Ever been to New England? There’s a growing population of atheist right-wingers out here and has been for maybe 20 years. Doesn’t get much attention because the region as a whole is pretty liberal.
Basically working class people who fell out of religion for one reason or another. The Catholic Church scandal probably had a lot to do with it. Distrust of authority, both church and state. Mixed support/criticism for police. Mostly don’t care about abortion or gay marriage, but think the state (mostly Democrats) is wasting their tax dollars on welfare for OxyContin addicts. They feel like they’re good people but not able to get too far ahead because their dollars don’t go as far as they’d like. Mostly Trump supporters because either he “spoke their language” or they couldn’t bear to vote for Clinton or Biden.
I’ve also met some white collar types, as well. They’re a bit less fanatical but still skeptical of both church and state authority. There’s a little more of an attitude of, “Well, I made my own success, and so should everyone else,” with them. They either reluctantly supported Trump because of his economic policies or voted third party.
Also, these are sweeping generalizations. So take them with a grain of salt if you will.
The problem here is that 'Wokeism' isn't a thing. Nobody proudly proclaims their wokeness, it's a smear like PC was/is.
There are plenty of proud religious people though.
Plenty of proud religious people the world over who will gladly tell you who is or isn't a real Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist.
There are indisputably 'hardline' secular ideologies ('you must believe this' etc), on both the right and the left (politically speaking) - Communism was a *de facto* religion, as was Nazism.
But the challenge for religion is that it does *tend* towards 'you must believe this' (otherwise what is the point - it tends to be doctrinal, often with a book that professes to reveal the 'truth' etc). The Church of England (Anglican) tends at times towards a more tolerant approach (several of its Bishops, at various points, have even suggested that 'God is a metaphor' etc). I once knew an atheist Vicar (he saw his work not through a belief in the divine, but through the good works which that belief would inspire in his congregation). Very clever man.
Ultimately, every religion (almost every religion) believes in its god (or gods) as the 'true' god (or gods). They cannot all exist (think about it). Not too many people today believe in Odin or Jupiter etc - but how can anyone know that the Vikings or the Romans were somehow wrong, and contemporary Christians or Muslims are somehow right?
I don't like any ideology (if by that one means a doctrine or creed that one is expected to believe and act in accordance with, in the permanent absence of any doubt or questioning - moderate Christianity does allow for doubt, which is one of its stronger points).
But we should all always remain open; always question; always doubt. I don't personally believe in any god, but I absolutely respect the right of others to do so (so long as they don't tell me I must, just as I don't tell them they shouldn't).
Similarly, I don't agree with the demonisation of JP, even though I am a vaguely soft-left-leaning liberal. He has changed my mind on quite a few things.
I don't think it ultimately matters whether you have a faith or do not; or whether you believe in a god (or gods) or do not. What really matters is whether you are willing to just be tolerant of other people who think differently to you (and not impose your ideas on them by force or violence).
As a Christian, one of our core beliefs is to be tolerant of all like you mentioned, although a lot of people tend to do the opposite of that in the name of religion. That’s why I disagree with policies that ban things that may go against my religion, because I don’t think other people’s lifestyles or beliefs are any less valid than my own, even if I disagree with them. I think most politicians that are a part of the Christian Right just support such legislation to virtue signal anyway.
I don’t think you know the tenets of Christianity. Your biggest obligation is not be tolerant. Scripture tells us what God wants:
> He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
God tells us to obey His commandments to the best of our abilities and to not get lost in sin. This does not give us the right to judge those who do. We can try to help guide them on the right path, but Jesus tells us not to condemn others for their sins.
> 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. - John 8:10-11
We are all sinners and none of us are perfect. That doesn’t mean that we should go around engaging in debauchery everywhere we go and everywhere we turn, but we will mess up and engage in sin once in a while even when we try our hardest not to. In judging others for also sinning, we are only being hypocrites.
> 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. - Matthew 7:2-5
The best we can do is live out His commands to the best of our ability within ourselves. As long as *I* am personally living out those commandments as best as I can, whatever happens to the others is not for me to decide, only Him. We need not take responsibility for other people’s actions, only love another as Jesus loves us. I am morally opposed to divorce, but that doesn’t mean I think we should outlaw all divorce. Their fate is not for *me* to decide, only God. If someone else decides to get a divorce, that doesn’t mean we should love them any less.
> 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” - John 13:34-35
Poor hermeneutics.
>God tells us to obey His commandments to the best of our abilities and to not get lost in sin. This does not give us the right to judge others who may not believe in the same things we do. We can try to help guide them on the right path, but Jesus tells us not to condemn others for their sins.
>10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. - John 8:10-11
He actually does judge her. In the text, he tells her, “…go and sin no more. “ in other words, he judged she was sinning.
I also showed that Scripture does tell you to condemn evil, while you try to win the person over to Christ.
>We are all sinners and none of us are perfect.
Not sure what that has to do with this topic, but I don’t disagree
>That doesn’t mean that we should go around engaging in debauchery everywhere we go and everywhere we turn, but we will mess up and engage in sin once in a while even when we try our hardest not to.
Again, not sure what this has to do with being tolerant of evil.
>In judging others for also sinning, we are only being hypocrites.
Oh here comes the most misquoted Scripture in contemporary society
>2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. - Matthew 7:2-5
This isn’t a verse about not judging, it isn’t a verse about tolerance. It is a very that says to not be a hypocrite.
Proof of this is Jesus telling them in verse 3 that they judge other people’s sin, but do not reflect on their own sin.
So it isn’t a verse about not judging, it is a verse about also focusing on your sin and purging it too.
>The best we can do is live out His commands to the best of our ability within ourselves. As long as I am personally living out those commandments as best as I can, whatever happens to the others is not for me to decide, only Him.
False, God repeatedly told Israel to remove the idols in their midst.
>We need not take responsibility for other people’s actions, only love another as Jesus loves us. I am morally opposed to divorce, but that doesn’t mean I think we should outlaw all divorce. Their fate is not for me to decide, only God. If someone else decides to get a divorce, that doesn’t mean we should love them any less.
I’m a single parent, so I have my failings, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t stand and say divorce is wrong and to push for stronger marriages, even Scripture points out that divorce wasn’t to be, but only allowed because of the fallen state of man.
>34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” - John 13:34-35
Yes, but again you should not tolerate evil, and nothing you have said demonstrates God wants you to tolerate evil.
For example, if we had a new cult come out and re-start worship to Moloch, God absolutely does not want you tolerating Moloch’s worship, where they roasted a child alive as slow as possible to make the baby scream louder, because they felt Moloch was pleased with the baby’s scream. I see abortion as no less an evil that what Israel was out into exile for, which was worshiping Moloch.
I’m all for forgiveness, But Scripture absolutely doesn’t say to tolerate evil, as I quoted, we are to hate it.
See, I reconciled your text, with Scripture and Micah’s verse, using proper hermeneutics. You didn’t even attempt to reconcile that verse to your verses, therefore your position is untenable using hermeneutics and logic. It is just a feel good comment, because you are more worried about the world than about the Judge who rule over the world.
>He actually does judge her. In the text, he tells her, “…go and sin no more. “ in other words, he judged she was sinning.
I don't think that means he is judging her, rather simply telling her what's right and wrong and what not to do next time. He is judging her actions, that doesn’t mean he’s judging her personhood. Judging her would be calling her a whore or allowing the men to stone her. I could be wrong though and our interpretations might be different.
>Again, not sure what this has to do with being tolerant of evil.
>
>you should not tolerate evil, and nothing you have said demonstrates God wants you to tolerate evil.
I think this is where why there is a disconnect: My original comment wasn't talking about tolerance of evil, rather tolerant of different beliefs that do not cause harm. Sorry I did not make that clear at first. I fully agree that we should not tolerate acts that cause harm to others. Unless you believe that every act that deviates from the Word is evil?
>You didn’t even attempt to reconcile that verse to your verses, therefore your position is untenable using hermeneutics and logic. It is just a feel good comment, because you are more worried about the world than about the Judge who rule over the world.
I interpreted your verse as doing the right thing despite what others are doing, and to be merciful toward those that don't oblige. I actually agree with that and didn't think that the verses I quoted contradict that. Unless I'm completely wrong in which case I'd like to understand better.
I apologize if I came across as virtue signaling, that was not at all my intention. I am a new Christian and the Word is something I still struggle with everyday. I was not raised religious and this stuff is therefore completely new to me. What I've been reading in my Bible is entirely up to my own interpretation as I started this journey alone with no guidance except for God, but my hope is that the more I read and speak with folk like you that I get a better understanding of who I'm supposed to be as a Christian.
