• MochiGoesMeow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Can we just have tiny villages where we tell ghost stories and just all contribute to each other’s well being?

    • zwekihoyy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      it’s almost like American imperialism has made sure that any attempt has failed by economic and military disruption and injecting dictators with the goal of dissuading others from trying.

      the second there’s a success story western capitalism becomes unnecessary and a better system comes into view.

    • AHuman2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Also communist economy is impossible to implement since there is no all knowing god to fuck all the people siphoning the money out via corruption. Communism is great if you can remove humans from the equation. Mofo humans fuck every system up, we are the problem.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Also, heaven is an absolute monarchy. The fact so many commies don’t even see the difference between communism and a monarchy should tell you all you need to know.

      • piecat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Also, heaven is an absolute autocracy. The fact so many fundies don’t even see the difference between US and facism should tell you all you need to know.

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Tends to on a nation scale. But there’s still some good lessons to learn from it for smaller scale and nation scale too.

    • Captain_CapsLock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s a pretty boilerplate criticism. While true to a great degree, it’s also true of a lot of western capitalist nations.

      It’s pretty hard to find information about real communist societies because media companies have it in their best interest to bury any good that has possibly been done by a communist society, meanwhile demonizing them and making them the enemy. You really have to dig to find honest information about communist societies.

      Moreover, a lot of otherwise successful communist regimes have been sabotaged and poisoned by capitalist interests. Either by literally arming fascists, or just by demonizing them with foreign policy and media coverage.

  • Muad'dib@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 days ago

    Me listening to tankies describe communism as a moneyless, stateless, classless world, then criticise anarchism

  • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    This actually makes sense, once you understand what their problem is with communism.

    You see, they have no problem with all the benefits that communism offers… What bothers them is the idea that those benefits would be given to people who haven’t earned it.

    Heaven, to them, is a reward. Only the pure, the righteous, the faithful get to enjoy its benefits. Heaven only works for them if they imagine that they will be able to look down and see hell.

    A heaven for everyone, with no walls, no gates, no pitiful outcasts scrabbling to get in… That’s no heaven at all.

    • miraclerandy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 days ago

      You’re not wrong about the reward being earned. That’s definitely the unspoken part of it.

      When I grew up religious, the conversion was that communism was a bastardization of god’s plan, so it’s inherently evil. Basically, it cannot be as pure and perfect with men in charge so it will fail every time.

      You’d think they’d want to try and be more like their god and his plan for their heaven but they just reject it.

      • Doctor_Satan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        They believe that only God can be the one to create paradise on earth. A primary pillar of their faith requires earth to be in a constant state of suffering until then.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        You’re not wrong about the reward being earned. That’s definitely the unspoken part of it.

        It’s also heretic AF. As in: It directly contradicts Orthodox, Catholic, and Lutheran, doctrine, all for different reasons.

        • Muad'dib@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Remove the heretics from Christianity, and you will have not a religion of billions of oppressors, but a cult of a few dozen communist hippies.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 days ago

      Heaven only works for them if they imagine that they will be able to look down and see hell.

      See, this is the part I can’t get behind. An eternity of that disparity with even the smallest scrap of empathy would eventually be unending torment. Every day is just more “oh yeah, hell is a thing and I can’t do anything about it…”

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      No, the issue most people have with it is that it requires a king (god) to make it work. People don’t mind a higher being (god) ruling them as an absolute monarch. They do mind handing such power to a human, since we have seen again and again how such power corrupts people.

    • DonJefe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 days ago

      If working all your life for a regime does not earn you the benefits of that regime, I don’t know what will in their minds

  • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    What if heaven is just whatever you need heaven to be? Like, what if it’s just a temporary state of affairs? You enter Heaven, and it is exactly what you need to be at peace with your death and your life before that. Then, when you’re ready, after however much time you need, you can decide to move on and stop existing, or send your soul to be reincarnated.

    • Charzard4261@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      This is similar to what Rick Riordan (author of Percy Jackson) suggests in one of his other works - that the afterlife is simply whatever you believe it to be. It’s pretty comforting imo.

      • Muad'dib@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        The gods of the Disc have never bothered much about judging the souls of the dead, and so people only go to hell if that’s where they believe, in their deepest heart, that they deserve to go. Which they won’t do if they don’t know about it. This explains why it is important to shoot missionaries on sight.

      • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Personally I wouldn’t like it to be what you believe it to be, rather what you need it to be. Some people don’t know what they need until they have it. You can believe that Heaven is endless sitting in a circle and piling devotion upon God, but if that isn’t actually going to help you be at peace, then what good is it gonna do you? How is a baby going to form a belief of what their afterlife is?

        No, I reckon Heaven ought to be what you need, not what you want. I want my afterlife to be me being a series of Isekai protagonists in my favourite fictional universes because I secretly want to feel clever and powerful and knowledgeable about things to come, but indulging me probably isn’t the best way to put me at peace.

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Funny you should mention temporary - in a way, that’s true of Christian view. ‘Heaven’ in a broad sense is much broader, but the sense of where are ‘you’ after you die, is temporary until the resurrection, where people are once again in a very physical body (but now immortal and undamaged) on a very physical (re)new(ed) earth.

  • the_q@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    When I was fairly young my mom described Christian heaven. I remember struggling with the idea of not struggling and being happy all the time. Then she hit me with if someone you love doesn’t make it to heaven you forget them. That’s when the fracture began for me.

      • the_q@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        3 days ago

        It really is. It’s not even a pleasant thought experiment.

    • sfu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      Its not that you forget the person. You gain a perfect understanding of the situation. Like when your child has to go to jail for some crimes they committed. You may be sad they went to jail, then understand why they went to jail, then agree it was right that they were put in jail.

      Not a perfect analogy, but something like that.

      • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        So we join with the God-mind in order to understand why the person we previously loved isn’t worthy of love after all…

        Jim from the Office looks uncomfortable

          • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            But at the end of my lifetime, it’s someone I loved, but that God doesn’t love (not enough to bring them to heaven, anyway…), and so my feelings about them get updated with God’s perspective?

            So I learn why I was wrong to love them?

            Edit: I’m just saying that Hell as a concept, alongside an all-loving God, doesn’t compute, to me.

            Whereas Hell as a concept, introduced by human church leaders, to keep tithes up, makes perfect sense, to me.

            So it feels like an Occam’s Razor situation, to me.

            • sfu@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              This isn’t preaching, I’m just going to explain it so maybe you can understand it better.

              As far as God only bringing people to heaven if He loves them, there’s more to it. If God created everything (humans, animals, earth, stars, etc.) then He has authority over it. He has laws we are to follow, and if we break any of them then we are guilty of sin. Just like in human society, when someone breaks a law, they get punished either by paying a fine, going to jail, etc. Hell is jail; everyone has committed a sin against God, and deserves to go there. The bible without much detail, tells us there are varying degrees of punishment in hell.

              In response to your edit, think of God as a judge. If a human judge has a child trafficker in his court, and the judge just lets him go free, would he be considered a good, just judge? No, we’d say he is a corrupt judge. Apply that concept to God, crimes must have a punishment. If God just brought people to heaven, then God wouldn’t be just. So you’re saying a loving God wouldn’t send people to hell. Well, God is loving, and had His son Jesus who never sinned crucified (willingly), paying for the punishment of the sins of anyone who puts their faith in Him as Lord. So, because God is loving, it’s very easy to avoid going to Hell. Which is why it’s also very easy to go to hell, we already deserve to go, so if we reject His offer of forgiveness, that’s on us.

              Purgatory, I would say was an invention of church leaders since it’s not in the bible. They used the threat of purgatory to get people to pay for indulgences.

  • Donkter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    4 days ago

    The absolute worst is them saying socialism is pessimistic because it thinks people can’t do anything for themself and coddles them with a nanny state. Then turns around and says “you have to structure capitalism assuming every single person is a greedy sociopath hellbent on fucking over everyone else to make money.”

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      you have to structure capitalism assuming every single person is a greedy sociopath hellbent on fucking over everyone else to make money.

      So… Social Democracy? Which they also oppose? 🤔

      • Donkter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        Not exactly, the argument (is incoherent and insane) is something like “you can’t have too much democracy and centralized power because people in power are always corrupt.” ✨Somehow✨ laissez-faire capitalism is supposed to naturally account for corruption and sociopathy because the free market forces(???) them to do good things because people are able to spend their money somewhere else. Always non-violent btw ❤️

  • prunerye@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    To be fair, the heaven of the Bible is neither stateless nor classless. “The nations” are still present in Revelation 21 and 22, and inequality in heaven is a common theme in Jesus’s parables.

    • lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      “The nations” is just fancy for “non Jews”. Remember that the bible predates modern nation states by more than a millennium.

      inequality in heaven is a common theme in Jesus’s parables.

      Is that so? I can think of the story with the lamps where it’s about getting into the kingdom of god or the treasure in the field where it’s about finding the kingdom of god. Or that the poor will inherit the kingdom of god while rich people cannot get into it. Nothing about inequality inside the kingdom of god.

      You have to keep in mind that the kingdom of god isn’t really heaven as we think of it even tho Matthew uses the wording kingdom of heaven (to avoid the word god as a good jew). We think of heaven as life after death but the kingdom of god is on earth when Jesus returns and the dead arise and he builds his kingdom here.

      • prunerye@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        “Least”/“Greatest” in “the kingdom of heaven” is a construction that appears at least once off the top of my head, Matthew 5:19. I’m sure there are more. But also, Jesus is depicted as a literal monarch and heaven a kingdom like you said, so there’s at least one extra class right there.

        • lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I see your point but hear me out:

          Saying “The only one I call king is the one who died at the cross” subverts the very concept of a king. Not only is this guy no longer here to directly command anyone but his death was the most humiliating to him and his followers possible. In this way, it’s anti-authoritarian. Similar with the greatest in the kingdom of god. It’s the last you would think of: the poor, the children, … . Sure, this leaves place for interpretation. You can say it’s just a new hierarchy. Or it’s so radically putting everything into question that it’s in effect a call against all hierarchies. Or that it’s so radical, it can’t be taken serious at all so barely means anything anymore.

          Christianity as a whole shows all of this. The first communes shared everything in common, there was “neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. (Gal 3, 28). Later a new hierarchy establish which, once established, wasn’t new or subversive anymore but just a top down hierarchy. Once in a while someone came with a more subversive reading, more often than not founding a new organization that ended up with a strict hierarchy.

          I think the biggest flaw is that there is no sustainable alternative given. You can criticize capitalism all day long and reinforce it as a system without an alternative if you don’t give one. Some Christians found alternatives and supported them with the scripture, others supported very different things with scripture. That’s the thing with all world religions: They start in opposition to society but fail to think outside the box and so they end up reinforcing it while keeping the seldom fulfilled potential for a better society (“world region” in the sense Graeber uses the term in Debt and Graham discusses in this podcast episode I guess but I’m not sure).

          All that said, since the first Christians certainly had a very egalitarian, anti-authoritative reading, this is the most authoritative reading (pun intended).

          • prunerye@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            This is good stuff; your argument is well reasoned. Brings me back to my Bible study days.

            I still think “all hierarchies” might be overbroad. The Bible itself prescribes elders/bishops and deacons to administer the church, for instance, and it’s radical enough regarding obedience to authority that, in my experience, modern day theologically conservative churches trend toward authoritarianism and mostly unchecked abuse of power more often than not. This would have been contemporaneous with the communes.

            As for the more heavenly hierarchies, I looked back at some of the points of evidence that I was going to bring up here that I thought supported my case, but the “outer darkness” in Matthew 22 I once thought might not necessarily be hell sure seems like hell upon rereading, and as for the parable of the unforgiving servant who was sent to the “torturers” despite his debts being forgiven, it looks like that word “torturers” is connected to jailers, i.e. debtors’ prison, so I can’t argue confidently that the servant was “saved” from anything and given a different punishment instead. There are still a few passages I can’t totally square though:

            The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32): He gets welcomed back into the family, and he sure seems saved in the sense that I think most Christians would read into it, but his inheritance is spent; he doesn’t get more. All the father has belongs to the other son.

            The purifying fire of 1 Corinthians 3:9-15: Both groups of people are explicitly “saved”. One is rewarded, the other suffers loss.

            The parable of the talents/minas: In the Matthew 25 version of the parable, the first two servants get the same reward (authority over “many things”). No issue there. But in the Luke 19 version, the rewards are proportional. And the one with 10 minas gets a bonus at the end.

            That’s as far as I got before my eyes glazed over.

        • Smc87@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          Why are you guys all able to recall random bits of the bible. What normal people are even reading this stuff in the last 40 years?

          • Doctor_Satan@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            I had it drilled into my head as a kid. When I left home I forgot most of it. Then as an adult I brushed up on it to argue with the kind of people who drilled it into my head as a kid.

