[Disclaimer] - I am not an American and I consider myself atheist, I am Caucasian and born in a pre-dominantly Christian country.
Based on my limited knowledge of Christianity, it is all about social justice, compassion and peace.
And I was always wondering how come Republicans are perceiving themselves as devout Christians while the political party they support is openly opposing those virtues and if this doesn’t make them hypocrites?
For them the mortal enemy are the lefties who are all about social justice, helping the vulnerable and the not so fortunate and peace.
Christianity sounds to me a lot more like socialist utopia.
They like that they can use Confession to clear their concious of all their crimes every week. As if it were a super hideout in Grand Theft Auto
Protip: Confessions were mainly to gather blackmail material against the most powerful. Its one of the ways the Catholic Church maintained power for so long.
Also it’s only a Catholic thing.
And I was always wondering how come Republicans are perceiving themselves as devout Christians while the political party they support is openly opposing those virtues and if this doesn’t make them hypocrites?
That’s exactly what it makes them. By the Biblical definition of a hypocrite. Jesus literally talks about what that means.
One of the few groups Jesus ever spoke out about were the Pharisees, and whoo doggy did big JC fucking hate those assholes.
Pharisees were a sect of rather rich people that publicly flaunted their wealth ‘as a sign of favor from God’.
They would pray on the street corners out loud things like ‘Thank you God for blessing me with wealth and power, unlike that filthy beggar over there. Gee I’m special, thank’s God!’
Jesus called them people with a thin veneer of righteousness covering a tomb of dead bones, speaking death.
They aren’t. Most are just just cosplaying as Christians.
Because Religion is the ultimate tool of self-righteousness.
It can be used and twisted to justify their every behavior, no matter how vile… While conversely being used to demonize everything they hate, no matter how righteous.
Thats why most fervent right wing christians dont even know whats in the bible, they are only capable of regurgitating the hate and vague justifications for it that they hear from their cohorts, their extremist evangelical leaders, and their politicians. Because they don’t care about the actual tenants of the religion they’ve co-opted, They only care about the authority claiming ti be faithful gives their words and actions in their own eyes and opinions. . They are addicted to it, like a drug.
Based on my limited knowledge of Christianity, it is all about social justice, compassion and peace.
That’s expected. That’s what they say they are about. However, one only ever needs to open their book, the bible, or just observe history the past 2000 years, to see that is NOT at all what they do.
You have a very GOOD understanding of Christianity. You’re seeing it for what it really is. That hypocrisy is intentional, and obscured by the mythology of: “I dunno, god’s weird, right?”
It’s by design that Republicans, considering all those observations, would claim they were. Because they are the real christians. [My best MAGAT impression]: “Not like these liberal hippies that just want everyone to be kind to one another. That’s socialism!” And on and on.
Because if you wear your religion on your sleeve and are highly observant then that means you are conservative and rules focused by nature. People who belong to liberal Christian denominations, like Unitarianism, are rarely heard from because they aren’t vocal by nature.
People who are very religious also want to believe that what they follow is the truth but the very existence of nonbelievers casts doubt on this either consciously or subconsciously. “If my beliefs are self evident then how can so many nonbelievers exist?” So they rationalize this as either thinking of you as a sinner who deliberately refuses to accept the “truth” or a poor lost soul in need of saving. Christianity, and some other faiths, is also missionary minded in nature. They are called upon in the New Testament to “spread the word”. If you want to grow your numbers and/or your income (i.e. Mormon church) then you are aggressive with missionaries and hunting for converts.
People are also very good at rationalizing their views and cherry picking data to force things to fit their emotionally driven beliefs. Look at conspiracy theorists who dismiss anything that contradicts them as “lies” and “propaganda” but their sources are never questioned.
I think the main principle behind it is what conservatives call “virtue signaling” - associating with things that make them appear pious, strong or respectable to signal to others how virtuous they themselves are.
- Running around with “God Wins” flags and spouting bible quotes online both gives them an edge in discussion (in the “if you disagree with me you’re going against god” sense) and makes them appear pious
- Similarly, carrying around guns and posting pictures of their guns and tacticool gear is an attempt to appear strong and dangerous
- Same with flags or flag-themed clothes, calling themselves patriots and so on once again hits into the same notch.