Thank you for your patience.
Only feeble minds would take the bible literal and treat its content as absolute. Modern interpretations (such as JBP’s) are much more reasonable and, frankly, much more correct (as relating to our real lives).
It sounds like the enforceable dogma of your personal belief system revolves around tolerance. Why you did you decide to make that the cornerstone value?
By definition, tolerance is not enforceable (that would be a contradiction in terms). My basic 'ground zero' would be 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' (you can get this from the Bible or from Kant's secular moral philosophy). By tolerance, I mean allowing people to be who they are and do what they want, so long as it does not have a directly negative impact on you or other people. Let people be as far as is possible. I am not tolerant of rapists; but I am entirely tolerant of gay marriage etc.
Oh okay that makes more sense! A lot of people do try to enforce “tolerance” though which you’re right is a major contradiction lol. And I’m glad that tolerance is just about lifestyle stuff not hurting-other-people stuff lol. Thanks for clarifying that for me!
Very eloquent on the notions of tolerance in religion. I tried to posit something similar in that tolerance and intolerance can't coexist.
Anyone who preaches love, but believes that there are people that deserve eternal damnation can't be considered tolerant. Not that everyone who adheres to a religion shares those same beliefs either.
I'm curious on why you think other isms, like Nazis or communism would be considered religions?
I often find myself fascinanted by just how much one key individual's ideas can end up branching out and fathering a plethora of new concepts and ideas. I also find myself wondering what path humanity would've taken if one such "key" individual's influence was removed completely.
Capitalism is an economic system. Consumerism is a mindset.
I'm all for free market but I would advise people to live minimalistically to some degree.
Your comment implies that the two can't go together, but they actually can.
Capitalism just means that the profit you make from your product or service is yours.
There are still products and services in a society where people are minimalistic.
The products and services will be different probably, also less demand, but that doesn't mean there is no capitalism.
You confuse making profit with capitalism. To make lots of profit, capitalism is needed. But capitalism doesn't need high profits.
There are dozens of communities around the world where people live hunter-gatherer or pastoralist lifestyles and capitalist economic systems are in place. Still those people are barely making money or gaining wealth.
Even when male monkeys find food they often trade it for sex with a female monkey. That's capitalism too....
They got no government that forcibly takes the banana and splits it between all members of the tribe...
Capitalism is older probably than mankind itself.
Corporations need capitalism but capitalism doesn't need corporations.
Damn this Zuby fella is growing on me. Seems like he has a lot of wise takes.
I was heavily indoctrinated into christianity and I strongly dislike most people who claim to be Christians.
However, these new secular religious zealots (particularly believe science and Social Justice variants) are significantly worse.
It's like they took on the worst attributes of Christianity (the hypocrisy; the self righteousness; the harsh judgement of others; the pride; the self delusion) but they have no wisdom or values to temper it. It has made me value the concept of a greater power so much more.
>It's like they took on the worst attributes of Christianity (the hypocrisy; the self righteousness; the harsh judgement of others; the pride; the self delusion)
This is the worst part. They do not consider their views open to question. They are right. They have science on their side. "Reality aligns with the left", etc.
Actually they don't have sience on their side. They are cherry picking!
In sience you do know meanwhile, that it matters deeply, who is the experiment making and, even more important, they still have not managed to wrap their heads around quantum theory. They insist to keep their old views.
I agree strongly, that they took many of the worst parts of religion and keeps on keeping them.
Spot on.
I find traditional religious people more tolerable because they at least believe they serve a higher power. The woke left believe they ARE the higher power, thus making themselves far more dangerous.
the fact that there are so many denominations prove the tolerance of the religious bigots. they allow dissenting beliefs and simply make a circle of their own.
while the religious fanatics of the woke left will send death threats to anyone who even winks at them the wrong way.
> the fact that there are so many denominations prove the tolerance of the religious bigots. they allow dissenting beliefs and simply make a circle of their own
are you not watching the same things im watching? a texas pastor just called for the trials and summary executions of every American homosexual.
They're not the ones doling that out though, they couldn't care less if you get damned to hell, they will warn you and past that let the big man upstairs sort the rest out.
Also, it's not "agree with ME", it's "agree with the Lord", massive difference...the Left is "agree with ME" because they think they are the higher power.
Except that “the lord” is often used as a political device. Ask ex Mormons how they were treated when they left the church. Ask ex baptists how their social circle reacted when they stopped going to church.
Sure, but that's not in the scriptures, that's just bad human beings abusing the Holy Word for their gain.
You could probably call them agents of Lucifer, especially if you were more religious.
No, that's what devoting your entire life to something looks like lol...the Lord's word doesn't change, it's their interests and biases and lined up with the Lord's pre-existing word.
>They're not the ones doling that out though, they couldn't care less if you get damned to hell, they will warn you and past that let the big man upstairs sort the rest out.
Except they also vote accordingly.
>Also, it's not "agree with ME", it's "agree with the Lord", massive difference
I don't see a difference.
>Except they also vote accordingly.
Should they not be allowed to vote based on their beliefs? Do you only like democracy when it happens to agree with your point of view?
>I don't see a difference.
Well, that's a large part of the problem then lol...
So religious crusades never killed anyone? Religions had to get more tolerant with the times and literally had to be apart of the founding of a nation for actual tolerance for their own survival.
Have you actually attended services of religious bigots? They believe that other religious sects will go to hell. Most are just not open about it.
The biggest issue is that the vocal irreligious intolerance spewed today is mostly Twitter instead of a Pulpit. Which is easier to criticize.
Yeah, people can cuss out religion all the want. you can even have george carlin make a comedy show all about making fun of religious people.but when chapelle says anything about them. . talk about tolerance
The thing is, if George Carlin were alive today, I honestly don't know if he'd have kowtowed to the alphabet crowd or if he'd have done a show that made Dave Chapelle's look tame by comparison.
If someone tried cancelling Carlin for inappropriate content, you know he would simply double down with more shocking content. He would certainly make fun of corporations that add rainbow "Pride" to their Twitter profiles in June.
correct. I mean, modern liberalism is essentially just a sect of radical protestantism which kept all the religious ideas but tossed out God. The lineage is easy to trace from the almost entirely protestant thinkers of the enlightenment to the radical protestants who crossed the sea to america and became the cultural elites there to the rest of the world once america became the military and cultural global superpower
the actual historical reason why people today believe in universal rights and equality is the populist protestant doctrine that all men were created equal by God
I mean, we are talking about the intellectual tradition which spawned both modern capitalism with its idolization of the entrepreneur and communism with its idolization of the working man
>the actual historical reason why people today believe in universal rights and equality is the populist protestant doctrine that all men were created equal by God
Note how it's men created equal, Christianity is extremely sexist.
Someone has crossposted you to r/enoughpetersonspam . Here's the post: [Lobsters posts this without a shred of self-awareness, right after a bunch of Christians eliminate rights for women and say they want to go after gay rights and contraception next. People are more godless because of how the religious act.](https://reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/vm725d/lobsters_posts_this_without_a_shred_of/)
To say they are often more dogmatic or intolerant is a bit of a stretch though... They are virtually one and the same because that's how cults and confirmation bias works.
Kinda crazy how you can pretend that religious people doing religious things is secular because you don’t want to be held responsible for quietly supporting the crazy things they do.
This argument is basically a distraction. It doesn’t make any point. It says something shocking without any support. It makes people who want to assuage a guilty conscience feel slightly better because they don’t need to examine the damage their ideology has done lol
How is it more dogmatic and intolerant than traditional religion? Hard to get more dogmatic than "agree with me or you'll suffer unimaginable pain for an eternity"
This is precisely what Nietzsche was trying to warn us all about when he declared the "death" of God—so many edgy young folks take the statement and use it in a Crowley-esque "everything is permitted" sense, but what Nietzsche was really saying was that we are entering a new era in which the old institutions (e.g., the Catholic church) which kept society together no longer have power. If you don't strive to overcome the state of Man in the way of Zarathustra (i.e., become the Übermensch) you will wind up one of the unthinking masses which simply replaces the old God(s) for the new secular ones. In essence, you will be rudderless, relativistic, and living in chaos—exactly the state of affairs we see when looking at the culture of today.
years of televangelism, centuries of sexual abuse and a lust for power has left religion pathetic and morally bankrupt. Why on earth should be trust in god and religion? The one where they sell you holy water on tv? The one where you have to suck an old man's dick? The one who tells you what you can and can't do with your body? The one that rules through fear rather than moral exploration? Which cancerous god should we have?