        • tacobellhop@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 days ago

          There’s also 11 classes of angels in a ladder system under Jesus. My boys Metatron and Enoch up top if I’m not mistaken.

    • VitoRobles@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      This is really fascinating. I never heard of this.

      Is there a non-religious, ELI5 resource I can read more about this?

      • prunerye@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        I never had much use for non-religious secondary sources back when I was a believer, so I can’t recommend any, but the New Testament isn’t actually that long; you could probably finish it in a week if you read 20-30 chapters a day, and the chapters are short. The first three books, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and to a lesser extent the fourth, John, are all the same; you can probably just pick one (John is probably the most interesting) and read the rest of the NT as is. Whether or not it’s worth your time is entirely up to you. I certainly have no intention of reading it again any time soon.

        • lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          I think nothing outside of the gospels is of any merit. It is probably worth your time to read the red words in the bible. Jesus was on some real shit, minus all the son of god stuff

          Before people get huffy yes I have read the entire bible; it is not “the most beautiful book ever written” nor anything close to that, but Jesus was an interesting dude

          You also can not read the bible as if it’s modern English and interpret it as such. Always consider 1. who was talking then, 2. who they were talking to, and 3. the context in which they were speaking at the time.

      • andros_rex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Dan McClellan videos on YouTube and TikTok are great and accessible discussions of a lot of academic Bible research.

            • andros_rex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              How???

              Like, you can do some really interesting conversations about Neo Platonism and philo-semitism around the time some of the New Testament was being written - Gnosticism undoubtedly comes from Greek philosophy - but many portions of the Hebrew Bible predate Hesiod entirely.

              Can you provide any form of argument, or is this some shit you picked up from like Zeitgeist or something.

                • andros_rex@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 days ago

                  Didn’t Alan Watts usually talk about (his extremely westernized interpretation of) Zen Buddhism? When has Alan Watts made the strange argument that ancient Israelites were somehow aware of Greek mythology and a specific text that wasn’t even written until at least many of the minor prophets books were written?

                  When has Alan Watts ever really been focused on the development of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament and it’s relationship to Greek mythology? Do you have a link to his argument?

                  Edit: Checked out and skimmed Myth & Ritual in Christianity online to see if what you are saying is in there. I strongly suspect that you are seriously misinterpreting ideas related to Jung and the collective unconscious (as does Zeitgeist), but feel free to clarify.

  • LemmyGo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    I think it might have something to do with those “Christians” envisioning heaven as an implicit ethnostate.

    Socialism seems ugly to them because it involves the people who seem ugly to them being cared for.

    But they’d never say it out-loud; most can’t even see that’s what their twisted little hearts desire.

    • sexy_peach@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think they just lack vision and don’t actually want to change the real world, just dream of a better place

    • morbidcactus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      Seen this clip from some american fundie podcast that was… a choice.

      This person was asked something like, if you could have world peace, but all governments become socialist, would you do it? They said no and fucking justified their answer with a partial quote from something like Deuteronomy 15:7-11, claiming that well the bible says there’ll always be the poor so socialism is actually bad because of that, and a quick search to see if I could find it there’s a lot of stuff echoing the same stuff, that socialism is unbiblical etc.

      What the actual fuck is wrong with these people? I’m irreligious but was raised Christian, this is so vehemently counter to my understanding of Christian teachings (the flavour of which I was raised has atheist ministers so there’s that), which was more or less, raise everyone up, accept everyone for who they are, help people, don’t turn a blind eye to injustice and like just be decent to each other. Was this podcast prosperity doctrine shit or something else because yeah wow, it’s honestly sinister to me.

      • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        3 days ago

        I was raised as a fundamentalist, but I got out.

        American evangelical fundamentalists firmly believe in heirarchy— children are under the authority of their mother, who is under the authority of her husband, who is under the authority of God.

        They see any disruption of this heirarchy as an attack on their religion.

        Taxes? You’re usurping the man’s authority to spend his money as he sees fit.

        Women’s liberation? You’re usurping the man’s authority over his wife.

        Entitlements? You’re usurping the man’s authority to use his pocketbook as leverage over his family.

        Immigration? You’re usurping the man’s authority by lowering his cultural relevance.

        LGBTQ+ acceptance? You’re usurping the man’s authority by undermining the patriarchy.

        You’ve probably noticed a pattern as to who is primarily driving these issues.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        They begin with the conclusion (e.g. socialism bad), and then find whatever they can in their shitty book to justify it.

        • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yeah, just like everything else, they are cherry picking passages that support the conclusion they’ve already reached on their own

      • Necroscope0@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Yup. Funny all the people blaming the bible like the dude up there calling it a stupid book… obviously hasn’t read it. The bible has great lessons, 90% of Christians just ignore them is all. Don’t blame the book for the idiots who claim to follow it when they actually aren’t. Even the stuff wanna be Christians quote thinking it supports their argument they are either misunderstanding or leaving out vital context. Real Christians are very rare and almost never associated with an organized church. They just quietly try to do their best they don’t try to use their belief to justify the rest of their life and bad decisions.

      • seeigel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        It sounds to me like they want to be able to give freely and not be forced by a human law.

        If everybody shares there is no need for official socialism because enough resources are shared.

        The difference is that the formerly poor has to be thankful.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      “Christians”

      Here we go with the scare quotes again… They’re not fake Christians just because you don’t agree with their particular dogma.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 days ago

    I asked one “so when do I actually die?” and they couldn’t comprehend that I didn’t want to exist forever

  • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    In the eternal words of Bob Marley:

    Some people think

    Great God will come from the sky

    Take away everything

    And make everybody feel high

    But if you know what life is worth

    You will look for yours on earth

    And now we see the light

    We’re going to stand up for our right

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    The most successful nations in terms of citizen happiness use mixed-economics. Nordic nations have the blueprint. We just need to use it.

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      So complete justice system reform, cut the police force, strong wide reaching unions, and strong social welfare.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Conservatives: “Socialism Bad!”

      “Norway is a successful Socialist State”

      Conservatives: “But that isn’t socialism!”

      “Okay, then lets use whatever that system is”

      Conservatives: “SOCIALISM BAAAD! 😡😡😡”

      (It’s called Social Democracy btw, which the conservates also hate)

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Christians that vote republic just dissociate their “church” brain vs their non “church” brain. Their religious beliefs ONLY apply to religious things. Everything else just goes to whatever their true value system is.

    • BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      I don’t think most religious people have any beliefs, they just roll with whatever stances are currently popular amongst their peers. If a large enough number of their peers say their god says slavery is valid, then they will say slavery is valid, or a million other horrible things

      • VitoRobles@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        Funny you mentioned this.

        Apparently feeding school kids for free was controversial (and still is controversial).

        And I watched a fellow parent on Facebook post an event about bake sales to raise money, to immediately sharing talking points about why it’s bad for kids to get free school lunches.

      • andros_rex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        The Bible as a text has zero issues with slavery. The Old Testament thinks it’s fine to sell your daughter. The New Testament tells slaves to submit to their masters.

        Your average Christian has very little knowledge of what the Bible actually contains. Non denominational Protestant Christianity’s focus on the personal relationship with God and their interpretation of ‘Biblical literalism’ means that you just squint at the text and read what you want from it.

        I remember listening to some particularly painful exegesis on David killing the Amalekite messenger being some kind of message on not tattling to your boss about things. They don’t read things in context - they read snippets and verses and work in their pop culture understandings about hell, Satan, and salvation into the text.

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        True, I definitely think most religious people don’t think too much about what they’re believing in.

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        I think this dude is incapable of dissociating, so he just forces his true value system onto his church beliefs. He will ignore the text that contradicts his own values. There’s definitely lots of people like that.

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          I mean that basically describes Christianity as a whole. The entirety of the religion throughout human history is basically people reforming it to suit their needs. True of most religions really.

    • drhodl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      You can be anything you want, so long as you go to church on Sunday and say “sorry”. For example…mafia, pedophile priests and politicians.

        • drhodl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yes, my son. You may be as evil as you wish, so long as you say “sorry” on Sunday, Heaven’s doors will be open to you. God help you if you die on a Saturday, though… :)

          • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            That’s not how it works. You have to mean it when you repent. If you go killing someone with the intent to just repent later, you are basically screwed. As you probably won’t truly regret what you have done.

            • drhodl@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Maybe, but I don’t think that’s how the bad guys see it. Else there would be no bad guys who are religious.

            • Moog Muskie@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              It’s not only that, but you must also turn from your sin and towards God. That is, make a conscious commitment not to sin.

              “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,” Acts 3:19

              (2) "Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? (3) I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” Luke 13:2-3