You're viewing a single thread.
The language used here is such bullshit. "Christian web designer" my ass. They need to quit using the word "Christian" like that.
Why is everyone in the media too scared to use the phrase "reactionary fundamentalist evangelicalism"? We're too soft on them.
Anyway, there is nothing less Christian than having a big legal battle over refusing the work of your profession to a loving couple. Having a strong and central stance around something that was never covered by Jesus, never mentioned in the Gospels, mentioned maybe once in the New Testament by a frequently self-contradictory author, and is proscribed in the Hebrew Bible once as an afterthought about cheating on your spouse with the opposite sex, extended to cheating with the same sex.
This isn't Christianity, this is a twisted form of Mammon worship.
The language used here is such bullshit. "Christian web designer" my ass. They need to quit using the word "Christian" like that.
You can't weasel your way out of this. They're your heretics, you let them start breeding, and now it's everyone's problem. If you don't want them to speak for all Christians round them up and put them to the sword. Clean up your mess.
This isn't Christianity, this is a twisted form of Mammon worship.
Lol the entire medieval history of the church would like a word with you.
What I mean is, by saying "Christian web designer" they are implying that it's normal and natural for Christians to take these positions.
Every religion has reactionaries trying to dig their claws into it to turn it into a defense of hierarchies.
If you don't want them to speak for all Christians round them up and put them to the sword. Clean up your mess.
Christianity has been this way for over 1700 years at least
Paul betrayed the Nazarene revolution!
Paul was also the source of a lot of the stuff about racism being bad and caring for the poor
Peter writes in the Bible about Paul being hard to understand. His work is often taken to justify bad things by people who started out believing those bad things and use what he wrote to justify them
TLDR I think Paul gets misinterpreted a lot by people with pardon the pun bad faith
If he lead a slaughter of the Nazarenes so he could wear their nascent sect like a grim bloody trophy, but also said some nice things, he may have been the
of his time.Pretty fundamental to the whole thing since the beginning was that people can change and become better.
Plus he definitely drastically changed his views since his conversion
Feeling bad about wiping out a people and wearing their religion like a costume to put a smiley face on a custom Sol Invictus/Mithra hybrid cult still isn't doing it for me.
That's really ahistoric Paul did not wipe out the early Christians. If he did anything it was spread Christianity so much in Rome and Greece that it somewhat lost touch with its Jewish origins but Paul was anything but an antisemite having himself come from a Jewish background and frequently preaching against any form of racial hatred
Also the Mithras stuff is an urban legend and the similarities pretty much begin and end with rituals involving wine and being popular in the Roman army and Christianity didn't catch on in the Roman army until after the relevant time period either. Additionally it is bizarre to conclude that Saul a Jewish religious authority would have suddenly decided to go from persecuting what he viewed as a heretical Jewish sect and instead convert it into a cult of a god popular in an army that he wasn't in and was occupying his country. Also the early Christians weren't wiped out by Saul or even nearly so. The early disciples of Jesus like Peter were still alive and didn't take issue with Paul's teaching either
I'll check what you're telling me in a little while; I won't rule out that I heard incorrectly. Admittedly some of what I thought I knew goes decades back to college-era hearsay.
Saul was probably going to wipe out the early Christians but then he converted on the road to Damascus
I already knew the "official" story. But I picked up a lot of contrary information about Saul/Paul in college and never really examined it since.
Stealing a tweet, but Leviticus talks about not being compelled to pay back debts. I have a sincerely held religious belief based on the Old Testament regarding abiding by the book of Leviticus. That is my religious belief. So naturally, I have religious freedom, right?
It’s always been bullshit
It says to discount debts every 7 years and have a jubilee (total debt clemency) every 49 years.
Religious freedom (with the exception that the freedom does not infringe on the rights of capital)