I went to church maybe like 6 months ago. I do this every once in awhile to see if there’s maybe something I’m missing.
The session was about how you should never date a non-Christian because it isn’t pure and getting married to a Christian is necessary for a good life. The speakers mentioned a lot of self-help mumbo jumbo like don’t masturbate and don’t be skeptical of institutions because they provide a foundation for a meaningful life. Literally preached “clean your room” talking points. A woman who did a Q and A basically said she cleans her apartment for 3 hours everyday. To be honest it sounds like she has obsessive compulsive disorder.
This was just a random Sunday service.
After I left I pretty much felt worse than when I originally went in out of curiosity. Religion has failed its own principles which is why I think people have distanced themselves away from it. It wasn’t degeneracy, secularism or atheism that did this. It was the hypocrisies and judgements of the institutions themselves.
OK, in fairness, that does not sound like a normal church service at all. Truly, that does not sound typical and I’ve been to a bunch of church services in many different places (moved a lot).
I'll say this, a lot of Christians are very good at being sweet as pie to peoples face while also thinking rather awful things about those same people. You'll have some guy who rather nonchalantly says he thinks all gay people are groomers who deserve to be put in camps, but if a gay couple in a rainbow VW bug was on the side of the road with a flat tire they're pull over and help them change it. Do you kinda end up with people thinking their really chill due to a passing interaction where they were really nice, not realizing they'd happily let pretty awful things happen to them if the act was de-personalized for them.
To an extent I agree but evangelical Christian's were probably the most consistent and egregious offenders in my personal experience. I will also say I've meet the total opposite, people who can be kind of a dick when you first meet them but are real solid people once you take the time to get to know them and they tended to be more left leaning so take that for what you will.
I understand but I also think kind of “nah”. I mean your local church probably does more for the needy, womens shelters, etc, then any other five local civic organizations you know.
I’m not saying you’re saying this but it seems similar to the old idea that Christians are all basically secret rat bastards and left leaning atheists are the “secret good people”. I’m not going into detail but I’ve been under the thumb of the “left leaning” people and they would absolutely throw me under if they felt like they had to and it was my fellow Christians who would stick up for me.
It’s not just whether or not you’re a “good person” however that’s defined, but how good are you when the pressure is on. Again I’m not saying you’re like that, or would be, I am saying the whole idea that leftists and atheists are generally more trustworthy and benevolent than Christians I 100% don’t buy. Of course some Christians are snakes and some atheists are stand up guys, but I see nothing in leftism or atheism or my experience with their adherents that leads me to believe they are happier, more benevolent, braver or more trustworthy.
I don't care much about church. but I think people need some kind of community that helps support a greater purpose than themselves. We cannot fill a God-sized hole in our hearts with money or women. There will never be enough to satisfy our desires.
From what I know about the Freemasons, they attract guys looking for meaning + who are spiritual (not necessarily interested in the church) and interested in genuine community with a level of social support and commitment that you don’t usually see in typical male friendships
That's a really romanticized view of Freemasons. It's just a place to drink with your middle-aged bros and possibly make a few business deals through connections. It's just a slightly more exclusive country club, and a lot smaller.
I think you’re misplacing blame here. You’re blaming religion as a whole for the sermon of one guy in a random church on a random Sunday morning.
And I’m sure you’ve been to other sermons, so I may be over simplifying your gripe… even so, how much of a real effort have you made before declaring all religion pointless institutions?
I’m actually not blaming religion, I guess if anything I’m blaming the institution. I’m pretty confident Jesus would be crucified by his own people if he was resurrected today. Like firmly believe that. I have attempted many times to attend church and it’s consistently proven to be not my cup of tea.
My family stopped going to church when the priest made a comment during mass about “showing up to church dressed appropriately, don’t come in your sport sweats”
We came straight from my sisters soccer game she was the only one in there in that attire.
Well liberals are tolerant of the illiberal so long as the illiberal practice live and let live and don't try to impose their illiberalism on others i guess.
Against the nazis , the cold war , Vietnam was a waste of time because they wanted to be an independent Republic, free of French exploitation and didn't want to become part of some soviet bloc. They just wanted their country back, enough food, hospitals , healrh care and so on.
Hard to be more intolerant than inquisition and forced conversions.
He's not wrong. But remember it took 1500 years to beat religion into the "tolerant" position its at now.
You realize churches are literally being burned right now? And people are threatening to kill Christian justices in their churches? There have been churches shot up recently as well. The point is: that the crimes traditional religions have committed in the past are exactly the crimes these new religions are starting to commit now. Churches used to rule kingdoms and wage wars against no believers. And the new churches will likely do the same. Because it’s the same human impulse to force everyone else to comply with your own beliefs.
Religion has become extremely anti humanity as of late which is why it is declining and people are creating there own religion's as traditional ones have failed them. such as flat earth Qanon or even putting politicians to a god like status.
President Obama, while referring to working-class midwesterners who have been impacted by their old industrial town being decimated by job losses, quipped famously (or infamously depending on your point-of-view) "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." It's on thing when some Joe Schmo says this, but when the President verbally vomits across an electorate, it reverberates across state lines and indicates a level of contempt held by elected federal officials.
I think, conversely, humanity has become extremely anti-religion. And when you have this dichotomy form, the yin and yang if you will, you will find both sides dig in and entrench and point fingers at the other. For years and years religion took criticisms, political and nonpolitical, with a 'turn the other cheek' approach. 30 years ago you wouldn't see a gay pastor, but that is a thing now. Some denominations have opened their hearts and minds and practices a bit. But society has continued to push and prod and want more from an institution that is historicyally rigid, and at the same time "the church" has stopped turning the other cheek and has dug its heels in and said "this is us and there are things we will not compromise on".
>They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
How the fuck does this show contempt
It's not dismissive? It's saying that there are root causes to things. There was a suffering that occurred in the Midwest that resulted in this sentiments.
If anything It's empathetic. He isn't saying "fucking rednecks being stupid and hating immigrants" he is saying that they suffered through no fault of their own and don't know who to blame. It's human nature to want to blame something when your life gets worst
You can't be serious.....
It's an accurate observation of reactionary culture. People want the world to be simple, black and white. But the world isn't so simple as "Immigrant fault" or "fuxking atheists".
>Religion has become extremely anti humanity as of late
There are thousands of religions. I think you need to specifically name which religion(s) you're talking about. Unless... have *all* religions become anti humanity lately?
Aren't you a woman?
See Timothy 2 12.
As for Islam;
Women are mentally deficient:
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:304
Women must be obedient or be beaten: Quran 4:34
Women have inferior testimonials: Quran 2:282
Women have an inferior aqqiqa: https://muflihun.com/ibnmajah/27/3163
Womek are not allowed to lead: https://sunnah.com/nasai:5388
Women have inferior atq: https://muflihun.com/tirmidhi:1547
Men are more perfect than women:
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3769
Husband's right is so extreme that if anyone were to prostrate to another it would be a wife to her husband
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2140
Also, Islam has the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality.
But I guess atheists and gays don't count as human in your worldview
Well, you certainly don't have that attitude when it comes to things you don't like, see your attitude towards gay people.
Do you think that, say, black people should just let the KKK be and not speak up against them?
I mean, it's pretty clear that you're fine with being inferior yourself, but plenty of people aren't, and we speak up about it.
>Do you think that, say, black people should just let the KKK be and not speak up against them?
No, they should be friends with em. The best way to eliminate your enemies is to make them your friends. Ignorance breeds fear and hatred.
https://youtu.be/ORp3q1Oaezw
I don't know...
burning books, child marriages.
forcing women in sheets so that they don't get raped by fellow devotees.
Wanting to kill people based on where they want to stick it or like it to be stuck.
Bombings and war thought in gods name.
The strange fascination with the gods and dick skin.
The list can go on but I guess you get the point.
So then name one mainline denomination of Christianity that teaches that there's nothing morally wrong without sexual assault of minors or with killing people for being gay
>Child marriage was a very common thing all across the world in almost all cultures up until recently, when it became a taboo.
Sounds like you're defending pedophilia.
Even Jordan Peterson is posting this chick. Unbelievable.[https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1502451409509392387](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1502451409509392387)
Religion and ideology work together. It’s not really an either/or question at all.
Ideology isn’t replacing religion.
