I read an essay by a christian a while ago that pointed out that the separation of church and state wasn’t about protecting the state from religion - it was about protecting religion from the state.

The gist of the argument was that religion should be concentrating on the eternal, and politics, by necessity, concentrates on the immediate. The author was concerned that welding religion and politics together would make religion itself political, meaning it would have to conform to the secular moment rather than looking to saving souls or whatever.

The mind meld of evangelical christianity and right wing politics happened in the mid to late 70s when the US was trying to racially integrate christian universities, which had been severely limiting or excluding black students. Since then, republicans and christians have been in bed together. The southern baptist convention, in fact, originally endorsed the Roe decision because it helped the cause of women. It was only after they decided to go all in on social conservatism that it became a sin.

Christians today are growing concerned about a falloff in attendance and membership. This article concentrates on how conservatism has become a call for people to publicly identify as evangelical while not actually being religious, because it’s an our team thing.

Evangelicals made an ironically Faustian bargain and are starting to realize it.

  • pizza-bagel@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was a Christian for 20 years. The problem with this argument is that it’s ignorant of what the Bible actually says. Sure, Jesus was less of a dick than his dad but there’s still plenty of instances where Jesus was also a dick. Even on his death bed (cross?) he condemned 2 people next to him to hell for being mean to him! And he spent a lot of his time on earth not being very friendly to any other religion or any other interpretation of his own religion.

    And the other issue is that the Bible is INTENTIONALLY vague so that the people who wrote it to have power over others can make their followers do whatever they please at that moment. Some denominations believe the old testament is completely moot now, while others think only certain things still apply, while some think only the dietary restrictions were overrode by Jesus. ALL of those are biblically supported because the Bible is vague as fuck.

    The problem with this argument is that it assumes there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible, and anyone who disagrees is intentionally ignoring parts or hasn’t actually read it. That’s not how any of this works. The Bible is intentionally vague, full of contradictions, and has a lot of fucked up shit people who haven’t read it fully don’t know about. There has been a huge push of “the Bible actually says you should be super nice to everyone” when that’s not true at all.

    There’s a reason people who read the Bible on their own end up giving up Christianity, and it isn’t because it’s about how Jesus was a chill dude that loved everyone.

    • style99@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t actually remember the bible that well if you can’t remember Jesus telling the guy next to him that he would be with him in Paradise (Luke 23:43).

      • SatanicNotMessianicOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it helps with clarity in conversations to recognize explicitly that we’re not talking about Jesus-a-person-who-existed-and-did-things, but rather a Jesus-concept. Whether or not there was a historical Jesus (for whatever that means), what we normally discuss is the mythological Jesus. Some might believe that the mythological Jesus is literally true, but they still rely on interpreting a series of writings to create a cohesive narrative. There are multiple narratives currently co-existing, ranging from Jesus-as-hippie to the ever popular “If Jesus had an AR-15 he wouldn’t have been crucified.”

        Personally, I’m agnostic as to the existence of a historical Jesus, in no small part because it’s so poorly defined as a concept. But we can say in all of the things written about what Jesus said or did (or in the case of Paul the things Jesus never said but would have if it had occurred to him), multiple narratives and interpretations exist, and all cite the same source material to prove their point.

        “You will be condemned unless you love me, no matter how much objective good you’ve done” seems like a morally dicey proposition. It’s not even repentance, per se, that triggers forgiveness. Judges in courts can take remorse into account. That’s not what this Jesus-concept is offering. Instead, it’s a “worship me as a god or die” position, outside of the framework that considers anything Jesus says as automatically good by definition.

        The biblical Jesus was just as much of an asshole as the people writing about him were.

      • pizza-bagel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you actually read the whole story, and not just 1 sentence, there are other people who are mocking him that he condemns. Saying he should save them because he’s the Messiah. He says that to one person who defends him. And you also have to keep in mind there are A LOT of contradictions in the story of Jesus’ death… It is mentioned across several contradictory books not only a single line or chapter in a single book. But it’s all the word of God, so their condemnation still stands even if it contradicts other accounts ;)

        Which is pretty ironic cause it highlights God made the fucked up rules, and could have just saved everyone without killing his kid and making everyone suffer on earth.

        Some more examples of right wing Jesus… if you bother to read more than 1 sentence

        Matthew 21 - Violence because people do not worship “the right way”

        Matthew 15 - racism, advocating killing kids for disobeying

        Matthew 24 - cut up servants into pieces for disobeying

        Matthew 8 - killing a bunch of pigs for no reason? (this is more him being a dick but still lol wtf)

        John 3 - again rebuking people for different beliefs

        Matthew 12 - rebuking people asking for evidence to believe him

        Matthew 10 is like the #1 right wing Jesus verse IMO

        • telling disciples not to interact with other beliefs/races

        • telling them he was there to divide the earth and families not to bring peace

        • talks about abandoning all the people that believe differently

        • must abandon your family to be “worthy”

        Matthew 5 / Luke 16 are what people use to justify the old testament laws still apply. Which yes includes buying humans as slaves!

        People act all surprised about the Bible being used to justify slavery and segregation and it’s like… It’s right there dude it doesn’t need to be manipulated. On the contrary I remember a lot of the Bible, just not the single happy lines people repeat all the time

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is pretty ironic cause it highlights God made the fucked up rules, and could have just saved everyone without killing his kid and making everyone suffer on earth.

          Or, just here me out here, not put the idiotic comfort-pets in the same garden as trees you don’t want them eating. Take golden retriever puppy, lay out a ton of treats and tell them they can have all but 2.

          It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s going to happen. Supposedly sky-daddy knows everything. In short, he did it on purpose so he can LARP as a savior.