From my PoV your observation seems spot on. A good portion of Amerca’s religious community these days is just appropriating religion for the respect and authority it brings while practicing almost none of its virtues.
I think, as a big picture view, any religion is very prone to drift. If you demand utter reverence and obedience to a god that is at the same time also the weakest possible being (one that doesn’t exist), you get a plaything that stands for everything and for nothing - aka whatever the general mood of the population wants or what those who are most adept at assuming its authority want it to be.
Consider “Prosperity Theology,,” popular in Nigeria, for example, where an entire subculture has assumed the belief that the god from Christianity rewards the pious with material wealth, thus, the richer one is, the more faithful and holier they must be.
Part of the issue with many religions is that they exists in multiple components. There is
-
the religion as the nebulous idea of a culture as adopted by word of mouth generational teaching.
-
religion as depicted and codified by a holy script.
-
the popculture adoptions of religion through time that become traditionally indistinct.
-
the branches of philosophical thought inside the religion changing the window of interpretation and creating schisms
-
The economic and power structures involved in maintaining physical sites of worship and a guiding priesthood.
-
The political stances the powers inside the religious complex adopt to adapt to specific historical events.
These different factors are generally all at play though there are exceptions like some religions do not have a holy text or sites of worship for instance. Religions are kind of aggregates of time, tradition and thought and distorted by time as well. For instance linguistic and technological drift makes it very hard to appropriately understand a text in it’s proper context. Like David and Goliath becomes a very different story when you understand that a sling weilded appropriately is like firing a pistol at short range.
Christianity is kind of a mess in the concept of time. A lot of belief brought into Christianity predated it. Hell for instance predates Christianity (it is not explicitly mentioned in the text but was passed down linguistically) and the conception of it borrowed off of Buddhist, Norse and Grecco/Roman ideas of the underworld. Other things like the Seven Deadly Sins, Lucifer, Monastic living and so on were often inventions of single people who essentially just started fads. Priesthoods have always been tied into concepts of authority through study and internal structures around property. Becoming an abbot was basically just another way to gain the ruling autonomy of nobility for land use. The political structure inside the Church has changed it’s relationship with things out of fear as well. The idea of abortion as murder is tracable to the black death when priests worried that a population collapse would cause disaster for society so it changed it’s teaching from the concept of “ensoulment” and being very abortion neutral to facilitating a literal witchunt destroying existing systems of female led midwifery to gain reproductive control.
Christianity has at some level always been about power, control and resources… But there are also multiple Christianities. For instance a person who reads the book but rejects the church or the built up dogma of traditions is still a Christian. You can also adopt just the institution or the popculture understanding of Christianity and still be a Christian. Adopting every peice of a religion is itself optional.
The problem being is that understanding the text and history requires a lot of effort, intellectual savvy and time in study. Just like the medieval times people tend to get their understanding from people who did that work for them (or say they did) to supply the missing context. A lot of the time people accept whatever “feels” right and people also tend to be self centric. Feeling superior by category of beliefs we have been handed is something we are all potentially susceptible to.
The idea of abortion as murder is tracable to the black death when priests worried that a population collapse would cause disaster for society so it changed it’s teaching from the concept of “ensoulment” and being very abortion neutral to facilitating a literal witchunt destroying existing systems of female led midwifery to gain reproductive control.
I fucking knew it. Now of course it’s a conspiracy theory, but I 100% believe that the major push “recently” against abortion and having that argument go into overdrive is being brought on by assholes that subscribe to the “replacement theory” idea that dark skinned people are reproducing faster than white people as they tend to use contraception more and therefore will make “us” the minority. They want to force white women to have every baby possible to try to prevent that from happening…
In part. The other half is that Conservatives started courting Evengelical groups to make voting for them the “correct” thing to do. Abortion legalization was championed by the left but the Catholic Church had some remaining abstention held over by essentially a political decision that had been cannonized as an official spiritual stance on the idea of the soul. Conservatives tend to think like marketing experts and they know abortion and the nature of the soul is a core belief not easily shaken thus they were able to make their platform a matter of “life and death” harnessing the empathy people had for the idea of babies… Very specifically the idea of babies, the soft squishy humans whom we are programmed instinctually to protect.