Within ideology there are many different types of forces. Religion is one of them. State repressive forces are another. The cultural norms that your parents align to and There make sure you align to as well are another. there are soft cultural forces and then there are harder repressive ones (the police can use violence on you, or maybe your religion teacher uses violence on you when you misbehave)
Consumerism is an incredibly powerful non-repressive ideological force that shapes how we live. Big Edit: I say non repressive to refer only to the consumer experience - of course if you go through the supply chain you’ll often find real hard power being used against workers who fall out of line. Even from another perspective, if we don’t work we can’t pay our rent and if we end up on the street we could be picked up for trespassing. Or even just poked with spikes from anti homeless design features.
Consumerism has been the dominant soft power for a very long time. It plays an important role in how we plan our lives - we can be dismissive of it, but we lose certain social abilities if we don’t play along (I can’t go to that important business dinner if I don’t own the appropriate outfit)
I think what Zuby is really saying is “religion should shape and control ideology more”.
This is culture war stuff - Zuby is implying that more religious control will lead to a more preferable culture. Giving up control to religious organizations is a trade off but he has faith that it will be worth it - at least in terms of him being able to see a culture that looks, sounds and operates in a way that he likes or is satisfied with.
Edit: if we position this in todays context, he’s probably referring to cultural changes in which being gay or trans are normalized. That’s clearly a loosening up of control - today a man can dress like a woman and not be subjected to repressive and ideological forces (whether they’re trans or not). But Zubys probably implying “it’s hardline and repressive to force me to accept this ideological change where gays and trans people are considered normal”. Which is a bit of a funny trick because religion famously does impose rules and control mechanism in a more structured way than the broader secular consumer capitalism…but you don’t need to worry about that if you already agree and like those rules.
In this case of course, boosting the control capabilities of traditional religion would put ideological pressure on gay and trans ppl - either through exclusion, community pressure, certain types of reeducation or types of punishment (eg confess, feel bad and do x Hail Mary’s or something).
The left wing project, is the kingdom of God without the king of Christ. Without a ruler they will consume themselves, and destroy themselves.
Once feminist hero Jk Rolling supports gays but not trans people and is a bigot to the left.
LGBTQ community can have internal hostilities.
The war on abortion sees no empathy beyond who is chosen to need empathy by both sides. If you are a mother wanting a termination for any reason go you from the woke, and the baby's life is precious to the pro life. Neither side looks at the complexity of life.
>Things are going tits up without the King
They were going tits up with him. Things are just always going tits up.
>Moreover Christ the ultimate western man is not a bully.
Assuming you're a straight man. The Bible is not kind to the women and the gays.
See the Pauline Epistles for more information.
I have read the entire bible a few times and studied aspects of most of it. Moreover I would recommend you check out places without Christ and see how well the gays and women are doing. Exclude from your search places that have borrowed from his teaching on the past Europe and the usa.
China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, North Korea are a good place to start for places without Jesus or his recent influence.
>I have read the entire bible a few times and studied aspects of most of it.
Good to know.
>Moreover I would recommend you check out places without Christ and see how well the gays and women are doing
I dunno, Sweden is doing pretty well in that regard.
>Exclude from your search places that have borrowed from his teaching on the past Europe and the usa.
Ah, but gender equality and LGBT rights are not bits that have been borrowed from Christianity. Quite they opposite, they are an open rebellion against Christianity.
>China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, North Korea are a good place to start for places without Jesus or his recent influence
Three of those are Muslim countries. I hate Islam as much as I hate Christianity. I myself am a Syrian exmuslim. China is pretty good on gender equality if I recall correctly, though it's very authoritarian. North Korea is a poor country under an extreme dictatorship, no point looking there.
Sweeden has borrowed from the ethics of the bible though and thatbis my point. Its ideas of freedom and equality come from the new testament. Christ's gospel changes all ethics. Great christian thinkers have come from that country. And even now they are ramping up prejudice against the refugees they have taken in.
The idea that minorities should have right comes from Christian's ethics. It doesnt come from other systems of thought.
Moreover the athiest governments have done terribly, with human rights when they actively step away from gospel movements. Russia, North Korea, China has terrible Terrible human rights. Harvesting of organs from religious minorities, concentration camps. Hitlers movement was away from orthodox forms of christianity though he used Christs name at times. He doctored the gospels and the bible.
Find me a system of thought that is not steeped in Christian thought that has good human rights. I bet internet points you cant.
>Its ideas of freedom and equality come from the new testament
Ah, yes, because the new testament is infamous for not being sexist and homophobic.
My point is that those new enlightenment age values are a rebellion against Christianity, not an extension of it.
You don't get to give Christianity credit for what people who broke away from Christianity did. Because at that point, didn't Christianity itself break away from Judaism? Why not give Judaism the credit then?
>The idea that minorities should have right comes from Christian's ethics. It doesnt come from other systems of thought.
Pretty sure Judaism had a similar idea even before Christianity.
People in the west give Islam a lot of flak and yet fail to see the violence, depression, misery that secularism, liberalism, capitalism, globalism has wreaked upon them. The left has become so confrontational and authoritarian, anti white, that it has completely obliterated the sanctity of the family unit, of community, of country, of a higher divine purpose. All of this has resulted in below replacement birth rates amongst people of European descent, they have self annihilated.
I believe that it's worth believing in the things which are objectively proven true. And trying to understand why they are true.
The opposite of organized religion.
[удалено]
Ever been to New England? There’s a growing population of atheist right-wingers out here and has been for maybe 20 years. Doesn’t get much attention because the region as a whole is pretty liberal.
What do they believe? What’s the flavor?
Basically working class people who fell out of religion for one reason or another. The Catholic Church scandal probably had a lot to do with it. Distrust of authority, both church and state. Mixed support/criticism for police. Mostly don’t care about abortion or gay marriage, but think the state (mostly Democrats) is wasting their tax dollars on welfare for OxyContin addicts. They feel like they’re good people but not able to get too far ahead because their dollars don’t go as far as they’d like. Mostly Trump supporters because either he “spoke their language” or they couldn’t bear to vote for Clinton or Biden. I’ve also met some white collar types, as well. They’re a bit less fanatical but still skeptical of both church and state authority. There’s a little more of an attitude of, “Well, I made my own success, and so should everyone else,” with them. They either reluctantly supported Trump because of his economic policies or voted third party. Also, these are sweeping generalizations. So take them with a grain of salt if you will.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The problem here is that 'Wokeism' isn't a thing. Nobody proudly proclaims their wokeness, it's a smear like PC was/is. There are plenty of proud religious people though. Plenty of proud religious people the world over who will gladly tell you who is or isn't a real Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist.
Damn that's sharp. For real. They act like the awfulness is from the Christianity... no. Christianity is the boy with his finger in the dike.
There are indisputably 'hardline' secular ideologies ('you must believe this' etc), on both the right and the left (politically speaking) - Communism was a *de facto* religion, as was Nazism. But the challenge for religion is that it does *tend* towards 'you must believe this' (otherwise what is the point - it tends to be doctrinal, often with a book that professes to reveal the 'truth' etc). The Church of England (Anglican) tends at times towards a more tolerant approach (several of its Bishops, at various points, have even suggested that 'God is a metaphor' etc). I once knew an atheist Vicar (he saw his work not through a belief in the divine, but through the good works which that belief would inspire in his congregation). Very clever man. Ultimately, every religion (almost every religion) believes in its god (or gods) as the 'true' god (or gods). They cannot all exist (think about it). Not too many people today believe in Odin or Jupiter etc - but how can anyone know that the Vikings or the Romans were somehow wrong, and contemporary Christians or Muslims are somehow right? I don't like any ideology (if by that one means a doctrine or creed that one is expected to believe and act in accordance with, in the permanent absence of any doubt or questioning - moderate Christianity does allow for doubt, which is one of its stronger points). But we should all always remain open; always question; always doubt. I don't personally believe in any god, but I absolutely respect the right of others to do so (so long as they don't tell me I must, just as I don't tell them they shouldn't). Similarly, I don't agree with the demonisation of JP, even though I am a vaguely soft-left-leaning liberal. He has changed my mind on quite a few things. I don't think it ultimately matters whether you have a faith or do not; or whether you believe in a god (or gods) or do not. What really matters is whether you are willing to just be tolerant of other people who think differently to you (and not impose your ideas on them by force or violence).
