just lip-service and I’m no better than the Pharisees that showed piety in public but were incredibly intolerant.
Tolerance without commission isn’t love just like faith without works is dead.
Sure, but also “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Compassion still feels more appropriate.
True. I just want to point out that isn’t a quote from the Bible though, it’s from Saint Augustine.
Compassion is also appropriate, but it’s also has the ugly connotation of looking down on others, as in people looking for problems to solve instead of unconditionally loving others around them.
People don’t want to be a project, they want to be loved and accepted. So don’t help someone because they’re a project, help because you love them and you helping is what they want (not what you think is good for them).
I wasn’t aware the quote wasn’t considered relevant today. But in the same vein, tolerance has a similar implication: acceptance without understanding.
Compassion is usually read as acceptance despite no understanding. You don’t have to like things people do, or even the people themselves. But it’s always best to treat them as humans up front.
It’s absolutely relevant, I just pointed out it’s not a quote from Jesus or the apostles. That’s all. I believe it’s a quote Jesus would whole heartedly agree with though.
Compassion is usually read as acceptance despite no understanding.
Maybe, but like “tolerance,” I think people attach more meaning to it, twisting it to something like “feeling bad for someone.”
Let’s use an example of homosexuality from the perspective of your average Christian:
- tolerance - allow gay people in your church, but don’t do anything proactive about it
- compassion - feel bad for gay people, and offer to help them overcome it
The first largely ignores the issue, though there’s certainly some hidden prejudice. The second confronts the issue in a way that’s likely to offend (a gay person doesn’t see anything wrong, it’s the way they are).
My perspective is we should be more like the first than the second, but without the prejudice. Compassion should also be there, but without the preconceived notion of what’s best for that person.
People have twisted “tolerance” into “turning a blind eye” toward something, and I think that’s overloading the term a bit too much. Tolerance and compassion are two sides of the same coin.
I believe Jesus taught tolerance and love
So that’s what he meant when he said
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.
Matthew 10:34-36
or when he said:
“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."
Matthew 12:30
So tolerant and loving! 😍
Oh come on, I can see from a mile away that’s it’s a metaphor
Sure like everything that is uncomfortable. Rest is literal. How convenient.
i fucked god’s asshole
Matthew 10:34-36
Look at Matthew 26 (specifically 52) where Jesus stopped Peter from defending him with his sword. Jesus is opposed to violence, full stop.
The sword Jesus spoke of in Matthew 10 wasn’t a literal sword. He’s saying he’s here to disrupt the status quo. Following him requires being at odds with the status quo (Jewish law), which is likely to result in being excluded from families and whatnot. He certainly doesn’t condone violence, but he does acknowledge that this is a fork in the road and people need to pick sides, because they can’t do both.
This similar idea is conveyed in Matthew 6:24 (replace “money” with anything else that stands between you and following God):
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Or Matthew 5:29:
If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
I also don’t think he means you need to preemptively abandon your family, just that if you have to choose, choose God.
The same idea is true in secular ideology as well. If your family are Nazis, it’s better to leave them than become a Nazi.
It’s so weird how Trump and Jesus fans always need to explain what the words their admiration spoke actually meant. He maybe the evangelicals had it right all along and Donnie is the second coming!
Maybe. But I wouldn’t know because I never voted for that idiot and I think evangelicals are almost always wrong.
All I did here was read the larger context. Jesus was known for relying heavily on symbolism, so if something doesn’t fit the rest of the message, it means I’m likely missing something important in the symbolism. That’s why I provided additional examples to show my thought process.
If Jesus wanted to start a literal war, why didn’t his disciples gather an army? Because they understood his meaning.
Based tbh
Tolerantly beat the fuck out of those money changers
Lol.
The problem there was that they were defiling his house, disturbing people who were there to worship. Tolerance doesn’t mean putting up with bad actors, it means not getting involved in things that don’t concern you. Someone else choosing a different religion or lifestyle doesn’t concern you, and the direction to love them still applies. Someone persecuting you does impact you, so righteous anger is justified.
Especially since radical doesn’t mean extremist, but seeking the root. You want to know what a radical Christian looks like? MLK. Arguing for equality to be achieved through peaceful means but a positive peace that includes justice.