It also dovetailed nicely into purity doctrine. The idea you are enabling the sexual deviancey of loose women… The idea that a fetus is a souless empty blob as the majority idea was for the first thousand years of Christianity got in the way of the advertising campaign and the Catholic Church wasn’t about to roll back the precedent decision it has upheld for centuries. That would make the idea seem kind of arbitrary… and once you start unpicking the history of Catholic control measures it weakens the vwey idea of them as a spiritual authority.
-
one way fascism thrives is by co-opting the aesthetics of religion to further itself, and it does not limit itself to only one religion. other commenters have noted correctly that the dichotomy you perceive isn’t real; what you identify as the “fervent” are actually just “the most loud and outspoken.”
this is not to “no true scottsman” my way out of the situation. republican christians are christians, it’s just that they are also complicit in using their religion as leverage to gain power as white nationalists.
Conservatives/Republicans support power structures external to government for guidance on morality and charity. This gives religions power. Democrats/liberals support using the government directly for everything. This reduces the power of religion.
For a bunch of guys always talking about prophets, their belief system has zero predictive power.
As a Christian (albeit not American), no clue. I think it’s mainly on single issue problems such as abortion or sexual immorality, to be honest.
Although it could also be a loud minority problem, where the actual Christians are less outspoken. Who knows.
Personally I think the single issue stuff is just a bonus to the actual connection. My opinion is that it’s entirely performative at the top, and the people at the bottom have been fooled.
Control and conformity. Pseudo-morality.
The control is pretty standard stuff that goes with the authoritarian nature of religion. They place a person in charge who, like the deity, has all the answers and solves all the problems, so long as you believe and support them unquestioningly. If you’re not smart enough to sort out the system that you’ve been told is deliberately complicated and “rigged” you just listen to the Big Man and he’ll sort it all out for you.
Conformity is making the in-group and out-groups. The in-group demands loyalty and support. The out-groups are anyone else you want them to be. Immigrants. Minorities. Other religious groups. Political opponents. It’s ridiculously blatant in US republicans where even if their wives or themselves are personally insulted by their leader they still support and vote for the group. You must conform. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. Very binary thought.
Religion offers the moral angle as well. Despite American Christians, particularly evangelicals, claiming to support Christian ideals they objectively and subjectively do not. The list is too long to process here, but basic greed, hatred, violence, and all the rest of what most of us would consider anti-Christian values are at the forefront of the more outspoken religious Right. Yet they’ve been raised and told that the “godless Left” have no morals, if you’re not religious you can’t have morals, and whatever other tripe that allows them to accomplish the mental gymnastics they go through to claim moral superiority while doing things like making sure migrants drown in rivers trying to cross illegally into the US.
The hypocrisy and mental gymnastics engaged in by the American Right in many facets of their workings, not just their feigned religion, is mind-boggling. They’ve gone so far past the available superlatives describing their hypocrisy and greed that you just have to throw up your hands in disgust and walk away before it drives you crazy.
Funny thing, Jesus was the biggest socialist world wide. He only lost his shit for real 2 times in the bible and both were because of capitalists.
Pretty ironic for the good 'ol Republicans. Evil fuckers.
Christianity sounds to me a lot more like socialist utopia.
A lot of atheists end up with that impression, maybe from unfamiliarity. That Jesus was just a dope socialist who loved everyone.
But the religion has been absolutely shitty for pretty much as soon as he was dead (at least).
For example, the other day I saw someone cite Acts 4 as an example of how Christianity was a commune, where people pooled their assets.
It conveniently left out the part where Peter had an older couple who didn’t pay him everything they owned who were both struck dead after meeting privately and being confronted (allegedly killed by God). Which was a reference back to the book of Joshua where a guy kept some loot for himself and was outed and killed.
Women were told to be silent and subservient (in spite of ‘heretical’ sects and texts of Christianity where Jesus was instructing female disciples and they were acting as teachers - ironically the only extant sect that claimed Jesus was talking about Greek atomism and naturalism was one of these).