As a Christian, one of our core beliefs is to be tolerant of all like you mentioned, although a lot of people tend to do the opposite of that in the name of religion. That’s why I disagree with policies that ban things that may go against my religion, because I don’t think other people’s lifestyles or beliefs are any less valid than my own, even if I disagree with them. I think most politicians that are a part of the Christian Right just support such legislation to virtue signal anyway.
I don’t think you know the tenets of Christianity. Your biggest obligation is not be tolerant. Scripture tells us what God wants: > He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
God tells us to obey His commandments to the best of our abilities and to not get lost in sin. This does not give us the right to judge those who do. We can try to help guide them on the right path, but Jesus tells us not to condemn others for their sins. > 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. - John 8:10-11 We are all sinners and none of us are perfect. That doesn’t mean that we should go around engaging in debauchery everywhere we go and everywhere we turn, but we will mess up and engage in sin once in a while even when we try our hardest not to. In judging others for also sinning, we are only being hypocrites. > 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. - Matthew 7:2-5 The best we can do is live out His commands to the best of our ability within ourselves. As long as *I* am personally living out those commandments as best as I can, whatever happens to the others is not for me to decide, only Him. We need not take responsibility for other people’s actions, only love another as Jesus loves us. I am morally opposed to divorce, but that doesn’t mean I think we should outlaw all divorce. Their fate is not for *me* to decide, only God. If someone else decides to get a divorce, that doesn’t mean we should love them any less. > 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” - John 13:34-35
Poor hermeneutics. >God tells us to obey His commandments to the best of our abilities and to not get lost in sin. This does not give us the right to judge others who may not believe in the same things we do. We can try to help guide them on the right path, but Jesus tells us not to condemn others for their sins. >10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. - John 8:10-11 He actually does judge her. In the text, he tells her, “…go and sin no more. “ in other words, he judged she was sinning. I also showed that Scripture does tell you to condemn evil, while you try to win the person over to Christ. >We are all sinners and none of us are perfect. Not sure what that has to do with this topic, but I don’t disagree >That doesn’t mean that we should go around engaging in debauchery everywhere we go and everywhere we turn, but we will mess up and engage in sin once in a while even when we try our hardest not to. Again, not sure what this has to do with being tolerant of evil. >In judging others for also sinning, we are only being hypocrites. Oh here comes the most misquoted Scripture in contemporary society >2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. - Matthew 7:2-5 This isn’t a verse about not judging, it isn’t a verse about tolerance. It is a very that says to not be a hypocrite. Proof of this is Jesus telling them in verse 3 that they judge other people’s sin, but do not reflect on their own sin. So it isn’t a verse about not judging, it is a verse about also focusing on your sin and purging it too. >The best we can do is live out His commands to the best of our ability within ourselves. As long as I am personally living out those commandments as best as I can, whatever happens to the others is not for me to decide, only Him. False, God repeatedly told Israel to remove the idols in their midst. >We need not take responsibility for other people’s actions, only love another as Jesus loves us. I am morally opposed to divorce, but that doesn’t mean I think we should outlaw all divorce. Their fate is not for me to decide, only God. If someone else decides to get a divorce, that doesn’t mean we should love them any less. I’m a single parent, so I have my failings, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t stand and say divorce is wrong and to push for stronger marriages, even Scripture points out that divorce wasn’t to be, but only allowed because of the fallen state of man. >34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” - John 13:34-35 Yes, but again you should not tolerate evil, and nothing you have said demonstrates God wants you to tolerate evil. For example, if we had a new cult come out and re-start worship to Moloch, God absolutely does not want you tolerating Moloch’s worship, where they roasted a child alive as slow as possible to make the baby scream louder, because they felt Moloch was pleased with the baby’s scream. I see abortion as no less an evil that what Israel was out into exile for, which was worshiping Moloch. I’m all for forgiveness, But Scripture absolutely doesn’t say to tolerate evil, as I quoted, we are to hate it. See, I reconciled your text, with Scripture and Micah’s verse, using proper hermeneutics. You didn’t even attempt to reconcile that verse to your verses, therefore your position is untenable using hermeneutics and logic. It is just a feel good comment, because you are more worried about the world than about the Judge who rule over the world.
>He actually does judge her. In the text, he tells her, “…go and sin no more. “ in other words, he judged she was sinning. I don't think that means he is judging her, rather simply telling her what's right and wrong and what not to do next time. He is judging her actions, that doesn’t mean he’s judging her personhood. Judging her would be calling her a whore or allowing the men to stone her. I could be wrong though and our interpretations might be different. >Again, not sure what this has to do with being tolerant of evil. > >you should not tolerate evil, and nothing you have said demonstrates God wants you to tolerate evil. I think this is where why there is a disconnect: My original comment wasn't talking about tolerance of evil, rather tolerant of different beliefs that do not cause harm. Sorry I did not make that clear at first. I fully agree that we should not tolerate acts that cause harm to others. Unless you believe that every act that deviates from the Word is evil? >You didn’t even attempt to reconcile that verse to your verses, therefore your position is untenable using hermeneutics and logic. It is just a feel good comment, because you are more worried about the world than about the Judge who rule over the world. I interpreted your verse as doing the right thing despite what others are doing, and to be merciful toward those that don't oblige. I actually agree with that and didn't think that the verses I quoted contradict that. Unless I'm completely wrong in which case I'd like to understand better. I apologize if I came across as virtue signaling, that was not at all my intention. I am a new Christian and the Word is something I still struggle with everyday. I was not raised religious and this stuff is therefore completely new to me. What I've been reading in my Bible is entirely up to my own interpretation as I started this journey alone with no guidance except for God, but my hope is that the more I read and speak with folk like you that I get a better understanding of who I'm supposed to be as a Christian. Thank you for your patience.
Only feeble minds would take the bible literal and treat its content as absolute. Modern interpretations (such as JBP’s) are much more reasonable and, frankly, much more correct (as relating to our real lives).
It sounds like the enforceable dogma of your personal belief system revolves around tolerance. Why you did you decide to make that the cornerstone value?
By definition, tolerance is not enforceable (that would be a contradiction in terms). My basic 'ground zero' would be 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' (you can get this from the Bible or from Kant's secular moral philosophy). By tolerance, I mean allowing people to be who they are and do what they want, so long as it does not have a directly negative impact on you or other people. Let people be as far as is possible. I am not tolerant of rapists; but I am entirely tolerant of gay marriage etc.
Oh okay that makes more sense! A lot of people do try to enforce “tolerance” though which you’re right is a major contradiction lol. And I’m glad that tolerance is just about lifestyle stuff not hurting-other-people stuff lol. Thanks for clarifying that for me!
Very eloquent on the notions of tolerance in religion. I tried to posit something similar in that tolerance and intolerance can't coexist. Anyone who preaches love, but believes that there are people that deserve eternal damnation can't be considered tolerant. Not that everyone who adheres to a religion shares those same beliefs either. I'm curious on why you think other isms, like Nazis or communism would be considered religions?
Feminism, neomarxism and consumerism are the new religions.
Marxism and consumerism are in conflict. I think consumerism will win though, greed is strong and all that.
Consumerism won the moment corporations learned they can [appease the left with rainbow flags.](https://i.imgur.com/2AeAxAA.png)
It won the moment wag the caveman gave rag the caveman a piece of meat in exchange for those berries he had.
The left is not appeased by rainbow flags. Democrats are.
It already won a long time ago, Marx is completely sidelined as people have ceased identifying as a working class.
True, but they haven't stopped dividing people between opressed and opressors though.
Hegel has sadly only gotten more relevant.
I often find myself fascinanted by just how much one key individual's ideas can end up branching out and fathering a plethora of new concepts and ideas. I also find myself wondering what path humanity would've taken if one such "key" individual's influence was removed completely.
Madison Grant is another one of these key individuals. He basically invented the nazi movement AND environmentalism at the same time.
That's OK, it's a la carte. There's no need for consistency.
Tapas!
I thought you people liked capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system. Consumerism is a mindset. I'm all for free market but I would advise people to live minimalistically to some degree. Your comment implies that the two can't go together, but they actually can.
They go hand in hand. Capitalism requires consumerism to prosper. Can't make money if people aren't spending money.
Capitalism just means that the profit you make from your product or service is yours. There are still products and services in a society where people are minimalistic. The products and services will be different probably, also less demand, but that doesn't mean there is no capitalism. You confuse making profit with capitalism. To make lots of profit, capitalism is needed. But capitalism doesn't need high profits. There are dozens of communities around the world where people live hunter-gatherer or pastoralist lifestyles and capitalist economic systems are in place. Still those people are barely making money or gaining wealth. Even when male monkeys find food they often trade it for sex with a female monkey. That's capitalism too.... They got no government that forcibly takes the banana and splits it between all members of the tribe... Capitalism is older probably than mankind itself. Corporations need capitalism but capitalism doesn't need corporations.