The kkk are just positive Christians, but unwilling to call themselves that because that would imply that they might be g*rmans and they ain’t no stinking deutschbag
Don’t wanna argue with the premises here. But isn’t Christianity also a bit stupid for praying towards the instrument that’s been used to torture and kill their leader.
Just imagine you are Jesus and come into a modern church. You’d run away screaming with all those crosses triggering your PTSD. And that’s before you’ve even heard of all the atrocities they’re doing there in your name.
Besides what everyone else said it used to be a fish, and the ChiRo (the one that looks like an X and a P) Symbol. It’s easy to see the evolution into the cross.
Sacrifice is a big thing in Christianity, the cross is the symbol of the biggest sacrifice that God did for us, on Christianity canon.
Totally. And it really makes sense when you think about it…
God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving and he created man in his own image… And then doomed them all to an eternity of suffering because… reasons.
God was known for being petty and jealous, so he forced humans to destroy their food to prove that they love him.
God, being all powerful, I guess changed his mind about wanting people to burn for eternity, so being the all-powerful, all-loving being that he is, he changed his mind and deleted hell so that all humans could enjoy eternity with him… LOL jk.
No, instead he split himself into another being and became a human with the sole purpose of being murdered in 30 years so that humans didn’t have to burn for eternity…? Actually, I kind of lose the thread at this point. It’s never been clear to me why an all-powerful god would need to create such a bizarre, convoluted, byzantine means for redemption when he could have just snapped his fingers and made it all go away.
But all of that makes sense when you think about it as just another sacrifice to prove to god that you love him, and our rudimentary understanding of symbolism is all we need to prove this. After all, there’s no need to read any other books, therefore this has to be the deepest, most profound thing ever written. I mean holy shit, Jesus is the “lamb of god” that needed to be sacrificed! Just like when we burned our food! Wow, talk about deep connections. No human could ever think up such an amazing story with such deep symbolism!
Anyway… I lost my train of thought.
You might enjoy reading about Gnosticism, where the world was created by a dopey lesser god, and that’s why there is suffering.
The core of Christianity is originally the redemption, not the threat that necessitates it and often is more prominent.
The cross is a symbol of the sacrifice made to redeem people from the threat of hell. More relevant here is that sin separates humans from God, and through that sacrifice, the connection is restored. It is a catalyst of redemption and reunion. In that sense, they don’t so much pray towards an implement of torture as an implement of liberation, salvation and mercy.
Given that those are hard things to put in a visual, tangible form and that humans tend to place a lot of value in visual, tangible representations, it’s basically the simplest symbol you could come up with as a nascent cult.
It’s not the only symbol, and particularly during the rise of the Roman church, you’ll note that icons of saints become very common too. Some places will even have the Crucifix feature the crucified Jesus as well, to drive home the point about sacrifice and gratitude.
Protestants later held that the worship of saints was tantamount to idolatry and did away with them again, leaving just the core of the message of redemption. There was in some places a conscious choice to pick the “empty” cross rather than the crucified saviour as a symbol that he is no longer dead.
All in all, given his divine wisdom and love for metaphors and similes, I’d think Jesus would understand the point of the cross…
…then proceed to trash the place out of rage over the waste of money and effort that went into gaudy churches and gold-embroidered robes instead of helping the sick and poor.
Not just their leader, early christians were violently prosecuted, they turned their symbol of oppression into the symbol of their faith in an ultimate act of defiance as well as love and forgiveness.
I’m not Christian but isn’t it just very emblematic of the Christian victim complex? Praying towards the instrument of your faith’s victimisation is sort of like taking the power back from that symbol and acknowledging the victimisation your belief system has gone through… As far as I can understand it at least 😂
I honestly don’t think most Christians even think this deeply about their own faith.
As a Christian, I’ve always found that stupid, so I don’t do that and don’t attend churches that do. The second commandments says:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
I’m pretty sure a cross counts here. I also believe Jesus taught a higher law, meaning the 10 commandments are outdated, and the only thing Jesus said to do to remember him is breaking and sharing bread and sharing wine (Communion in many churches). That’s it, that and “feed my sheep” (teach and help others).
I don’t get where everyone is getting the “wear and rub a crucifix for luck” idea. A silent prayer should be a lot more effective than directly violating the second commandment.
I choose to remember Jesus’ life. His death was an event, his life was full of teaching and wisdom, so I focus on how he treated others instead of how others treated him.