The religion was canonized right after the emperor of Rome converted, so guess what was canonized? A bunch of shit about how patriarchal monarchy is the divine plan. The saying attributed to Jesus about how someone who succeeded in life should rule and should only hold power temporarily obviously gets excluded and eventually the collection of sayings is punishable by death for even possessing it.
Even a lot of that stuff about “blessed is the poor” was probably from Paul who was separating fools from their money. Originally there’s sayings about how those ministering shouldn’t collect money, but this gets straight up reversed in a later edition of Luke and you can see Paul in 1 Cor 9 arguing that he is entitled to make a living off ministering and encouraging donations “for the poor in Jerusalem.” But then elsewhere we see Paul was accepting expensive fragrant offerings from people. But that’s ok, as then in the gospels you see Jesus keeps an expensive fragrant offering and yells at the people who criticize him for not selling it and giving the proceeds to the poor.
It’s a bunch of feel good BS to con people out of their money. I don’t think it was always that from the very start, and probably even had some interesting things going on initially, but almost immediately after Jesus is out of the picture the errant early tradition gets morphed into a traditional cult where power and wealth consolidates at the top and it preaches subservience and obedience and self-hatred so you beg for the idea of salvation and trade all that you have for a promise the people you turn everything over to can’t fulfill.
So why would a group that wants power and wealth concentrated and to destroy democracy in favor of patriarchal authoritarianism be attractive to Christians? Because they’ve been being fattened up for that slaughter going on near two thousand years at this point.
The story as I understand it (explained by Neil Stephenson in Snow Crash ) was that living Jesus preached universal mutuality: Love your neighbor as yourself. Everyone is your neighbor. The myth of the empty tomb was to show that it was the people’s religion, independent of temples and priests.
But then…
A disorganized movement was too much for the people (or more likely the apostles wanted sociopolitical power) so they created a myth of the resurrection and the founding of the church. Zombie Jesus has way different opinions than living Jesus.
If there really was a post-crucifixion Jesus, it was likely an impostor, a show. But Church tradition teems with miracles and hagiographs with only the word ofnthe Church itself as evidence.
It’s a bunch of feel good BS to con people out of their money.
Would it be an assholish move to point to the religion of Jesus himself in this context? I believe it would, and thus I won’t.
Not at all. There’s a very good case that the historical Jesus was extremely outspoken about the grift of Temple Judaism.
Not only do you have tidbits like him prohibiting carrying anything (including sacrifices) through the temple after throwing out the merchants in Mark (theologically problematic given he isn’t dead yet and supposedly that’s what invalidated the need for animal sacrifices, so you see this line left out when Matthew copies from the passage).
But you have one of my favorite apocryphal lines:
Jesus said, “The messengers and the prophets will come to you and give you what belongs to you. You, in turn, give them what you have, and say to yourselves, ‘When will they come and take what belongs to them?’”
- Gospel of Thomas saying 88
(The work also uniquely has a parable about a son inheriting a treasure in his parent’s field, selling it not knowing a treasure was buried within, and then the person he sells it to finding the treasure and lending it out at interest - and I can’t think of better description for the grift of selling salvation for tithes than “lending a buried treasure out at interest”.)
Which is again in the vein of another part of Mark left out of the other Synoptics, when he responded to a complaint about eating from a crop on the Sabbath with “was the Sabbath made for man or man for the Sabbath?”
So out of the many things I’m not sure about a historical Jesus, at very least “dude wasn’t a fan of the religious grift” was one I’m pretty sure of, particularly when both early canonical and heretical sources agree about the subversive position.
Also: Jesus was made up by these early Xtian founders. He wasn’t a real person.
Yeah, and even if he was to some degee based on a real person every single detail recorded about him is clearly false as can be demonstrated to be literary devices, copied from somewhere else, or just clearly impossible. It makes a lot more sense he was invented whole cloth, if early Christians believed he was a real person they sure made up a lot of stories about him - and the most devout Christian will have to agree with that because of the endless apocrypha and insertions.
There are no mentions of Jesus outside of the bible until a lot years after his supposed death. Complete invention.
He was like Santa Claus for the masses at the time.
Look, there are some basic precepts of New Testament Christian thought (don’t be an asshole) that are good things. It gets rather muddled quickly after you mall be away from that.