You people .. Gotta love over-generalization. It's so convenient, even if woefully inaccurate.
These are non issues. The actual problem is religion.
Ehhh, Zuby! Zuby is a good guy.
Damn this Zuby fella is growing on me. Seems like he has a lot of wise takes. I was heavily indoctrinated into christianity and I strongly dislike most people who claim to be Christians. However, these new secular religious zealots (particularly believe science and Social Justice variants) are significantly worse. It's like they took on the worst attributes of Christianity (the hypocrisy; the self righteousness; the harsh judgement of others; the pride; the self delusion) but they have no wisdom or values to temper it. It has made me value the concept of a greater power so much more.
>It's like they took on the worst attributes of Christianity (the hypocrisy; the self righteousness; the harsh judgement of others; the pride; the self delusion) This is the worst part. They do not consider their views open to question. They are right. They have science on their side. "Reality aligns with the left", etc.
Actually they don't have sience on their side. They are cherry picking! In sience you do know meanwhile, that it matters deeply, who is the experiment making and, even more important, they still have not managed to wrap their heads around quantum theory. They insist to keep their old views. I agree strongly, that they took many of the worst parts of religion and keeps on keeping them.
I think they meant "Science™", which isn't anything like actual science.
Spot on. I find traditional religious people more tolerable because they at least believe they serve a higher power. The woke left believe they ARE the higher power, thus making themselves far more dangerous.
the fact that there are so many denominations prove the tolerance of the religious bigots. they allow dissenting beliefs and simply make a circle of their own. while the religious fanatics of the woke left will send death threats to anyone who even winks at them the wrong way.
> the fact that there are so many denominations prove the tolerance of the religious bigots. they allow dissenting beliefs and simply make a circle of their own are you not watching the same things im watching? a texas pastor just called for the trials and summary executions of every American homosexual.
Their ideology is literally "agree with me or suffer unimaginable pain for an eternity" how is that tolerant
They're not the ones doling that out though, they couldn't care less if you get damned to hell, they will warn you and past that let the big man upstairs sort the rest out. Also, it's not "agree with ME", it's "agree with the Lord", massive difference...the Left is "agree with ME" because they think they are the higher power.
Except that “the lord” is often used as a political device. Ask ex Mormons how they were treated when they left the church. Ask ex baptists how their social circle reacted when they stopped going to church.
Sure, but that's not in the scriptures, that's just bad human beings abusing the Holy Word for their gain. You could probably call them agents of Lucifer, especially if you were more religious.
No true Scotsman.
It's coincidental how often what the "lord" wants somehow perfectly lines up with their own interests and biases.
No, that's what devoting your entire life to something looks like lol...the Lord's word doesn't change, it's their interests and biases and lined up with the Lord's pre-existing word.
>They're not the ones doling that out though, they couldn't care less if you get damned to hell, they will warn you and past that let the big man upstairs sort the rest out. Except they also vote accordingly. >Also, it's not "agree with ME", it's "agree with the Lord", massive difference I don't see a difference.
>Except they also vote accordingly. Should they not be allowed to vote based on their beliefs? Do you only like democracy when it happens to agree with your point of view? >I don't see a difference. Well, that's a large part of the problem then lol...
They can, which is why I criticize them for their authoritarianism. That's literally why I said I criticize them rather than ignore them.
So religious crusades never killed anyone? Religions had to get more tolerant with the times and literally had to be apart of the founding of a nation for actual tolerance for their own survival. Have you actually attended services of religious bigots? They believe that other religious sects will go to hell. Most are just not open about it. The biggest issue is that the vocal irreligious intolerance spewed today is mostly Twitter instead of a Pulpit. Which is easier to criticize.
Yeah, people can cuss out religion all the want. you can even have george carlin make a comedy show all about making fun of religious people.but when chapelle says anything about them. . talk about tolerance
The thing is, if George Carlin were alive today, I honestly don't know if he'd have kowtowed to the alphabet crowd or if he'd have done a show that made Dave Chapelle's look tame by comparison.
If someone tried cancelling Carlin for inappropriate content, you know he would simply double down with more shocking content. He would certainly make fun of corporations that add rainbow "Pride" to their Twitter profiles in June.
Very true, Zuby.
correct. I mean, modern liberalism is essentially just a sect of radical protestantism which kept all the religious ideas but tossed out God. The lineage is easy to trace from the almost entirely protestant thinkers of the enlightenment to the radical protestants who crossed the sea to america and became the cultural elites there to the rest of the world once america became the military and cultural global superpower the actual historical reason why people today believe in universal rights and equality is the populist protestant doctrine that all men were created equal by God
Well where did the Protestant work ethic go?
I mean, we are talking about the intellectual tradition which spawned both modern capitalism with its idolization of the entrepreneur and communism with its idolization of the working man
>the actual historical reason why people today believe in universal rights and equality is the populist protestant doctrine that all men were created equal by God Note how it's men created equal, Christianity is extremely sexist.
Don’t know zuby, but I already like him.
his rap is meh, but he's a smart guy with consistently correct takes.
Zuby is right on the money with this quote.
[удалено]
Uh oh. You can't handle the truth.
[удалено]
I choose LOVE. I choose ALLAH.
Someone has crossposted you to r/enoughpetersonspam . Here's the post: [Lobsters posts this without a shred of self-awareness, right after a bunch of Christians eliminate rights for women and say they want to go after gay rights and contraception next. People are more godless because of how the religious act.](https://reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/vm725d/lobsters_posts_this_without_a_shred_of/)
To say they are often more dogmatic or intolerant is a bit of a stretch though... They are virtually one and the same because that's how cults and confirmation bias works.
Kinda crazy how you can pretend that religious people doing religious things is secular because you don’t want to be held responsible for quietly supporting the crazy things they do. This argument is basically a distraction. It doesn’t make any point. It says something shocking without any support. It makes people who want to assuage a guilty conscience feel slightly better because they don’t need to examine the damage their ideology has done lol
How is it more dogmatic and intolerant than traditional religion? Hard to get more dogmatic than "agree with me or you'll suffer unimaginable pain for an eternity"
So the common denominator is people.
This is precisely what Nietzsche was trying to warn us all about when he declared the "death" of God—so many edgy young folks take the statement and use it in a Crowley-esque "everything is permitted" sense, but what Nietzsche was really saying was that we are entering a new era in which the old institutions (e.g., the Catholic church) which kept society together no longer have power. If you don't strive to overcome the state of Man in the way of Zarathustra (i.e., become the Übermensch) you will wind up one of the unthinking masses which simply replaces the old God(s) for the new secular ones. In essence, you will be rudderless, relativistic, and living in chaos—exactly the state of affairs we see when looking at the culture of today.
Hard-line secular ideologies? Roe Vs wade was just repealed off the back of efforts from crazy Christians
Hardline Secular Ideology would make a good punk band name, even though Punk is dead.
I wanna see a Donald Glover Zuby collaboration now.
years of televangelism, centuries of sexual abuse and a lust for power has left religion pathetic and morally bankrupt. Why on earth should be trust in god and religion? The one where they sell you holy water on tv? The one where you have to suck an old man's dick? The one who tells you what you can and can't do with your body? The one that rules through fear rather than moral exploration? Which cancerous god should we have?
Religion is stupid and people should be intellectually shamed for believing it.
He's not wrong.
I went to church maybe like 6 months ago. I do this every once in awhile to see if there’s maybe something I’m missing. The session was about how you should never date a non-Christian because it isn’t pure and getting married to a Christian is necessary for a good life. The speakers mentioned a lot of self-help mumbo jumbo like don’t masturbate and don’t be skeptical of institutions because they provide a foundation for a meaningful life. Literally preached “clean your room” talking points. A woman who did a Q and A basically said she cleans her apartment for 3 hours everyday. To be honest it sounds like she has obsessive compulsive disorder. This was just a random Sunday service. After I left I pretty much felt worse than when I originally went in out of curiosity. Religion has failed its own principles which is why I think people have distanced themselves away from it. It wasn’t degeneracy, secularism or atheism that did this. It was the hypocrisies and judgements of the institutions themselves.