You quote the third commandment but you believe they are outdated?
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
Even letters are images…
I like your perspective and wish Christianity aligned more with your post than whatever it’s doing now.
I’m not Christian, but I have observed that the worship of the cross and Christ’s death is directly tied to the theological idea of salvation, especially with evangelicals. If his death is the single most important part of your faith, then the cross becomes a symbol and reminder that you’re saved and not going to hell. It was primed to become a symbol and eventually an idol.
I also think historically the cross as a symbol for Christianity comes from the Greek letter chi (x) in the spelling of Christ. “X-tians” was a shorthand form way before the “taking Christ out of Christmas” nonsense.
But to the original point of the Klan burning the cross: I’ve read that they argue that cross burning is a medieval European affirmation of faith, something that is doing double duty of arguing that it’s an expression of their faith and connecting them to their “racial” roots.
Yeah, I think modern Christianity has really lost the plot. The most important part of Jesus’ life is certainly debatable, but surely him rising again is more important than his death? So if we want a symbol to remember being saved, surely the empty tomb with the rock rolled away is the better symbol.
But the only symbol Christ recommended is the last supper. That is how we’re supposed to remember him, and that’s why we go to church.
And Jesus never said we’re saved just because be died, otherwise why would he go around forgiving people manually? Surely that wouldn’t matter if they’re going to get saved unconditionally anyway. No, we need to actually change ourselves to be in line with his teachings. Love others unconditionally, give to the poor, and multiply the gifts God gave you for the benefit of others.
but surely him rising again is more important than his death?
Depends on how fixated a faith is on the “sacrifice of the Lamb.” There’s one interpretation that Jesus’ suffering and death is what appeased God and fulfilled the prophecy and ended the law of Moses. If you’re the kind of person that buys into God being the sort of deity that wants to kill himself in order to satisfy his own bloodlust, then yeah, I could see Christ’s death being the more important part.
Surely the resurrection should be emphasized as the result, but the death is what God demanded to atone for the sins of the world. The resurrection was just proof that he held up his end of the bargain.
I think that the Christ story suffers from the audience knowing details about the story that the characters don’t to the point that the big miracle at the end falls flat. Everyone just ends up focusing on the mechanics of Christs death rather than its purpose.
There’s one interpretation that Jesus’ suffering and death is what appeased God and fulfilled the prophecy and ended the law of Moses.
I agree with that (with caveats), but I still don’t see how that impacts the average Christian. How salvation is possible isn’t really important, the important thing is what we need to do.
If all we need to do is recognize Jesus, what’s the point of his ministry? Surely it all wasn’t strictly necessary to be bait the Jewish people into killing him.
Everyone just ends up focusing on the mechanics of Christs death rather than its purpose.
Exactly. It’s certainly important, but Jesus spent years teaching and setting an example and only a few days dying and resurrecting. That needed to happen, but it doesn’t replace everything else he told us to do.
If we claim to follow Jesus but fall to live the second commandment he gave (love others as ourselves), surely we’ll have issues getting to heaven. Likewise, if someone who has never heard of Jesus follows his commandments anyway by living another philosophy, surely they’ll be better off, no?
It’s all BS and they’ve completely missed the plot. Claiming to be saved just because of something Jesus did is the other side of the coin from the Pharisees, who claimed to be saved because they followed the letter of the law. It takes a little more effort than singing along at church…
I feel like this was a George Carlin bit or something…
it makes more sense when Christians were a persecuted minority, executed on sight by the Roman empire. You’re sharing in a symbol of sacrifice that could itself get you killed.
But that was 1500 years ago.
They are stupid, yes, but also are against everything’s in the Bible so they don’t actually care about Christianity.
Well you have to keep in mind part of who they hate are those fucking papists.
They’re Christian in the sense of “everyone i don’t like is going to hell, and I’ve got to hand deliver their ticket there”
Jesus was literally brown
And a Jew.
IIRC he also said that jews could be christians while keeping their jewish traditions, which is worse for those fake christians.
I think the idea is that he was a Jew but welcomed gentiles into the faith so technically all Christians are Jews in the eyes of Jesus.
Jesus didn’t came here to create Christianity, he was the fulfillment of a Jewish prophecy, Christianity exists because some Jews didn’t believe he was the Messiah.