Yeah, like how scientology has some good stuff in it like try to improve yourself and the world but then they force a path that doesn’t lead in that direction and use it all as an excuse to take money from you.
The first thing we really know about the early church is Paul walking around collecting money and telling people things they wanted to hear, like you don’t need to chop off your foreskin to get saved - and saved from the horrors of an event they very clearly taught was coming in their lifetime.
How they managed to keep such an obvious scam going for almost two thousand years is honestly the most impressive miracle
Almost no one respectable in the scholarship, including atheist scholars, thinks that’s the case.
And it would be the only instance I’m aware of where someone at the nascent stages of a cult made up a leader and immediately had major schisms around what that made up leader was saying.
Literally the earliest Christian documents we have are of a guy who was persecuting followers of Jesus suddenly going into areas where he had no authority to persecute, literally “if you can’t beat them, join them,” and then telling people not to pay attention to a different gospel “not that there is a different gospel” or to listen to him over alleged ‘super-apostles.’
The next earliest document is a gospel that’s constantly trying to spin statements allegedly said in public by Jesus with secret teachings that only a handful of their own leaders supposedly heard.
Not long after that is a letter from the bishop of Rome complaining his presbyters were deposed in the same place Paul was complaining about them receiving a different gospel, and how young people should defer to the old and women should be silent (so we know the schism was supported by the young and women, who just so happen to be at the center of a competing tradition which has extensive overlap with Paul’s letters to Corinth).
For all of the above to have occurred within just a few decades of a made up person would be even less believable than that said person walked on water. Personally, I don’t believe either of those scenarios.
P.S. Carrier is a history PhD, not a biblical studies PhD, and a bit of a pompous moron. For example, he managed to miss one of the most interesting elements of early Christianity regarding the Gnostic references to cosmic seeds because his head was so far up his own rear that he couldn’t see past a (straight up bizarre) theory they were talking about a cosmic sperm bank. Nope - it has to do with Lucretius’s “seeds of things” but that’s a long discussion for another comment. Point is, I’d be wary of taking anything he says too seriously.
Anyone attempting to make the ‘everyone agrees’ argument about a religion instantly loses all credibility, like if you can’t understand why that’s a fallacious argument then you’ve got zero chance understanding the evidence.
“Most credible scholars, including most secular scholars agree” is different from “most people agree.”
You might want to actually look into why they agree before talking about understanding evidence.
For very obvious historical reasons there has long been a huge bias in this field of study, it’s currently very clearly still a hot water issue with most scholars not wanting to cause problems for themselves.
Regardless the old consensus is rapidly changing, even the faithful are having to accept that more and more of the Bible is clearly not based in history for a multitude of reasons. You can try and be snarky all you like but I’ve looked at a lot of the debates and the reality is the argument for a historical Jesus is very weak and the argument for a mythic creation is pretty good.
The historicity of Jesus is that there was a Christian movement that was suppressed by Rome. But I’m not sure we can verify, even, it was led by an apocalyptic prophet. There were no texts before Mark, as the movement was entirely word of mouth, and as per all games of telephone, evolved with each retelling.
What scholarly consensus does assert is the scripture is not univocal, inspired or inerrant, and the narrative bends with every era to affirm the morality of the time. This is to say, it’s not a source for right or wrong, but a tool used to give authority to external beliefs. Whether that is to justify charity and compassion or to justify genocide against gays and Palestinians is up to the individual.
The point he makes about the only evidence for JC’s reality as a person is other people much later pointing at each other and saying “he said so”.
If, as he said, any real evidence beyond hearsay can be produced it might he credible.
They aren’t much later on. A number of the texts are composed within decades of his death. It’s much later in that we have copies, and they definitely had some edits along the way, but they are pretty early.
There’s arguably much better evidence a historical Jesus existed than a historical Pythagoras, for example. Do you doubt Pythagoras existed?
Or even Socrates - we only have two authors claiming to have direct knowledge of events around what he said, and the earliest fragments of their writings comes from the same collections of texts as early Christian writings, and the only full copy of Plato is centuries older in production than the earliest full copies of both canonical and extra-canonical texts.
What evidence for Socrates or Pythagoras do we have beyond hearsay?
Which text do you think was written within decades?