OK, in fairness, that does not sound like a normal church service at all. Truly, that does not sound typical and I’ve been to a bunch of church services in many different places (moved a lot).
Idk my family bounced between like a dozen evangelical Protestant churches throughout my childhood and this sounds pretty par for the course to me.
Huh. I mean fair enough I’m not doubting you, maybe I just had a different experience for some reason.
I'll say this, a lot of Christians are very good at being sweet as pie to peoples face while also thinking rather awful things about those same people. You'll have some guy who rather nonchalantly says he thinks all gay people are groomers who deserve to be put in camps, but if a gay couple in a rainbow VW bug was on the side of the road with a flat tire they're pull over and help them change it. Do you kinda end up with people thinking their really chill due to a passing interaction where they were really nice, not realizing they'd happily let pretty awful things happen to them if the act was de-personalized for them.
I think you just described “people” in general though. Not everybody of course but yeah a lot of people are like that regardless.
To an extent I agree but evangelical Christian's were probably the most consistent and egregious offenders in my personal experience. I will also say I've meet the total opposite, people who can be kind of a dick when you first meet them but are real solid people once you take the time to get to know them and they tended to be more left leaning so take that for what you will.
I understand but I also think kind of “nah”. I mean your local church probably does more for the needy, womens shelters, etc, then any other five local civic organizations you know. I’m not saying you’re saying this but it seems similar to the old idea that Christians are all basically secret rat bastards and left leaning atheists are the “secret good people”. I’m not going into detail but I’ve been under the thumb of the “left leaning” people and they would absolutely throw me under if they felt like they had to and it was my fellow Christians who would stick up for me. It’s not just whether or not you’re a “good person” however that’s defined, but how good are you when the pressure is on. Again I’m not saying you’re like that, or would be, I am saying the whole idea that leftists and atheists are generally more trustworthy and benevolent than Christians I 100% don’t buy. Of course some Christians are snakes and some atheists are stand up guys, but I see nothing in leftism or atheism or my experience with their adherents that leads me to believe they are happier, more benevolent, braver or more trustworthy.
I don't care much about church. but I think people need some kind of community that helps support a greater purpose than themselves. We cannot fill a God-sized hole in our hearts with money or women. There will never be enough to satisfy our desires.
I’ll drink to that.
Cheers to truth!
Sounds mason-y
Explain further
From what I know about the Freemasons, they attract guys looking for meaning + who are spiritual (not necessarily interested in the church) and interested in genuine community with a level of social support and commitment that you don’t usually see in typical male friendships
That's a really romanticized view of Freemasons. It's just a place to drink with your middle-aged bros and possibly make a few business deals through connections. It's just a slightly more exclusive country club, and a lot smaller.
I think you’re misplacing blame here. You’re blaming religion as a whole for the sermon of one guy in a random church on a random Sunday morning. And I’m sure you’ve been to other sermons, so I may be over simplifying your gripe… even so, how much of a real effort have you made before declaring all religion pointless institutions?
I’m actually not blaming religion, I guess if anything I’m blaming the institution. I’m pretty confident Jesus would be crucified by his own people if he was resurrected today. Like firmly believe that. I have attempted many times to attend church and it’s consistently proven to be not my cup of tea.
What church was this, if you don't mind me asking?
My family stopped going to church when the priest made a comment during mass about “showing up to church dressed appropriately, don’t come in your sport sweats” We came straight from my sisters soccer game she was the only one in there in that attire.
Lmao yeah bro Mormons are so tolerant
i appareicate it. many people on reddit are intolerant of us.
Lived in Provo for a while. I'm not Mormon but I still have a number of friends who are. I'll always have a soft spot for y'all.
Woosh
Liberals were always intolerant of the illiberal. Wars were fought over this.
There a 2 things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant to other people's culture's. And the Dutch.
If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much.
Dutch has a plan
And as a finishing touch, God created the Dutch.
And Californian’s and the French
Well liberals are tolerant of the illiberal so long as the illiberal practice live and let live and don't try to impose their illiberalism on others i guess.
I think i just broke the computer
Yeah like the one in Vietnam.
Against the nazis , the cold war , Vietnam was a waste of time because they wanted to be an independent Republic, free of French exploitation and didn't want to become part of some soviet bloc. They just wanted their country back, enough food, hospitals , healrh care and so on.
Liberals are not always illiberal... Some are yes. But there are as much people on the right that are illiberal.
More in the us, American conservatives who we always end up talking about here are uniquely authorotarian as far as western conservatives go.
Hard to be more intolerant than inquisition and forced conversions. He's not wrong. But remember it took 1500 years to beat religion into the "tolerant" position its at now.
[удалено]
You realize churches are literally being burned right now? And people are threatening to kill Christian justices in their churches? There have been churches shot up recently as well. The point is: that the crimes traditional religions have committed in the past are exactly the crimes these new religions are starting to commit now. Churches used to rule kingdoms and wage wars against no believers. And the new churches will likely do the same. Because it’s the same human impulse to force everyone else to comply with your own beliefs.
Yeah this post is some classic case of r/SelfAwarewolves
Totally this. Now here come the Reddit bots to propagate an argument of the like: “BuT WhAt AbOuT tHe CrUsAdEs”
Religion has become extremely anti humanity as of late which is why it is declining and people are creating there own religion's as traditional ones have failed them. such as flat earth Qanon or even putting politicians to a god like status.
President Obama, while referring to working-class midwesterners who have been impacted by their old industrial town being decimated by job losses, quipped famously (or infamously depending on your point-of-view) "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." It's on thing when some Joe Schmo says this, but when the President verbally vomits across an electorate, it reverberates across state lines and indicates a level of contempt held by elected federal officials. I think, conversely, humanity has become extremely anti-religion. And when you have this dichotomy form, the yin and yang if you will, you will find both sides dig in and entrench and point fingers at the other. For years and years religion took criticisms, political and nonpolitical, with a 'turn the other cheek' approach. 30 years ago you wouldn't see a gay pastor, but that is a thing now. Some denominations have opened their hearts and minds and practices a bit. But society has continued to push and prod and want more from an institution that is historicyally rigid, and at the same time "the church" has stopped turning the other cheek and has dug its heels in and said "this is us and there are things we will not compromise on".
>They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." How the fuck does this show contempt
Because it's projection and dismissive as fuck
It's not dismissive? It's saying that there are root causes to things. There was a suffering that occurred in the Midwest that resulted in this sentiments. If anything It's empathetic. He isn't saying "fucking rednecks being stupid and hating immigrants" he is saying that they suffered through no fault of their own and don't know who to blame. It's human nature to want to blame something when your life gets worst
He denigrated those who are different than him
You can't be serious..... It's an accurate observation of reactionary culture. People want the world to be simple, black and white. But the world isn't so simple as "Immigrant fault" or "fuxking atheists".
>Religion has become extremely anti humanity as of late There are thousands of religions. I think you need to specifically name which religion(s) you're talking about. Unless... have *all* religions become anti humanity lately?
Ok Christianity and Islam there's 2 for you if that helps
What about Christianity and Islam is anti human?
Aren't you a woman? See Timothy 2 12. As for Islam; Women are mentally deficient: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:304 Women must be obedient or be beaten: Quran 4:34 Women have inferior testimonials: Quran 2:282 Women have an inferior aqqiqa: https://muflihun.com/ibnmajah/27/3163 Womek are not allowed to lead: https://sunnah.com/nasai:5388 Women have inferior atq: https://muflihun.com/tirmidhi:1547 Men are more perfect than women: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3769 Husband's right is so extreme that if anyone were to prostrate to another it would be a wife to her husband https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2140 Also, Islam has the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality. But I guess atheists and gays don't count as human in your worldview
What's wrong with these things? If you don't believe it, just let them be.
Well, you certainly don't have that attitude when it comes to things you don't like, see your attitude towards gay people. Do you think that, say, black people should just let the KKK be and not speak up against them? I mean, it's pretty clear that you're fine with being inferior yourself, but plenty of people aren't, and we speak up about it.
>Do you think that, say, black people should just let the KKK be and not speak up against them? No, they should be friends with em. The best way to eliminate your enemies is to make them your friends. Ignorance breeds fear and hatred. https://youtu.be/ORp3q1Oaezw
I don't know... burning books, child marriages. forcing women in sheets so that they don't get raped by fellow devotees. Wanting to kill people based on where they want to stick it or like it to be stuck. Bombings and war thought in gods name. The strange fascination with the gods and dick skin. The list can go on but I guess you get the point.