The Christian taliban.
Y’all’quaeda
Uh…
Yes.
It started out as a prank organization to scare black people… Those outfits they’re canonically supposed to be dressed as dead confederate soldiers haunting the south.
If you ask me they leaned too heavy into the racism, and not heavily enough into theatrics and costumes. The problem is they held onto some 1900s sense of injustice, and didn’t roll with the times, didn’t stay up to date. They didn’t evolve with justice or improve on their first poorly selected target… So they became violent and nasty instead.
A shame, I’d love a horse back theater group “haunting” cops and healthcare CEOs… In that timeline the KKK would be a different organization entirely.
If you ask me they leaned too heavy into the racism, and not heavily enough into theatrics and costumes
You know, I watched my wife work all day gettin’ thirty bags together for you ungrateful sons of bitches! And all I can hear is criticize, criticize, criticize! From now on, don’t ask me or mine for nothin’!
Hmm, we should start a rival organization. We can keep the ghost theme, but perhaps go with dead WW2 heroes that push against fascism and abuse of power of every variety.
Maybe the WWW? World War Wraiths. We can also defend the free internet due to the naming collision.
The Sextuple-U
“Sex U” for short
I’m in. And we can bring back the thing with women wearing bright red lipstick because Hitler didn’t like it. Am I just imagining rockabilly goths doing antifascist pranks and protests? Yes. Does that reduce this in the slightest? Not in the slightest.
So, gray hoodies and green fiddler hats?
Obligatory ACAB
You may be on to something there
I used to be like the asshole Reddit atheist back in the day. I’m still an atheist but at the time I thought “look at all the bad stuff religion does” but as time goes on I’m beginning to realize that religion is a tool of politics. So ultimately the idea of getting rid of religion is just medical adhesive strips on a cancer patient.
Yup. Ideology is religion and religion is ideology. We tend to want to be a part of something bigger, but the people in charge of those bigger things can use it to justify hurting people “for the greater good”.
Quite frankly, Christianity can be used as a motivator for left wing philosophies helping the poor. If you actually read what Jesus’ said, it’s pretty good and damning for many self proclaimed american “christians”
Heard of Christian Marxism?
Marx generally opposed religion so it sounds like an oxymoron
Sort of, but you need to remember that his teachings were an individual philosophy and he didn’t want anything to do with government (render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, render unto God that which is God’s).
Jesus taught that you should give all you have to the poor and follow God. Failing that, you should be generous in helping the poor. So I think he would advocate for charities, not taxation, since charitable giving is a choice and he wants people to choose to do the right thing. He would also criticize the very wealthy because they obviously have more than enough to share with the poor.
Good point, especially with 2 Corinthians 9:7
Thanks.
IMO, just paying your taxes doesn’t make you a good person, giving what’s left does. Ebenezer Scrooge’s big transformation wasn’t adopting progressive policies or anything, but giving abundantly.
Christianity doesn’t say anything about politics, it’s an individual thing.
Without speaking for either the philosophy of capitalisms or the philosophy of Christianity, what a funny mish mash of theology we ended up with.
as time goes on I’m beginning to realize that religion is a tool of politics
Yeah that’s always been the point of religion. They needed some way to control people in the 1400s, so they told them that if they didn’t do what they were told, and incidentally pay the church a lot of money, then the big man in the sky would be unhappy. That was about the level of sophistication that a con required back then.
Even as recently as 200 years ago pastors didn’t really believe in god, it was just a convenient job to do if you were relatively well off but still needed employment, and didn’t want to do any laboring. That’s why a lot of them ended up being scientists, they were rich and bored.
I don’t agree the pastor’s 200 years ago didn’t believe in God, I think it’s more likely they had some weird set of mental gymnastics that made the idea fit their mold. There are as many ideas of God per person as there are sands in the Sahara or stars in the sky.
Christianity predates the 1400s
Are you saying that year 0 was a thing?
You can’t get rid of superstitions nor politics. The most important thing that will help is education. A more educated populace is less gullible, but you can’t fix stupid. Stupid will always exist.
Quick answer yes.
Longer answer… yeeeeeeessssss
I mean 1 step above them is the classic tale of taking how your God was murdered and basically worshiping that symbol without the fire …
…a lowercase ‘t’
…t…t…time to leave!
Obviously