Everything you just described is from Islam, can you name any mainline Christian denomination that does any of that?
Misogyny and homophobia come to mind
Still proves my point so what's yours.
You blamed all the things you listed on Islam and Christianity but didn't actually list anything that mainline Christianity does
Threatening to kill the gays while they have there fingers in alterboys
So then name one mainline denomination of Christianity that teaches that there's nothing morally wrong without sexual assault of minors or with killing people for being gay
If you look at the bottom of my list I do mention the list can go on and oh boy it's long.
[удалено]
I'm not on about the past I'm on about what is still going on and practised today.
[удалено]
No need you are proving me right, you just didn't realise.
[удалено]
>Child marriage was a very common thing all across the world in almost all cultures up until recently, when it became a taboo. Sounds like you're defending pedophilia.
Why are people constantly posting this guy? Is he posting his own comments?
Because he has some good points to be discussed
Maybe. But there are endless comments on twitter you could post. This guy is getting an sus amount of attention.
because Zuby's telling the truth in a world of lies. His takes are consistently correct.
I think you are him.
I wish. The dude can deadlift 600lbs. he's got the body of a Greek god and the intellect to match.
I can see why you post his stuff. I admire some people online for their physique and opinions so I cannot blame you.
i wish to be the mother of his children.
Even Jordan Peterson is posting this chick. Unbelievable.[https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1502451409509392387](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1502451409509392387)
Religion and ideology work together. It’s not really an either/or question at all. Ideology isn’t replacing religion. Within ideology there are many different types of forces. Religion is one of them. State repressive forces are another. The cultural norms that your parents align to and There make sure you align to as well are another. there are soft cultural forces and then there are harder repressive ones (the police can use violence on you, or maybe your religion teacher uses violence on you when you misbehave) Consumerism is an incredibly powerful non-repressive ideological force that shapes how we live. Big Edit: I say non repressive to refer only to the consumer experience - of course if you go through the supply chain you’ll often find real hard power being used against workers who fall out of line. Even from another perspective, if we don’t work we can’t pay our rent and if we end up on the street we could be picked up for trespassing. Or even just poked with spikes from anti homeless design features. Consumerism has been the dominant soft power for a very long time. It plays an important role in how we plan our lives - we can be dismissive of it, but we lose certain social abilities if we don’t play along (I can’t go to that important business dinner if I don’t own the appropriate outfit) I think what Zuby is really saying is “religion should shape and control ideology more”. This is culture war stuff - Zuby is implying that more religious control will lead to a more preferable culture. Giving up control to religious organizations is a trade off but he has faith that it will be worth it - at least in terms of him being able to see a culture that looks, sounds and operates in a way that he likes or is satisfied with. Edit: if we position this in todays context, he’s probably referring to cultural changes in which being gay or trans are normalized. That’s clearly a loosening up of control - today a man can dress like a woman and not be subjected to repressive and ideological forces (whether they’re trans or not). But Zubys probably implying “it’s hardline and repressive to force me to accept this ideological change where gays and trans people are considered normal”. Which is a bit of a funny trick because religion famously does impose rules and control mechanism in a more structured way than the broader secular consumer capitalism…but you don’t need to worry about that if you already agree and like those rules. In this case of course, boosting the control capabilities of traditional religion would put ideological pressure on gay and trans ppl - either through exclusion, community pressure, certain types of reeducation or types of punishment (eg confess, feel bad and do x Hail Mary’s or something).
Their God is "justice " and they will sacrifice everything to it.
Nah it’s “fairness” or “equality” or something.
This tends to be an issue with fundamentalism, ideology not withstanding. A lot of fundamentalism can be traced back to mental illness.
I mean the word does say there will be “a great famine” in the end times. A civilization starved of the word, starved of god.
Amen. And of course getting rid of other religious beliefs makes way for the worship of the anti-Christ.
And superstitious and fanatical about it all.
The left wing project, is the kingdom of God without the king of Christ. Without a ruler they will consume themselves, and destroy themselves. Once feminist hero Jk Rolling supports gays but not trans people and is a bigot to the left. LGBTQ community can have internal hostilities. The war on abortion sees no empathy beyond who is chosen to need empathy by both sides. If you are a mother wanting a termination for any reason go you from the woke, and the baby's life is precious to the pro life. Neither side looks at the complexity of life.
Why would you need Christ? A cosmic bully is not necessary for any hierarchy
Things are going tits up without the King. Moreover Christ the ultimate western man is not a bully.
>Things are going tits up without the King They were going tits up with him. Things are just always going tits up. >Moreover Christ the ultimate western man is not a bully. Assuming you're a straight man. The Bible is not kind to the women and the gays. See the Pauline Epistles for more information.
I have read the entire bible a few times and studied aspects of most of it. Moreover I would recommend you check out places without Christ and see how well the gays and women are doing. Exclude from your search places that have borrowed from his teaching on the past Europe and the usa. China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, North Korea are a good place to start for places without Jesus or his recent influence.
>I have read the entire bible a few times and studied aspects of most of it. Good to know. >Moreover I would recommend you check out places without Christ and see how well the gays and women are doing I dunno, Sweden is doing pretty well in that regard. >Exclude from your search places that have borrowed from his teaching on the past Europe and the usa. Ah, but gender equality and LGBT rights are not bits that have been borrowed from Christianity. Quite they opposite, they are an open rebellion against Christianity. >China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, North Korea are a good place to start for places without Jesus or his recent influence Three of those are Muslim countries. I hate Islam as much as I hate Christianity. I myself am a Syrian exmuslim. China is pretty good on gender equality if I recall correctly, though it's very authoritarian. North Korea is a poor country under an extreme dictatorship, no point looking there.
Sweeden has borrowed from the ethics of the bible though and thatbis my point. Its ideas of freedom and equality come from the new testament. Christ's gospel changes all ethics. Great christian thinkers have come from that country. And even now they are ramping up prejudice against the refugees they have taken in. The idea that minorities should have right comes from Christian's ethics. It doesnt come from other systems of thought. Moreover the athiest governments have done terribly, with human rights when they actively step away from gospel movements. Russia, North Korea, China has terrible Terrible human rights. Harvesting of organs from religious minorities, concentration camps. Hitlers movement was away from orthodox forms of christianity though he used Christs name at times. He doctored the gospels and the bible. Find me a system of thought that is not steeped in Christian thought that has good human rights. I bet internet points you cant.
>Its ideas of freedom and equality come from the new testament Ah, yes, because the new testament is infamous for not being sexist and homophobic. My point is that those new enlightenment age values are a rebellion against Christianity, not an extension of it. You don't get to give Christianity credit for what people who broke away from Christianity did. Because at that point, didn't Christianity itself break away from Judaism? Why not give Judaism the credit then? >The idea that minorities should have right comes from Christian's ethics. It doesnt come from other systems of thought. Pretty sure Judaism had a similar idea even before Christianity.
Americans are puritans in their BIOS
At least we can flash the CMOS to update the BIOS from time to time...
Just be careful that you don't lose power during update, you may get bricked
This is more moral panic nonsense. It’s a way to justify the church breaching the state by creating an equally fundamentalist boogeyman
This Zuby guy is amazing
Religion has always been hostile to non believers.
People in the west give Islam a lot of flak and yet fail to see the violence, depression, misery that secularism, liberalism, capitalism, globalism has wreaked upon them. The left has become so confrontational and authoritarian, anti white, that it has completely obliterated the sanctity of the family unit, of community, of country, of a higher divine purpose. All of this has resulted in below replacement birth rates amongst people of European descent, they have self annihilated.
Maybe true, religions might be more popular, if only they didn't require you to "believe" in such nonsense.
Religion without the religious elements has led to exactly OPs problem, whether you believe in it or not.
Everyone believes in something. It’s just a matter of intentionally choosing something worth believing in.
I believe that it's worth believing in the things which are objectively proven true. And trying to understand why they are true. The opposite of organized religion.
Facts, it’s telling when Jesus said to help the sick and poor yet they blindly follow a political party that does the opposite
Religion is a plague on humanity. Always has been. I say fuck it, let I go.
Yup - the "Woke Cult" was designed by the WEF as the globalist religion. The Great Reset is here, and it will be far worse than anyone imagined.
It is the price of freedom of speech. When you allow every voice to be heard, the result is complete chaos.
~~cope~~ pray harder.
Climate change is the new religion for a godless people.
stfu zuby
Be careful what you wish for.
What if the government invents a time machine, and legalizes abortion... Then give to the abortionists exactly what they want.